Because the enforcement of the criminal provisions of Federal Law has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, it would be reserved to the states respectively. According to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is interpreted to mean that the states have implied powers in addition to the powers explicitly enumerated to them in the Constitution.
With this understanding of the Constitution, proponents argue that the disputed SB 1070 provisions are not immigration law provisions, but criminal law provisions.
For example, the provision making it a state crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents is only an enforcement of the U.S. regulation requiring aliens who have been in the country longer than 30 days to have registration documents on their person.
Generally, the Supreme Court has indicated that there is some role in immigration law for states. The Supreme Court has held that "the States do have some authority to act with respect to illegal aliens, at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and furthers a legitimate state goal."
Proponents argue that not only has the Federal Government permitted state enforcement of Federal law, it has relied on states in enforcing immigration law. In the context of immigration, the INA itself requires states to share information about an individual's criminal history with federal agencies responsible for enforcement of the INA.
Conclusion
It is yet to be seen whether SB 1070 is constitutional. As of now, many states appear to believe that it is Constitutional enough, as they are considering similar legislation.
However, it may be premature for states to even consider this legislation. Even if the SB 1070 passes Constitutional muster on the Federal Preemption issue, it would still face strong Constitutional challenges on the issues of Equal Protection and Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
Arizona SB 1070
U.S.C. 8 § 1101
United States v. Arizona, No. 10-16645, from opening statement of John J. Bouma, legal representative for Defendant in 9th Circuit Supreme Court, (2010). Available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_vid=
Mary Fan, Post-Racial Proxies: Resurgent State and...
S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the
Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 This work in writing examines Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Law and how this law has impacted the state of Arizona, the citizens of Arizona, and the U.S. In its entirety as well as the conflicting views on SB1070 and seeks to determine is SB1070 is adherent to the tenants of federal immigration law. Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 The objective of this work in writing is to briefly explain Arizona's SB1070
With this ruling the Court upheld legality of affirmative action. In considering the reasoning behind the Court's upholding of the highly debated principle, the rationale was that to remedy past discrimination, a program that is race-based must be put into effect. Clearly, the Court was concerned with becoming intertwined in the daily administration of academic programs, and the same would have likely held true for the workplace. The Bakke case had
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