IllegImmigration to the United States

IllegImmigration to the United States

Imposing immigration laws in the United States is a major political issue. The federal government imposes various requirementsto contal

rol the number of undocumented foreigners in different states. Government officials in every state have the mandate to impose many regulations passed by the federal administrations. These provisions pose a significant barrier to the State of Californiain her attempt to protect unauthorizedimmigrants. The California Values Act (SB 54), enacted in 2017, limits the federal government and the partnership of the local law enforcementfrom deporting undocumented immigrants. Although the California Senate Bill 54 continues to face unmatched opposition from federal laws and regulations, various successful cases at the Supreme Court of California reveal that the state administration promoted democracy by enacting the law to protect the unauthorized foreigners.

The issue of allowing undocumented immigrants should be addressed at the state level since the local governments understand the underlying problems effectively.The opinions from legal experts reveal that SB 54will provide the required privacy protection that may curtail the unconstitutional mass deportation by the federal government (Talla par. 1). The national administration of the United States focuses on deporting all the undocumented foreigners. Thestrategy violates fundamental human rights since some of the targeted individuals have families. The state administrations can protect the personal information held in the law enforcement database from unlawful use by the security agencies (Talla par. 6). The local administrative agencies contain accurate details about the immigrants and their families. In this case, they can safeguard the interests of unauthorized foreigners. Therefore, enactment of laws to protect undocumented immigrants from mass deportation should take place at the state level.

The federal government does not have a role in implementing SB 54. The core objective of SB 54 is to curtail the national administration from violating the rights of undocumented immigrants (Talla par. 6).This statement implies that the central government in the United States opposes SB 54 since it hinders its political agenda. The government officials in California responsible for arresting and expatriating unauthorized foreigners may frustrate the efforts to protect the minority groups. Therefore, the federal administration does not have a role in the implementation of SB 54 because of conflicting political interests.

Social welfare policies would be most suitable for addressing the issue of undocumented immigrants in California. The mass deportation laws by the federal government discourage the targeted groups from applying for feeding assistance programs or report cases of domestic violence (Talla par. 4). The statement shows that the national administration supports policies that lower the level of social well-being in the American community. Considering the societal factors can improve the scope and outcomes of the laws implemented to control cases of illegal immigration in various states. Thus, social welfare policies would lead to better results in addressing issues that relate to undocumented immigrants.

Federal laws and regulations are the major obstacles facing the senators who developed and enacted SB 54 in California. The state administration of California focuses on prohibiting the local law enforcers from implementing the federal immigration execution(Talla par. 6). This stamen suggests that SB 54 opposes the national legal system directly. The situations hinder effective I enforcement of the regulations that must protect the interests of the undocumented foreigners.The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to access personal information of the residents in California and find secretive ways to make the prohibited arrests (Talla par. 3). The conduct by federal agencies affects the effectiveness of SB 54 in protecting the fundamental rights of unauthorized immigrants. Failure to reach a consensus between the two administrations may hinder the intended outcomes in California. Therefore, federal regulations and laws remain the most significant barrier in the implementation of SB 54, which is evident in various opposing court cases.

The outcome in the appeal case between California and Huntington Beach reveals that SB 54 is a proper regulation to protect the interests of the undocumented immigrants. A panel of judges reversed the decision made by the Orange County Superior Court to exempt Huntington Beach from enacting SB 54(Sclafani par. 1).The Huntington Beach administrators maintained that the city had a charter that was superior to the state laws. This argument formed the basis of the previous court decision that forced Huntington Beach to comply with the federal laws on immigration. The panel of the judges at the Supreme Court of California argued that SB 54 was constitutional and must apply in all parts of the sate (Sclafani par. 4). The final ruling reveals that SB 54 is an acceptable regulation that may ensure public safety and better health outcomes among the immigrants. Besides, the California state administration focused on enhancing policing in the region and safeguards the constitutional rights of the minority groups. Hence, the successful outcomes in California vs. Huntington Beach imply that SB 54 is a fair law in the state.

The restoration of SB 54 in the United States against California reveals the significance of the laws that protect the rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court of California made a ruling that SB 54 was constitutional (Solis par. 1). The verdict was instrumental in preventing some of the charter cities in California that opposed the bill and vowed to support the federal initiative in mass deportation. Besides, the outcomes during the case proved that the national government would not challenge the effort to protect the unauthorized foreigners residing in the region. The Court of Appeal discovered that SB 54 does not intrude on corporate interests unnecessarily (Solis par. 4). The finding implied that all the cities must comply with the new regulations irrespective of their status. Besides, the outcomes strengthened the ability of the Californian administration to implement the SB 54 recommendations. Therefore, restoration of SB 54 in the United States vs. California proves its effectiveness in protecting unauthorized foreigners.

The ruling by the federal court of appeals in a case of the United States against California reveals the effectiveness of SB 54 in protecting the rights of illegal immigrants. The 9^th United States Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the decisions by the lower courts to reject the implementation of the SB 54 (Bay City News 54).The ruling supported the constitutionality of the sanctuary laws in protecting the fundamental human rights of the foreigners who lack proper documentation. Besides, the panel of judges involved in the case argued that California had the authority to enact most of the sections in the SB 54. Thus, the ruling by the 9^th United States Circuit Court of Appeals revealed the applicability of the SB 54 enacted in California.

The case of SB 54 in California shows that other states can amend their constitution and create policies that the legislature may not make. The development and enactment of SB 54 illustrate the utilization of direct democracy (Carrillo et al. 559). In this case, the citizens should decide on the policies that favor their interests. Besides, proper tailoring of such regulations may be necessary to avoid possible desecration of municipal authorities. Thus, states can engage their residents in creating laws that protect their rights without violating other existing policies.

In summary, the California Senate Bill 54 to protect the undocumented immigrants continues to face unmatched opposition from federal laws and regulations. However, successful cases at the Supreme Court of California reveal that the state administration useddirect democracy to protect the needs of its residents. Other states may engage their citizens in enacting the law to defend unauthorized foreigners or other interests.

Works Cited

Bay City News. “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of California’s Sanctuary Laws.” The San Francisco Examiner, 2019, www.sfexaminer.com/news/federal-appeals-court-upholds-most-of-californias-sanctuary-laws/.

Carrillo, David, et al. California Constitutional Law: Direct Democracy. The University of Southern California, 2019.

Sclafani, Julia. “Appellate Court Overturns Ruling Exempting Huntington Beach from ‘sanctuary State’ Immigration Law.” Daily Pilot, 2020, www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2020-01-10/appellate-court-overturns-ruling-exempting-huntington-beach-from-sanctuary-state-immigration-law.

Solis, Nathan. “Appeals Court Restores California Sanctuary-State Law.”Courthouse News Services, 2020, www.courthousenews.com/appeals-court-restores-california-sanctuary-state-law/.

Talla, Vasudha. “Protecting Immigrant Privacy with SB 54, the California Values Act | ACLU of Northern CA.” Www.Aclunc.Org, 2018, www.aclunc.org/blog/protecting-immigrant-privacy-sb-54-california-values-act.