Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - Essay Example

(Name)(Instructor’s Name)(Course Title)(Date)Federal vs. State Immigration LawsBarely three months old, the federal government and some States have already locked horns in the recent past over trivial issues such as same sex marriage, immigration restrictions and even healthcare laws. Yet of all the aforementioned issues, none is more likened to the Trump administration than Immigration restrictions. Just as President Trump had pledged during his campaigns, the immigration laws have become more stringent and consequently led to ambiguities when it comes to interpretation.

Different states have also found themselves at the loggerheads with the federal government over the same. A good example the recently upheld Alabama state law by the supreme court. Pham (97) acknowledges that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 stipulates all immigration issues to the federal government. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court has constantly upheld the federal government's control on immigration law. For example, the supreme court has in the past overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants.

Many states today have laws that limit illegal immigrants from accessing public amenities and have further directed local police to verify the legal residence status of arrested criminal. Wishnie (101) however, notes that the constitutionality of such laws has been put to question. In 2010, the state of Arizona won its way into the books of history when it attempted to regulate immigration through controversial law. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), lawmakers in that Arizona "crossed a constitutional line" and undermined the federal government by signing the new law.

Some of the elements of the law required the police to verify the immigration status of anyone suspected to be illegally residing in the state. Thanks to a federal judge however, most of the controversial elements of the law were blocked. Other states that have gone against the grain to pass such laws include Utah and Oklahoma. Most state laws that touch on immigration are challenged by civil rights groups, federal government or by immigrants' rights. Additionally, the laws passed at the state level on immigration have provisions that most activists and immigrants view as racially segregating (Daunt 65).

For example, requirement for proof of legal residence or citizenship and checking on immigration status of anyone suspected to be illegally in the states. The state of California recently passed a law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped. Critics have challenged the law and stated that it is unconstitutional. The aggrieved parties say that the law's requirement arrangement disregards the U.S. Constitution's assurance of equivalent insurance and due process. The federal government on the other hand has challenged many of the states passing these controversial immigration laws on the grounds of jurisdiction (Pham 134).

The federal government claims that laws on immigration passed at the state level are a "patchwork" of the already existing immigration laws and would consequently not solve the country's immigration problemConclusively, per chance a federal and state law contradict, then if one is within a state he/she can follow the state law; however, federal police have the jurisdiction to stop such. Whenever there is a conflict between a federal and state law, the former prevails. Thus, immigration policy setting and enforcement of the laws is federal responsibility.

ReferencesDaunt, L. “State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card?” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html. The Huffington Post. 2014. Web. 28 Jan 2014Wishnie, Michael J. "State and local police enforcement of immigration laws." (2004).Pham, Huyen. "The inherent flaws in the inherent authority position: Why inviting local enforcement of immigration laws violates the Constitution." Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev. 25 (2004): 45.