Immigration Law

...

After an overview of all of the information it was then decided by the supreme court that this statute would not be applied. The fact that children would be somewhat mistreated all due to where they were born did not fit the mold that the constitution was meant to make. The court did recognize that the large population of immigrants do pose a threat as it relates to financial strain, increases in population, workforce related issues and these Mexican children would be in need of educational resources that may exceed the needs of many American children yet this was not enough to deny educational funds. It was also determined that despite the fact that there were many immigrant students that the vast majority of the increased numbers could be attributed to American students themselves and there was only a very small subclass of illegal aliens.

The court decided in the end that denial of such a valuable resource such as education based on the mere fact of where a person was nor is not acceptable by stating “ If the State is to deny a discrete group of children the free public education it offers to others residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest” (NexisLexis).In this case the necessary findings were not present to excuse withholding funds.

Texas v. United States, in an effort to address the undeniable impact on both the immigration debate and the currently stalled funding of the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court judge in Texas has issued a Temporary Injunctive Order preventing implementation of Obama’s Immigration executive action.

In this case there was a total of 26 states and or representatives of the states were seeking injunctive relief against the United States.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, also known as DAPA would help to assist millions of people that are currently in the country illegally. These men and women would be granted the opportunity to have access to the resources that current U.S. citizens are allowed. These benefits include those that are of the state as well as federal level. The expected size of the immigrant population was estimated to be between three to six million people.

This nation is said to be one that prides itself on the basis of equality and prosperity yet with such a high number of immigrants living here that are denied basic benefits it creates an environment that is riddled with those that are considered to be the “underclass”. One reading implies that with so many people struggling it hurts the entire nation as a whole. Although DAPA was intended to help improve the overwhelming amount of underclass immigrants by supplying the fundamentals thought to encourage thriving success a n injunction was put into play. An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another.

In Arpaio v. Obama The plaintiff, the elected Sheriff, brings suit against the President of the United States as well as other Federal officials, alleging that certain immigration policies announced by the President in a nationwide address on November 20, 2014 are unconstitutional therefore otherwise illegal, and should be stopped from going into effect. The judge primarily found that courts should not rule on the president's unconstitutional executive actions because it is simply a political dispute between him and Congress. It was also implied that Sheriff Arpaio did not have standing to sue because he could not show a direct injury from this massive change in the immigration laws.

Many immigrants come to the United States as children and they do not have the legal permission and despite the fact that they do not they remain in this country as they mature into adults. The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that our nation's immigration laws were not designed "to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language"

To be eligible for DACA, immigrants must have come to the United States before the age of sixteen and have been under thirty-one years old as of June 15, 2012; they must have been living in the United States when DACA was announced and have continuously resided in the United States for at least the previous five years; and they must have graduated from high school, or obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces or the Coast Guard, or be currently enrolled in school. Additionally, they must not pose any threat to public safety: anyone who has been convicted of multiple misdemeanors, a single significant misdemeanor, or any felony offense is ineligible for DACA. (NexisLexis). If the immigrants met all of the requirements then a period of a two year stay would be granted to them DACA recipients enjoy no formal immigration status.

It was realized that despite the fact that the immigrants were not here legally it was documented that they do hold the ability to prosper. the court held that the Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants' policy is enjoined. The remaining injunction factors such as the public interest and the balance of the equities also tip in Plaintiffs' favor. We therefore reverse the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction.

While these cases are sure to cause one to question the overall treatment of immigrants it is important to review them to gain a full understanding of what one believes in. There is a constant battle between citizen rights and the fair treatment of those that are considered “illegal aliens”. On one hand the well being if the people that live in the country legally have rights and on the other hand immigrants do not have any in some cases. These cases show that despite the fact that these people may not be here under the desired circumstances that they too may infact be entitled to some level of importance. Just because one was not born in this country does not infer that they should be denied the basic needs in some cases.

Application: The legal issue facing the court is whether enforcing certain statutes that deny rights to immigrants may violate the purpose of the equal right clause.

Sources:

- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492; 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012)

- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202; 102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed 2d 786 (1982)

- Texas v. United States, (2015) U.S. Dist.

- Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F. Supp. 3d 185, (2014) US. Dist.