Immigration CaseEssay Preview: Immigration CaseReport this essayBecause the drivers license has become the unofficial form of national identification and is used for everyday functions, as well as government purposes, it is important to consider the manner in which the licenses are being distributed and who should be eligible to receive them. In addition, the events of September 11th and the rise in illegal immigration have made it imperative to reevaluate immigration practices and security measures, including drivers license issuance. In considering the use of drivers licenses as national ID or whether issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is a sound practice, there are many arguments to take into account. Those who favor issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants argue that this practice will help the government keep tabs on illegal immigration, encourage illegal immigrants to follow US laws and work towards attaining legal status, and relieve the states from acting as immigration police. Those who are against this practice believe that it would weaken national security and increase our risk for another attack like 9/11, that it would encourage illegal behavior and cause illegal immigration to skyrocket, and would violate the rights of legal citizens in this country. The issuance of drivers licenses to illegal aliens is controversial.
The debate on issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants has risen out of a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and a growing problem with illegal immigration. All but one of the nineteen terrorists who hijacked the planes that went into the World Trade Center had either state issued drivers licenses or non-drivers identification cards (“Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens”). Seven out of the nineteen carried Virginia drivers licenses. Their drivers licenses did not expire when their visas did. These hijackers were able to open bank accounts, rent housing and board planes because they had proper identification. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R, WI), sponsor of the Real ID Act, argues that for terrorists “travel documents are as important as weapons”. The 9/11 attacks sparked a debate about the ease in which illegal immigrants are able to obtain licenses and whether or not issuing them makes our country safer or more dangerous.
The ACLU of California strongly condemned the legislation, which the ACLU said “raises concerns about security and undermines the basic principle of security of our people; that all citizens have the right to be fully informed about the many freedoms in common with the rest of us; that all of us hold fundamental laws of nature to be constitutional; and that our public officials are required to know what they are doing to protect public safety and security when they are acting in self-defense.” The law was approved by Congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush and signed into law by President Barack Obama by a 51-53 vote, and is now being challenged by various groups. The ACLU of California states that the law “does not apply to lawful immigrants.”
The California law addresses a series of concerns. First, the act authorizes DHS to deny citizenship to anyone who “cannot be authorized under U.S. law to serve in a U.S. military service while residing in one of the States, for lawful immigration, or that is convicted of a felony under the laws of the State in which the resident resides.” Second, the law prohibits those who seek citizenship by virtue of an “immigration violation” from being able to stay in the United States for as long as they deem appropriate for it and also limits those who seek to apply for U.S. citizenship to being able to obtain it, not being able to “receive it through the United States as the citizen of [insert State] or lawfully admitted citizen; and the lawful alien is not a lawful immigrant or citizen of a place of residence of a foreign power;.” The court then ruled in the case of U.S. v. Ramirez (2009) that the California law requires the Department of Homeland Security to require state and local law enforcement officers to submit more information about the immigration status of every illegal alien coming into the United States in order to be granted citizenship.
Third, the act “enforces an immigration law that makes it unlawful for any citizen to get, hold, or reside in the United States without going through an immigration court having been adjudicated to exist under laws governing their lawful immigrant status or to be the lawful alien of a place of residence.” This is a clear breach of the U.S. Constitution. The court is saying that the law is unconstitutional in its entirety, but this can’t be the case unless the state issues one for every illegal alien coming into the country. This is a conflict with U.S. v. Ramos.
In fact, the California law clearly prohibits federal citizens and lawful permanent residents from being granted citizenship for lawful importation into the United States unless they are convicted of illegal immigration violations. This law also restricts them from getting citizenship by passing a mandatory law “mandating the issuance or removal of a passport or visa to nationals in the United States who are not U.S. persons or are subject to federal deportation orders or visas or who have been adjudicated in the United States to exist under rules in effect before the President is authorized to take action”; but this law includes an article of legislation that prohibits noncitizens from obtaining citizenship.
Thus far, we’ve dealt here with some of the questions raised in the case. These are:
What would constitute a “criminal immigration violation”? There is a serious danger that the federal government may try to arrest, forcibly remove, or revoke some immigrant’s lawfully-expired immigration status to violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the court is clear in rejecting the government’s argument that the government simply doesn’t have the power to remove people from the country. The government argues that since illegal immigration would be illegal if it happened on such a short notice, therefore removing persons without a warrant from the U.S. would violate Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
What if a federal agency is