Federal and state approaches to illegal immigration policy in the United States

Federalism

Illegal immigration the act of crossing national boundaries with people or the inhabitation of foreign nationals in another country (different from their home country) in a manner that causes a violation of the immigration laws and policies of their host country (Taylor 2007:6). Currently, the U.S. is one of the most affected globally by the illegal immigration population. As of 2008, it was estimated that about eleven million residents of the U.S. were illegal immigrants. The illegal immigration has elicited great debate and has made the federal government institute several policies in response to this problem (Preston 2008)

Federal government policy proposal on illegal immigration

In 1996, the congress passed two major Acts that guided the deportation of illegal immigrants in the U.S. The two acts passed include "The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)" and the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)" They are important legislations that have helped in minimizing the number of immigrants. They have also changed how criminal cases are handled: many people have eventually been deported. Before the legislation, immigrants violating state laws underwent a two-step process. First, the courts were expected to determine the prospects of deporting an individual. The second step allowed judges to review the entire process when one was considered unsuitable for deportation (Morawetz 2000). With the two Acts in place, many immigrants have been deported under the first step. The number has been increasing annually, partly because the two Acts expanded the definition of aggravated felony to include simple crimes like shoplifting. For instance, an immigrant judged for a crime of an aggravated felony is automatically liable to mandatory detention and deportation.

Another law passed by the U.S. congress is the Patriotic Act. This was passed a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks and gives the federal government more power in expanding its surveillance systems besides creating diverse conditions facilitating the deportation of an anyone suspected to be a terrorist or affiliated to a terrorist organization. With the Act, the Attorney General must 'certify' any illegal immigrant whom he believes has participated in terrorism activity and the individual must be taken into custody (Harvard Journal on Legislation 2002)

Assessment and comparison of the two proposals

The 1996 AEDPA and IIRIRA Acts passed by Congress critically curtail the rights of immigrants to a fair trial. In cases where an illegal immigrant is deported for aggravated felony without the possibility of his deportation status undergoing a full review, his right to be heard is| denied. The Patriotic Act allows the Attorney General excessive powers that can be misused as it can lead to mandatory detention on inadequate charges once they have been certified by the office of Attorney General. The federal government approach can also bring up complications in cases of children born to illegal immigrant's parents in the U.S.

The State of California in contrast, has established a creative proposal to the problem of illegal immigrants. As such, its laws are aimed at turning illegal immigrants to be legal ones. Since illegal immigrants continue entering the U.S. borders, the best proposal would be, therefore, to regularize their stay in America and bring divers reforms to the migration system. These reforms will be instrumental in encouraging future immigrants to follow legal channels in getting entry to the U.S. Therefore, I would recommend that the federal government adopts and emulates the California State's example