The following cases are to be considered from the legal perspective in terms of the legal ways to execute power on immigration legislature on both federal and state levels. The first issue is related to the question of the extent of state power when it comes to the process of perception of immigration as a criminal offense and deportation from the state. Speaking briefly, the Iowa State government believes the federal administration to lack legal responsibility in terms of combating the issue of immigration rates and unlawful employment. For this reason, the legislative bodies of the state pursued the policies introduced by the Trump Administration in order to push the state laws considering immigration status. Thus, the legislature proposed concerns three major aspects of the immigration ban, namely:
- Considering illegal immigration to be a state crime;
- Immediate deportation of immigrants from the state;
- Ban of cooperation with companies involved in any dealings with the Mexican government.
Considering the fact that the vast majority of the state government and local citizens are Republicans, there is a considerable level of public support for the legislation. However, the Democrats in authority and among the overall population are afraid that the following act is a completely unconstitutional endeavor, and there is no legal predisposition to employ such radical measures on the state level. Hence, the Democrats both within and outside the state seek legal justification of whether the following law can be considered constitutional.
Another issue considering the notion of immigration is the fact of defining the methods to identify illegal immigrants within the state through the peculiarities of employment. The Trump Administration, in order to reinforce the control over the scope of immigration on the federal level, decided to achieve precise statistics on immigration with the help of obtaining qualitative data from employers throughout the country. The overall issue has drawn much attention over the past years, providing the government with more funding on the legal procedures of checking undocumented immigrants.
Moreover, the Border patrol and investigative agencies are now given more authority in terms of deportation of immigrants. Still, such an explicit approach to the problem remains insufficient, so the Republican Congressmen require all the firms file detailed reports on the justification of their workers’ legal employment on an annual basis. As a result, the state governors of New York and California consider this endeavor to be highly unconstitutional, and they are not willing to impose such will upon the state employers. As a result, the leaders of the following states decided to address the issue in terms of its appropriateness assessment.
The final concern in terms of the following issue is related to the process of federal funds allocation when it comes to immigration. Since 2018, the Trump Administration has been trying to legally approve the process of building the so-called border wall, which presupposes considerable financial operations at the federal expense. However, while Congress does not allow to allocate many financial resources on the construction works, Donald Trump’s decision is to embrace the National Emergencies Act laws to shift the money from some already approved projects. Thus, one of our clients is the head of the new fitness center construction at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Base, as the following project has become involved in the financial shift, having been left with major losses in terms of construction.
State Authority on Immigration and Deportation
Considering the modern outlook on the issue of immigration and the Republicans’ perception of the notion, it becomes evident that the legal constituent of the matter is rather dependent on the public opinion even when the issues concern Supreme Court’s intervention. For this reason, the state legislature has now been pursuing the desire to gain more autonomy in terms of defining the immigration status and deportation control within the area. When it comes to the US pattern of immigration governance, the state legislatures generally have little autonomy in terms of singling out immigrants in the area, leaving the right to deport and legally punish the undocumented aliens to the Supreme Court.
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the state governments are not legally entitled to take severe measures in terms of immigration management, but they have a series of explicit rights aimed at assisting immigration identification. For instance, the states have the right to address the issues of state benefits limitations for the illegal immigrants within the area, but they are not allowed to provide explicit legal punishment for the immigrants on a state basis. However, while these legislations tend to be limiting for the aliens, they shall not violate the fundamental human rights and freedoms presupposed by the Amendments to the US Constitution.
For example, in 2010, the state of Arizona passed the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, known under the title “Support Out Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” which eventually become one of the most controversial and law-ignoring legislations in the context. According to the act, immigrants should not be allowed to move within the state area without the legal justification of one’s certificate of alien registration. The other two provisions of the bill required the local law enforcement officials to stop and check residents who might have been suspected of obtaining the immigration status and lawful punishment for people sheltering, hiring, and trafficking illegal immigrants. After having been passed by the local authorities, the issue was considered in the US Supreme Court, with the final decision stating the requirement to carry the required document to be to the only constitutionally acceptable endeavor (Arizona v. United States, 567. U.S. 387, 2012). Thus, the state intervention in the process of immigration rates reduction is rather limited in terms of quantitative contribution to the illegal alien detention, the overall influence of state legislature is quite beneficial in terms of the situation management.
To address the issue of the state’s ability to ban any business-oriented cooperation with particular states, it is necessary to dwell upon the precedents of such legislations in the US history. Thus, in terms of the case Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), the federal law executed its power to perform the legal federal preemption of Massachusetts’ law on cooperation limitation with Myanmar, Burma. As a result of the following procedure, it was estimated that the states do not have the legal right to ban cooperation on the international level, as it is purely federal prerogative, so the state of Iowa shall not be legally entitled to ban any kind of relations with Mexico.
