Arizona's new immigration law is a fundamental violation of the principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1994, and existing federal non-discrimination legislation. The law enables police to randomly stop and demand proof of citizenship from people who the authorities think are illegal aliens. This law will obviously have a disproportionate impact upon individuals of non-white heritage, particularly Hispanics. The law "would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status" (Archibald 2010). One of the fundamental rights of all citizens, as codified in the Bill of Rights, is the right not to be illegally searched. While some exceptions have been made for warrantless searches by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as general traffic stops to screen all individuals for drunk driving or wearing their seatbelts, this law specifically targets individuals of a particular 'profile' -- namely, those people because...
A legal citizen who was Hispanic, African, or Indian and spoke with an accent could conceivably be very easily detained through this law. It seems unreasonable to require all citizens who might be 'suspect' (i.e. non-white) to carry legal evidence of citizenship -- even when going for a jog around their neighborhood in the morning. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Arizona legislation seems fundamentally misguided and is likely to be judged by future generations as one of the worst decisions of the court during this era (Jonsson 2011; Savage 2011) . The law has been opposed by the NAACP and other groups that have historically supported civil liberties of disenfranchised Americans.
Immigration Ethics and Social Responsibility: Immigration and Amnesty in the United States The question of immigration, especially in this country, is ever-present. From our past, and well into our future, the United States will be a nation of immigrants. However, as political candidates raise a number of questions relating to immigrants south of the border, one must wonder about how immigration has grown into such a hotly debated issue, and how it is
We can see that minority status has far less to do with population size, and instead seems very much to be inclined by race, ethnicity and political power instead. This label of minority status is in many ways used as a tag by which certain groups are detained from political unity or effectiveness. To a large degree, this is a condition which relates to the nature of the Hispanic demographic,
Undocumented Immigrants in Gainesville The city of Gainesville has a population of about 54,000 and of these, approximately 3,200 are illegal aliens. The law enforcement community in this city is charged with protecting these undocumented aliens on the one hand and enforcing illegal immigrant laws on the other. To the extent that undocumented residents are afraid that the police will enforce the latter may be the extent to which they are
This doesn't explain why the Irish had such a difficult time, but in America, religious differences are often the cause of intolerance as well. The truth is that without immigrants in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century -- and of course the two hundred years before this, this nation would not be where or what it is today and to remain true to our roots we must accept that
8% of U.S. households were headed by an immigrant and received 6.7% of all cash benefits; by 1990, 8.4% of households were headed by an immigrant and received 13.1% of all cash benefits (Borjas, 1995, pp. 44-46). Immigrants in different categories (both legal and illegal) have been eligible to receive certain welfare benefits. Legal immigrants are eligible after three to five years of residence, though asylum applicants and refugees are eligible
" Despite the stated expansion, habeas protection continued to be applied only to cases in which the defendant alleged that the sentencing court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction. The Court extended the reach of federal habeas review during the later part of the nineteenth century, however, by changing the circumstances under which the lack of state court jurisdiction could be found. Even after this shift, federal habeas courts sat
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now