Third Week of Immigration Readings

Until 1875: Regulation of immigration primarily at the state level, with the exception of the short-lived Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
State Restrictions: States imposed various restrictions on transborder movement based on factors such as:
- Crime
- Health
- Public morals
- Poverty
- Disability
- Ideology
- Race

A series of 19th-century decisions by the Court invalidated certain state immigration restrictions, leading to declarations that immigration control is an exclusive federal power.
Chinese Exclusion Case (1889): This case established the doctrine of federal plenary immigration power, emphasizing that states could not directly control immigration but could regulate immigrants' living conditions, viewed as threats to native residents' well-being.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, states implemented laws that included:
- Employment and property ownership restrictions targeting predominantly Japanese and Chinese immigrants.
- Language restrictions affecting German and Southern/Eastern European immigrants.
These alienage restrictions have fluctuated throughout the 20th century, often intensifying during economic downturns or wartime.

Since the September 11 attacks, states and local governments adopted numerous laws regulating immigration.
Post-2005: Hundreds of immigration-related laws, resolutions, or initiatives implemented, touching on various subjects such as public benefits, education, employment, and refugees.
Omnibus immigration legislation: Some states have combined various immigration regulations into single laws.

Challenges: State anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant measures have birthed legal challenges based on:
- Individual rights concerns
- Questions of preemption (state versus federal sovereignty)
Initial preemption arguments: Focused on state infringement of federal commerce or treaty powers; courts generally upheld early local ordinances.
As federal immigration power expanded, challenges centered on infringements upon federal immigration authority. Success in these claims usually reliant on:
- Specific legislation from Congress
- Conflicts between state laws and federal policies or laws.

Preemption claims successful when states deny rights to documented immigrants without federal backing; more likely court support arises when targeting undocumented immigrants or consistent with federal regulations.
Judicial Complexity: The line separating immigration regulations impacting domestic and foreign affairs remains challenging to define, leading to critiques of the preemption doctrine.
Evolving equal rights doctrine: Courts now recognize alienage distinctions warrant strict scrutiny protections but mostly apply benefits to legal immigrants, leaving room for discrimination against undocumented individuals.

SB 1070 (2010) considered a landmark for state-level immigration enforcement, criminalizing failure to carry immigration registration proof and allowing police to investigate immigration status.
States quickly introduced similar laws post-Arizona, with arguments raging over inherent enforcement power versus federal exclusivity.
Notable configurations of court challenges focusing on:
- Arizona's immigration law aspects and whether they remained within allowable state authority.
- The decision in Arizona v. United States, involving constitutionality and conflict with federal immigration law.

Outcomes of SB 1070 involved mixed reception; although the federal government reaffirmed dominance in immigration control, sufficient provisions remained intact for ongoing state enforcement against perceived illegal immigrants.
This has led to discussions regarding racial profiling, the efficacy of sub-federal enforcement, and implications for state-federal relations.

Ongoing discussions about the effect of laws like SB 1070 on community trust and local law enforcement efforts.
Civil rights concerns persist regarding discriminatory practices underlying immigration enforcement. The prospect of racial profiling and underreporting in crime dynamics are critical focal points for reformers and scholars alike.
Sanctuary policies saw adoption in many jurisdictions emphasizing local inconsistencies with federal immigration enforcement.

Sanctuary policies have split localities based on their willingness to collaborate with federal immigration authorities.
Most commonly categorized into:
- Don’t ask: Limiting inquiries into individuals' immigration status.
- Don’t enforce: Curtailing law enforcement detainment based on federal immigration law.
Federal Section 1373 laws often challenge local sanctuary policies by asserting mandates for information sharing with federal agencies, particularly in the context of conflicting interpretation across circuit courts.

California Laws: Three major laws passed designed to shield residents from invasive federal immigration enforcement:
- AB 450: Notifying employees of impending inspections.
- AB 103: Reviewing detention facilities for compliance with humane treatment standards.
- SB 54: Restricting law enforcement's discretion to cooperate with federal authorities.

Future Implications: Significant unrest and legal scrutiny over immigration-related policies indicate a complex future for immigration reform, highlighting the tensions between state autonomy and federal authority.
As cases progress, accompanying legal doctrines such as intergovernmental immunity and preemption continue to shape the landscape of immigration law enforcement.