What would you like to do?
Why do you disagree with immigration law?
The immigration laws are not as much of a problem, as the manner in which they are enforced. On the one hand, conservatives condone the harsh treatment of illegal aliens who are already here and doing work (that many others won't do) in the U.S. On the other hand, progressives criticize big corporations, as well as smaller businesses for hiring cheap illegal immigrant laborers while, at the same time, those very same businesses will fund the campaigns of politicians who would wish to deport them.
1 person found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
Many people disagree because of the certain facts that was said about the cyber crime law. But actually, what is needed is to have a clear understanding and information dissem…ination about the law that is to be debated whether it will bring good or will be just abused for political and corrupt use.
If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language 2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed. 3. There will be n…o special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in our language. 4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here. 5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office. 6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. 8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country. 9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home. 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language 2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed. 3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in our language. 4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here. 5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office. 6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. 7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. 8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country. 9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home. 10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.
The banning of slavery. See related questions.
Immigration law is essentially those aspects of federal law that govern the entry into one country of citizens from another country. Every country has laws that govern w…ho may enter the country fom another one, what is required to be able to stay for extended periods of time and what is required to become a citizen and stay permanently. Immigration laws are usually fairly complex and many times it is unclear whether any particular immigration law has been violated or not. A government might take the position in a particular case that a person has violated immigration laws and should be deported. That person usually hires a lawyer experienced in immigration law to argue that such immigration laws have not been violated and the person not be deported.
they send you back to your country and you not allowed to come back to United State....
If the President disagrees with a federal law, he has the option of asking Congress to repeal the law, or in some cases, of asking the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutio…nality of the law. Since he presumably has some substantial reason for disagreeing with the law, he can explain his reason, and possibly get support for the idea of getting rid of that particular law.
There were many Immigration laws in 1880. These immigration lawsprevented immigrants from having all of the rights that naturalcitizens were allowed to have.
The Alien and Sedition Acts
The Immigration Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) does. They used to be the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
give more powers to antiterrorist agencies. *apex*
probably none. France will take anybody they can get :)
If the state laws conflict, you must follow either the law that offers the greater privacy protection or that which offers more patient rights.
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immig…ration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.
There is much debate on this issue. Many legal scholars do not yet agree on the answer to this question, and it is likely that it will be decided in court at some point in the… future. Despite having massive support by the Arizona public, the law does appear (on its face) to violate Federal law on at least one issue. The key element of the Arizona law is that it allows Arizona state police to enforce Federal immigration law. This likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes Federal law over State law, and that no State may pass a law that supersedes or interferes with Federal law. The Supreme Court has clarified this clause in the 1985 case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation. In it's ruling, the Court found that the criteria by which to judge the constitutionality of a conflicting law is as follows: 1. Compliance with both the Federal and the State laws is impossible, or 2. "...State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..." The enforcement of immigration policy has always been the purview of the Federal government. The reason for this is to prevent one state from having a different immigration policy from another. This clause is the legal basis for the concept that the border is a national border and not a state one. This is, perhaps, the largest reason that the law may be deemed unconstitutional. However, the law was specifically written to try and avoid any constitutional issues, and there is some relevant case law that helps cloud the legal waters. First, the Supreme Court in the case of De Canas v. Bica (1976) decided that mere mention of immigration policy in State law does not automatically render it unconstitutional. It is widely understood that this means that States may enact laws that, for example, discourage illegal immigration so long as they do not explicitly contradict Federal law. The question of whether or not the Arizona law applies to this case is uncertain. There are several questions regarding this law: -Does the Arizona law "[stand] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress" by allowing police to effectively become Federal border patrol agents? -If a State did allow its law enforcement agents to effectively become Federal border patrol agents, what would they do with violators? -Wouldn't such a law naturally require the State to determine a detention and deportation policy to deal with them? -If it did, how would the State be able to ensure that their policy would mirror Federal policy? -Wouldn't the State be in constant danger of superseding Federal authority whenever Congress alters its immigration policies? Doesn't such a scenario come dangerously close to interfering with the Federal government's authority to oversee the nation's immigration policies? Furthermore, many people feel that the Federal government has had lax enforcement (to say the least) of Federal immigration law. This also raises several questions: -Do the States have the right to enforce Federal law when the Federal government is not enforcing it sufficiently? -If so, what criteria must be established for a State to begin to enforce Federal law? Specifically, what standard must be applied for a State to take up Federal enforcement on its own? -Would the (hypothetical) right of a State to enforce Federal law erode or eventually erode the Constitution's Supremacy Clause? The second issue with Arizona's law is whether or not it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The Arizona law establishes a new "reasonable suspicion" standard by which citizens may be stopped for violating immigration policy. The law requires that all non-citizens (foreign visitors or day-workers, or those whose citizenship is still pending) be required to carry their immigration and identification papers at all times, and that states that citizens who are otherwise legally contacted (for, say, a speeding ticket) may be detained until proof of their citizenship is established. The first issue with this is "what defines 'reasonable suspicion'?" The law details several criteria that must be met before an individual may be detained, but critics have charged that they are easily-abused by police. First, the requirement that police may only question a person's citizenship after a legal stop is legally ambiguous. There are numerous innocent situations in which a police officer can establish "legal contact" with a person (jaywalking or a broken tail light or a noise complaint, for example). Critics also argue that this would lead to racial profiling, as it is likely that someone of Hispanic ethnicity is much more likely to be questioned as someone of white ethnicity is, especially if that person has a foreign-sounding accent. Critics believe that in a country defined by individual rights and checks against police power, the Arizona law overreaches. Because of the importance of these questions, it is likely that they, and others, will be heard and decided in court at some point in the future. UPDATE (7/29/10): During the lawsuit by the US Government against Arizona (US v Arizona), the US requested an injunction against the Arizona law while the lawsuit is pending. Yesterday, the judge granted this injunction for the most controversial parts of the law. This means that Arizona will be barred from enacting these parts of the law until the lawsuit has been decided. The law was originally scheduled to go into effect today. This is notable because in order for an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff has to demonstrate there would be clear damage or harm done against them during the time the case is being argued. It is generally considered unusual for injunctions to be granted, which suggests that the judge believes the United States' case against Arizona is strong.
Depends on the country. If your Mexican, get ready for a long process, for obvious reasons. I believe the law is also getting rough on the Russians, and some places in Africa,… like Ethiopia.