Private Employers and Immigration
One of the major challenges in terms of managing the legal aspects of immigration is the extent to which interference in private matters is considered to be in the public interest. Thus, whereas the Republicans support the total control on immigration status, the issues of privacy are still supervised by the Supreme Court, characterized by impartiality and objectivity. Thus, one of the most discussed aspects in terms of immigration rate examination is the legal peculiarities of employment, as illegal aliens remain some of the most financially beneficial labor force representatives for the employers, as they are able to define their employment conditions that leave illegal immigrants with little choice whatsoever. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (1952), employers across the US, regardless of sector, are entitled to hire citizens and nationals of the US and legally authorized US immigrants. Thus, since it is officially illegal to hire undocumented immigrants in both public and private sectors, it is implied that the employers generally have no dealings with illegal immigrants. For this reason, there is no explicit legislation that makes it mandatory for employers to report the status of their workers with a certain frequency.
However, when it comes to the things required and/or encouraged on the state level, the issue of the E-Verify initiative has become one of the most accessible and beneficial tools in terms of legal employment tracking. The following initiative is legally outlined in the DHS/USCIS/ – 036(b) – Form I-9 document, which encompasses the process of employment eligibility verification, preventing the employers and state from hiring undocumented immigrants in the workplace. Although the following initiative is considered voluntary on the federal level, states like Arizona employ the following verification pattern within the scopes of local legislation. With the help of such a background check, state legislatures have the ability to contribute to the federal level of immigrants’ employment.
It goes without saying that the issue of state autonomy in the context of immigration shall be considered from the perspective of federalism and the Supreme Court’s obligation to provide state legislatures with the legally authorized provisions. For example, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the issue relevant to the state was not entitled to suppress the significance of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, leaving the authority to the local government. However, when talking of national concerns like immigration, the issue itself is dedicated to the fundamental human rights, referring to the First Amendment. As a result, the notion of immigration shall not be regarded from the federalist perspective, placing the major emphasis on the Supreme Court’s provisions and jurisdiction.
However, when it comes to the legislation proposes by the federal government, claiming private employers to supply the government with extensive lists of employee’s eligibility status annually, the proposition itself seems to be legally inappropriate. To begin with, the overall relationship between federal law and private companies is rather complicated due to the explicit lack of employees’ security in the workplace. In fact, many privately hired workers across the US cannot claim harassment or discrimination accusations, as the deferral law does not interfere with the labor patterns in such units. Thus, private employers can even execute limitations on such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech. Hence, having minor influence over the private sector, federal legislators have no legal provision to require detailed information on the employees’ immigration status. In terms of public employment, however, the issue is radically different, as both federal and local governments play a crucial role in the process of work management and resource allocation.
Moreover, INA (1952) places a major emphasis on the process of undocumented immigrants’ protection in the workplace. Hence, the process of employment is now focused on non-discrimination rather than on the eligibility status due to the social background peculiarities affecting the pattern. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling patterns executed in Koremasu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), it is now of crucial importance to legally justify the nature of the lawsuit and prove the absence of racial profiling issues within the hearing. Hence, due to the major focus on the notion of ethnic and racial bias, and the relative autonomy of private employers, it is not constitutional to require delayed reporting on the employees’ immigration status on a regular basis.
Finally, the overall perception of background checks handed to the federal government is now regarded as nothing but violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. A prime example of such violation may be observed in the case Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), where the background checks on the ability of firearm possession were considered legally inappropriate due to the fact that such issue were to be dealt on the local level. Thus, federal jurisdiction does not apply to the following framework, as it violates the federalist principles prevailing across the country.
Niagara Falls Air Reserve Base and National Emergencies Act
The following law case is one of the most controversial in terms of defining the potential outcome due to the situation’s ambiguity on the federal level. To begin with, the very process of the border wall construction is a questionable endeavor in terms of ethical concerns, leading to the confrontation between Congress, President, and Supreme Court. The Trump Administration, while supporting the initiative to reduce the level of illegal immigration and crime rates related to the issue, does not perceive the process of building a wall at federal expense to be the most beneficial legal outcome of the situation. Moreover, the precedents like Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. (2018), lead to the government’s rather critical perception of the presidential position on immigration in the context of INA fundamentals.
The overall control over the issue of the private property management violates the overall paradigm of presidential power. Thus, according to the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the presidential seizure of power is considered inappropriate even in cases where the situation goes beyond control of the private property owners, and the national situation is in an emergency state. Hence, the historical evidence claims the chances of winning the case with the majority supporting private property leaders.
According to the experts’ opinion, the construction of the border wall was justified to be a national emergency due to qualitative data presented by the current statistics. In fact, the rates of illegal border crossing from Mexico are considerably higher in relation to the borders with other countries. Moreover, the rapid increase in crime rates, being implicitly related to the number of undocumented immigrants in the state, has proved the initiative to be a necessity for the country. On the other hand, however, the financial investment required for construction is obnoxiously bis considering the overall patterns of federal expenses. For this reason, the efficiency of such investment remains rather questionable and lacks both governmental and public support. The latter tends to play a significant role in terms of decision-making, so the overall chances of victory become higher for the contractor of the fitness center for Niagara Falls Air Provision Base. However, considering the scope of presidential authority given to Trump by the US Constitution, the chances of victory remain on a 50/50 chance level.