Civil rights groups, International Humans Rights Groups, Religious groups, the United Nations, the Chamber of Commerce, the Mexican Mafia and Farm Labor groups.
Immigration was determined by quotas.
It gives law enforcement the ability to enforce laws, that are already laws. If you are an illegal alien and you are lawfully detained, they may ask your immigration status. If you cannot prove you are here legally, you may be deported.
Immigration itself is positive, and nothing but positive. Every single person in the US has immigrant background at some point, if you consider that when the US was established, there was no person for whom it was not a new nation. That's the positive. The negative is that illegal immigration is a violation of federal law. If I violated the law, I would expect to be held accountable.
The immigrants from northern Europe were favored by the new Immigration policy.
it was against the law to have slaves back then in new york (ny) (am not saying they alow it in N.Y now but just sayin that back then it was aganst the law as it is today)
the new immigration law in Arizona (SB 1070) was signed into law when Jan Brewer (Arizona's Governor) singed the papers in 27 of April 2010.
Arizona law enforcement officers are still required to observe reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements to stop, detain and/or arrest someone, the same as before Arizona's new immigration law took effect. The new law allows officers to question people they detain to determine their immigration status. Prior to that law taking effect, immigration questions could constitute a violation of the detainee's civil rights, as Arizona LE officers were not empowered to enforce immigration laws.
The US Dept. of Justice is filing suit against the State of Arizona over the state's new law regarding immigration enforcement. The justification being used is what is called the "supremacy clause" of the US Constitution. This clause states that what is regulated by the federal government cannot be impinged upon by any individual state (or group of states). Immigration law has been the purview of the federal government. However, the State of Arizona plans to argue that it is merely attempting to enforce federal immigration law, rather than create a new law. This issue will, most likely, rise to the level of the Supreme Court.
If this statement is true - and I don't know that it is - it would indicate that the immigration law is not about race, but about citizenship status. The argument that 'if you're Hispanic then you must automatically be against immigration laws' makes as much sense as saying that if a voter is female, she will automatically vote for the female candidate, no matter what the candidate's platform is.
Immigration was determined by quotas.
Immigration was determined by quotas.
Immigration was determined by quotas.
Because the people wanted.
yes because seb spratt got life for doing that
Schools such as the University of North Carolina, the University of Miami, the University of Detroit Mercy, New York University, and Southwestern Law School all possess immigration law degrees.
Some pros of the new Arizona immigration law is that hospitals and schools won't get crowded. There could be less kiddnappings. A con is that some people consider it was racial profiling. - by sharde && jamel
Yes, you have to have a catalytic converter in every state if the car came equipped with one when new. It is against federal law to remove one.