The latest case of the Federal Supreme Court: The most stringent anti-immigration legislation in history was rejected by the Supreme Court

The latest case of the Federal Supreme Court: The most stringent anti-immigration legislation in history was rejected by the Supreme Court Since 2010, anti-immigration legislation has been introduced in some states in the southern United States...

>Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Arizona has always been a stronghold of anti-immigration, because the U.S.-Mexico border in the state is the entry route for the largest number of illegal immigrants. Every year, tens of thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans enter the United States from the remote deserts of Arizona. Between 1990 and 2010, the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona increased fivefold, and by April 2010, there were believed to be 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Affected by the illegal immigration situation, Arizona has also become a stronghold of anti-immigration. Strict anti-immigration legislation has been introduced continuously. The first one to bear the brunt is the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (Arizona SB 1070), which is called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Act, which was passed by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010 Brewer) and plans to take effect on July 29, 2010. It is called by the New York Times as the most extensive and strict anti-immigration bill in the history of the country.

U.S. federal law requires that foreigners over 14 years old who stay in the United States for more than 30 days should register with the U.S. government and keep registration documents during their stay. Violation of this provision will constitute a federal misdemeanor. Arizona Bill 1070 takes this provision to the extreme. Bill 1070 stipulates that aliens in Arizona must carry registration documents with them or it will be a state misdemeanor. At the same time, the bill allows law enforcement officers to check the identity registration documents of Arizona residents in two situations: first, when law enforcement officers are conducting a "lawful interception, detention, and arrest" to determine a person's immigration status; second, when law enforcement officers reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant and conduct "lawful contact" without any specific purpose.

At the same time, Bill 1070 also prohibits state government officials, local officials or agencies from restricting the implementation of federal immigration laws and penalizes the accommodation, employment and transportation of unregistered aliens. Supporters of the bill believe that this is "attrition through enforcement to reduce the number of (illegal immigrants)." Opponents of the bill believe that this bill will encourage racial profiling (Racial Profiling), and the police will decide whether to carry out law enforcement based on the racial or ethnic characteristics of the other party during law enforcement. Supporters of the bill say it would prevent police from using race as a single criterion to investigate immigration status. To address this issue, the bill was amended before it was signed. Feedback on the bill has been mixed, sparking protests in more than 70 cities and a boycott of Arizona. But polls show the bill has supporters in Arizona and nationwide. After the bill was passed, it triggered a chain reaction in other states to consider passing similar legislation.

After the bill was signed, including the Department of Justice, questioned whether the bill was consistent with the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. The day before the bill took effect, a federal judge issued an injunction prohibiting law enforcement officers from stopping and asking people to confirm their legal status during non-immigration enforcement, thereby limiting the controversial part of the bill. In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States, affirming that law enforcement can require the other party to confirm immigration status, but rejected other provisions.

>Alabama House Bill 56

>Alabama House Bill 56 (hereinafter referred to as Bill 56), the full name is the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act". It was signed into a state bill in June 2011. This bill is the most stringent anti-immigration bill in the United States, even more stringent than Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

Proposition 56 requires that if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is in the United States illegally when lawfully stopping, detaining, or arresting the person, the police may request confirmation of immigration status, unless such conduct would interfere with other official investigations. The bill also prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving any benefits at the state and local levels. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to attend public colleges or universities. Administrators of public elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools must annually confirm whether each student is an illegal immigrant. Although students who are illegal immigrants will not be excluded from schools, school districts must submit statistics on the number of suspected illegal immigrants every year when submitting reports to state education officials. The

bill also prohibits the transportation or reception of illegal immigrants. Homeowners cannot rent houses to illegal immigrants, and employers in the state cannot knowingly hire illegal immigrants. If an employer already hires an illegal immigrant but a resident with legal status is turned away, the employer could be sued for discrimination. The bill also requires large companies and small businesses to use an electronic certification system to confirm the immigration status of employees, and illegal immigrants will not be able to apply for jobs. The act of producing false documents is illegal. If you know that the other party is an illegal immigrant, the contract signed will be invalid.

This most stringent anti-immigration bill in U.S. history was passed amid controversy (but seems to be quite popular in Arizona) and has attracted many lawsuits. Different agencies and different people have different views. On August 20, 2012, the 11th Circuit Court held that most of the contents of Bill 56 were invalid. After the bill passed, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez sent a letter to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Alabama on December 2, 2011, reminding law enforcement officers to abide by their oath to "protect and serve all those they encounter." In Thomas' letter, he mentioned Bill 56, Chapter 4 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Olympus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. According to U.S. law, institutions receiving federal funding must comply with these laws and adhere to the basic requirements of non-discrimination, otherwise the federal government may terminate funding.

>Federal legislation preempts immigration issues

> Federal Ruling No. 12-884 (Alabama v. United States of America) is about Section 13 of Alabama Bill 56, which stipulates that "hiding, allowing entry, encouraging stay, or transporting aliens who have entered the United States in violation of federal law" is a state crime. The federal Supreme Court discussed: Does federal law preempt this provision?

In its analysis, the Supreme Court largely repeated the conclusion of Arizona v. United States. The Supreme Court emphasized its conclusion in the Arizona v. United States case that "the United States (federal) government has broad and unquestionable authority on immigration and alien matters." What follows from this is: The relationship between the United States and foreigners is an important relationship, and this relationship should be managed by the federal government. Although Alabama's laws govern the state's residents, it also governs the relationship between the United States and foreigners. On this issue, the federal government has absolute authority.

The Federal Supreme Court emphasized that the federal government has the authority to deal with immigration issues. The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that if (someone) knows that the other person is an illegal immigrant who has illegally entered or stayed in the United States, but still hides, shelters or shelters the other person to prevent the other person from being detained, he will be subject to criminal penalties. At the same time, the Immigration and Nationality Act also criminalizes those who encourage or induce aliens to illegally enter and remain in the United States. Foreigners may be punished by law when they illegally enter or re-enter the United States. The United States can also deport these illegal aliens, but from the perspective of federal law, merely staying illegally in the United States does not constitute a criminal offense. From the perspective of state and local governments, the federal government can require state and local governments to cooperate in handling immigration issues, but the initiative does not lie with state and local governments.

Accordingly, the Federal Court refused to hear the case and the request for a writ of transfer was denied.