Undocumented immigrants are committed to living in the United States, some have left their home country in the search of opportunities, for employment, civil rights, or for personal safety. Immigrants have added to the American culture, in linguistics and religion, furthermore, have been a constant source of economic vitality. Additionally, immigration has helped revitalize formerly poor neighborhoods, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. However, immigrants have become an object of disapproval in many places of the United States. For example, in 2013, approximately 41 percent of Americans said that immigrants are a burden to society and the economy, as they take jobs and housing, and receive public benefits. Others imply they support
…show more content…
For example, in 2012 the Supreme Court took action in the case Arizona v. United States (2012), and challenged the constitutionality of four provisions that the state of Arizona enacted in 2010. Section 3, stated that failure to meet and demonstrate federal alien-registration is a state misdemeanor. Section 5(C), made it a misdemeanor and restricted unauthorized immigrants to work in the state. Section 6, allowed state authorities and local officers to arrest individuals without a warrant, if the official believed that the individual was guilty of an offence that made them removable from the country. And lastly, section 2B, requires officers conducting an arrest, a stop, or a detention to verify the individual’s immigration status. The four provisions attempted to supersede the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. At the end the court ruled—on a 5-3 vote—that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, for the Constitution gives Congress the power of rule of naturalization, thus, three of the four provision interfered with the federal efforts. The only provision that was not prevented from being enacted, was the one that allowed officers to arrest an individual if they believed he had committed a crime or was an illegal alien. The bill promoted automatic discrimination against any individual who appeared …show more content…
Texas (2016). The state of Texas is challenging the Barrack Obama administration’s program of deferred action, one that will benefit numerous undocumented immigrants. In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the action grants certain undocumented immigrants to receive a two-year work permit, and become exempt from deportation. This has helped numerous students, who entered the country before the age of 16 and before June 2007 to enroll in college and to seek a legal form employment. And in 2014, the DHS, established a similar process to expand the program to the parents of American citizens or lawful residents. The new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). However, Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA. The states ague that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, since it did not go over a “notice-and-comment” procedure. Moreover, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which states the president’s
For example, in 2012 the Supreme Court took action in the case Arizona v. United States (2012), and challenged the constitutionality of four provisions that the state of Arizona enacted in 2010. Section 3, stated that failure to meet and demonstrate federal alien-registration is a state misdemeanor. Section 5(C), made it a misdemeanor and restricted unauthorized immigrants to work in the state. Section 6, allowed state authorities and local officers to arrest individuals without a warrant, if the official believed that the individual was guilty of an offence that made them removable from the country. And lastly, section 2B, requires officers conducting an arrest, a stop, or a detention to verify the individual’s immigration status. The four provisions attempted to supersede the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. At the end the court ruled—on a 5-3 vote—that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, for the Constitution gives Congress the power of rule of naturalization, thus, three of the four provision interfered with the federal efforts. The only provision that was not prevented from being enacted, was the one that allowed officers to arrest an individual if they believed he had committed a crime or was an illegal alien. The bill promoted automatic discrimination against any individual who appeared …show more content…
Texas (2016). The state of Texas is challenging the Barrack Obama administration’s program of deferred action, one that will benefit numerous undocumented immigrants. In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the action grants certain undocumented immigrants to receive a two-year work permit, and become exempt from deportation. This has helped numerous students, who entered the country before the age of 16 and before June 2007 to enroll in college and to seek a legal form employment. And in 2014, the DHS, established a similar process to expand the program to the parents of American citizens or lawful residents. The new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). However, Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA. The states ague that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, since it did not go over a “notice-and-comment” procedure. Moreover, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which states the president’s