Classmate's editorial
I generally agree with your post due to your perspective on illegal immigration; however, I think allowing states to create their own immigration laws may not be constitutionally permissible.
Immigration represents one of the biggest and most controversial problems and concerns in the United States, and in Texas and Arizona these issues are magnified due to the states' proximity with the Mexican border. I completely agree with you that the illegal citizens should not be upset about having to show documentation. If someone is here legally, they should have no problem producing identification upon request. Your point that you had to show documentation while in China demonstrates an important point to the SB 1070 debate, that being that other countries require people to show their citizenship status, so why should it be so controversial in the United States? I think that all people living in the United States should be okay with having to do this since living here legally is required by law and since U.S. citizens must do this in other countries it does not seem to make much sense that we would not have a similar law. However, many would argue that this may not be a relevant argument since those countries' Constitutions and rights differ from those of the United States, and, therefore, would not be pertinent in discussing the legal regulations on illegal immigration in the United States. Moreover, I think that this aspect of 1070 becomes most controversial due to the racial profiling implications that such laws may produce, or some argue even require. While racial profiling and discrimination may be part of the illegal immigration debate, I do not think it is the deciding factor in upholding SB 1070 since it does not relate to whether the states have the power to regulate immigration; rather, it represents a wholly separate constitutional right issue. Therefore, I think that people living in the United States, of any color, and living anywhere, should be held to show their legal right to be in the United States, and the fact that race may come into play should not bear on the constitutionality of a portion of an immigration law when the law is being analyzed as to whether it is constitutional for regulating immigration. Since being in the United States unlawfully is illegal under the United States Constitution and federal laws, law enforcement should remove those who are breaking this law (as you reference and suggest); therefore, they need to have the ability to determine whether people are in fact in this country legally or illegally in order to uphold and enforce the Constitution.
When you suggest the pairing of federal and state laws to combat illegal immigration, I am unsure if you are suggesting that states should be able to enforce the federal immigration laws (as it seems in your first reference of this idea in your post) or states should be able to make their own laws on immigration in addition to federal laws (as your last sentence seems to imply). I completely agree with the notion that states should be able to have laws that support federal immigration laws and require state actors to do certain things in order to fulfill the end goals of federal laws, such as identifying someone unlawfully in the United States and reporting them so that they may be removed. Since those state laws would still be working to enforce federal immigration laws passed by Congress, I think that would likely be constitutional. However, if the state were to create its own laws on immigration, rather than enforcing a federal law through specific means by the state, I think the state would be violating the Constitution since the power to create immigration laws remains with Congress, not the states.
Overall, I agree with most of your argument and think your point that it "is the law" to be in the United States legally is key to this debate. Since there are federal laws to the effect that people should not be in the United States unlawfully, I agree that should be at the thrust of decisions in this area, rather than "basic notions of fairness" that Obama states, as you reference.
