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.
3 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusionas to how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA),the body of law governing current immigration… policy, provides foran annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, withcertain exceptions for close family members.
a legislator or a judge can help them.
the californian senators get free pie
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 who 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.
Immigration law actually governs the entry of one citizen from one country to another country. There can be problems while you apply for moving to a country permanently, s…ometimes your application may be rejected. In such cases, an immigration law can help you. It is necessary that you should obey the rules of immigration. The government can take a stict action if you violate any of the immigration rules and you can be punished. The process is liitle bit complex but immigration law firms can handle this without much strain. The 'Y Family Law' at Vancouver is one of the effective driven immigration law firms which I know.
A President can refuse to execute or enforce a federal law that he/she determines to be unconstitutional. In such a case, the constitutionality of the law must ultimately be …decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. After a bill has become law, if it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution, all a President can do is recommend to Congress that the law be modified or repealed. However, until Congress does so, the President must make sure that the law gets executed or enforced.
She says, "Enter my country legally, according to law, and I will be glad to lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to commemorat…e our signing of the Declaration of Independence. It has become symbolic of many things but has nothing to do with immigration law. Another view: Actually, the Statue of Liberty says in part, " "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" We've had well over a century to take that down or cross that out if we don't like it. And as Alicia Silverstone's character "Cher" in the movie "Clueless" pointed out, it's a bit rude to invite people over for dinner, then shut the door in their face. No where in the inscription does it speak of quotas or paperwork or immigration laws. Are you tired? Poor? Yearning to breathe free? Homeless? Tempest tossed? Then you are invited. So what does the Statue of Liberty have to do with Immigration laws? Nothing. It's just a lie, the government owned and maintained invitation is not honored.
Because it is not fair to discriminate all the immigrants when some of the have been here for over 10 years and really deserve papers.
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.
The banning of slavery. See related questions.
Because, we as taxpayers, are tired of footing the bill for your school, your medical, your dental, and any other government assistance you are currently receiving. $22 Billio…n dollars is spent just in Welfare to Illegals. Another $2.2 Billion dollars is spent on food assistance programs. $2.5 Billion dollars is spent on Medicaid for Illegals. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they can't speak a word of English. $17 Billion dollars is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. $3 Million dollars a day is spent to incarcerate illegals. 30% of all Federal Prison Inmates are Illegals. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, tax free. Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States. These are figures from 4-6 years ago. No telling how The question you should be asking is.....Why didn't we pass this sooner? The Federal Government's way has not been working for years. If it was you wouldn't be here. You are just mad because the Federal Government's way is more lax. Arizona has the right idea to get this country back on the right track.
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.
In The Bible
He simply did not disagree with any of God's Commandments. He corrected the wrong interpretations of the day's religious leaders. These followed the letter of the Law and crea…ted additional restraints within it so that it became a heavy burden upon the people. Jesus showed the spiritual meaning of the Law, enlarging it to its original intent and obeyed it fully as the Lord of the Sabbath. After all, as all was created via Jesus as John 1: 1-3 clearly states, then it was He who gave the Sabbath rest to mankind in Genesis and fully understood its intended purpose.
Although there have been random transitions in the US immigration policies traditionally, off late developments are towards a more stringent immigration law and rule. Here go…es a brief overview of the rules of immigration in the USA: The Naturalization Act (1790) established rules for naturalized citizenship [as per Article 1(8) of the Constitution of the USA]. The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) was the first and the sole race-based immigration act in the USA. The Immigration Act (1924) restricted the ethnic distribution in response to rising immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and Asia.
they send you back to your country and you not allowed to come back to United State....
The President can propse a bill to congress to change the law or abide by the law.....Don't know if excecutive priv. Applies.
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.