Last week we watched a video that outlined some of the problems that arose when a county tried to take on an issue that is generally dealt with by the federal government. While many of us were outraged by the comments made by 'Help Save Mannassass' supporters they are comments that we have all most likely heard in some form or another, especially since HB56. I have found this article http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-copa-immigration-california-20120409,0,7939020.story
What do you think about this article? Instead of identifying all immigrants as criminals it sets out to help those who have benefited the communities they live in and become citizens.The author of the article thinks that any state legislation that has to do with immigration is unconstitutional, what do you think about this? What would the implications be if Arizona's law or Alabama's HB56 went to the Supreme Court? Do you think that the federal government would uphold its power to determine immigration law, give states the power but overturn racial profiling, give states full autonomy when it came to immigration, or something else?
This article also briefly touches on President Obama's administration's enforcement of immigration.
"The administration vowed to focus its enforcement efforts on illegal immigrants with criminal histories given that it doesn't have the resources to deport all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living in the United States."
What do you think about this? I believe that it goes back to what originally happened (the deportation of criminals). Do you think that states (and counties) undermine the federal initiative? Do you agree with the Obama administration or do you think that there is another policy toward immigration that should be enacted?
Well... when it is put that way it makes Mannassas seem like even more of an unnecessary outburst than it already was. I thought this article both fit the Mannassas situation and did not. It hit the nail on the head with the Mannassas relation to resource demand. One of the issues with enforcing the Mannassas 'plan' to solve the 'problem' was to provide extended police training in order to qualify officers to properly handle such profiling. (Insinuating again that a county deputy is not trained in such areas in the first place because it is not their responsibility) Their responsibility is to protect the people and the streets. Racial profiling is thought of something to be on the federal level... and obviously it is since Mannassas admitted that to enforce such a plan that it would take millions of dollars to make it efficient. The article also said the same. It would be very costly and obviously take a number of resources that the United States does not even have at the federal level.
ReplyDeleteThe way that the article is unrelated to Mannassas County is in the "take home message" itself. Immigration issues are intended to be controlled Federally. That may be how it is supposed to be.. but obviously it is not. Unfortunately... states (Arizona/Alabama cough cough) have taken it upon themselves to enforce laws. Now, as we have seen in Mannassas, it has trickled on down to the COUNTY level of enforcing laws.
Weighing federal versus county is a tremendous gap. How in the world did this ever happen? To make matters worse part of the decision making making influenced at the county level was so silly. An important factor was internet BLOGGING. (Not devaluing a bog :)...) but I sat and thought about what all other ports did this bleed into as well.. Social media? I would be willing to bet that these people were using Facebook (etc.) as well. So many lives so deeply affected and turned upside down by an internet blog and a few people. It sill blows my mind. And that is just one county out of thousands in this country. Scary? Yes, need for a bigger plan? After reading this article I'd say absolutely.
I agree with Jamie on the fact that this article does and does not reflect on Manassas situation. True it has the some of the issues that Manassas is facing with the immigration law. I agree with the Obama administration to enforce criminal immigrants to be deported, but not innocent immigrants. Manassas is just your typical racist republican white American town who confuses the attack of 9/11, with seven eleven. The ignorance that the Manassas people used was “if you don’t look like me then can’t be a part of me.” Like the article said, “immigration is a federal problem and needs a federal fix. You can’t just expect one state, i.e. Alabama (hint hint) to believe that they can fix something that isn’t even in their control.
ReplyDeleteI personally cannot speak for California, but I can have faith that they don’t fall into the trap like Arizona and Alabama did. This is a matter of serious thinking for just on city or state. “The proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been in the state since 2007, have no criminal record, speak English and are employed and pay taxes to join a state immigration registry. If you do what you have to do in order to live, then by all means you have the right to live anywhere without contemplation. Immigration can’t be solved in one night. Less we forget our ancestors were once immigrants. Our actions will follow us until the end.
This proposition by COPA seems like a good concept, but if it were only enacted in one state, the distribution of immigrants would most likely shift to the majority of them living in that location. To avoid a drastic economic or population imbalance, it seems logical to let the federal government decide the policies and regulations regarding immigration. If laws like HB 56 went to the Supreme Court, I think that the federal government would not give the states any power regarding immigration law. The California COPA initiative seems to be an extension (giving citizenship to productive immigrants) of Obama's immigration policy (deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records). It does seem that states undermine the immigration policy of the federal government because so many states have tried to develop their own immigration policies. I think the Obama initiative seems good-intentioned, but it makes more sense to gives productive illegals citizenship rather than deport the 11 million illegals who are already here (the administration would further have to find out the criminals out of that large number). How are they supposed to do this efficiently? Perhaps the federal and state governments should unite to enact a new policy; the federal government could say that criminal illegals should be deported, and the state governments could carry out this law, thus creating jobs and implementing the policy effectively. I don't have any recommendations for new policies, but Chavez recommends a few things: "comprehensive approach to labor market needs and immigration policy, elimination of the "illegal alien" social type, and investment in second-generation Latinos" (185).
ReplyDeleteI think we have a major issue with federal v. state power in the U.S. States have a constitutional right to make laws regarding issues in their state but according to the 14th amendment, states must abide by the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights (see: Incorporation and the 14th amendment). This is where Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia's immigration bills cross a permissible line. If the states' laws simply put into state law what the federal government already established regarding immigration and ordered that states act as agents of the federal government's provisions regarding immigration, they would be acceptable. However, the state laws mentioned above like SB 1070 and HB 56 violate the Bill of Rights of the United States and the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration and deportation and therefore, don't coincide with the overarching law of the land-- the U.S. Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI believe that President Obama's administration and their policy toward immigration is realistic and fair. The practice of deporting every undocumented person out of the country is impossible and is literally too big to handle for the states or the federal government. The President's tactics of enforcing deportation measures on only those who are convicted of crimes sets precedent for other immigrants and says, "If you come to the U.S., you must abide by the laws that regulate society." The President's policy of otherwise allowing immigrants to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process rather than deport them for simply coming into the country is realistic, fair, and allows people with to achieve what we so proudly know as the American Dream- the story of America- that you can come to this country and make a better life for yourself by being an American. I believe President Obama's view on immigration exemplifies the ideal way Americans should view our borders and our country.