I’m trying to study for my Law course and I need some help to understand this question.
You just basically responding to the student post of what you felt compelling and enlightening.
Student paper down below:
Immigration laws have been a subject that has sometimes been a major problem in the United States for a long time now. Whether you are for the many immigration laws or against it, the subject of immigration will always be a sensitive and touchy matter to deal with. Is there a right or wrong answer to solve all the immigration laws or acts that should be considered laws? There will never be a quick and easy fix to so many immigration problems that have not only been caused by our neighbor Mexico, but by many other countries as well. However, do I think that states should have a sovereign right to enact laws that mirror federal laws when it comes to dealing with immigration? I think that if it can help keep illegal aliens out of the country then why not mirror the same federal laws that are currently working. If it is not currently working then there would be no point in mirroring these laws from the federal side of immigration control. Although that is how I think that it works, unfortunately my vote wouldn’t matter much when it comes to federal versus state immigration laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states (Federal vs. State Immigration Laws, 2019). Basically this is saying what belongs to the federal government belongs to the federal government and what belongs to the state needs to be handled by the state.
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court handles immigration issues in a very humane and ethical manner. I say this because when they deport an illegal alien, they do not hurt them in any way. They simply return him or her to their home country. Something to remember that when the U.S. Supreme Court handles these illegal immigrants, it is important to know that most detainees facing deportation are dealing with administrative charges in a civil process, rather than criminal. This means that they do not have a constitutional right to an attorney, where such protections would only apply to criminal law (Feere, 2019). I would interpret this as very professional and very civilized. If you would look at other countries, if you were to cross into some of those illegally, you could be killed on the spot without even so much as a trial. I would say that research shows that the immigrants that illegally come to our country actually have it fairly good.
Does the majority rule in a federal republic when it comes to immigration issues? I believe that it does because of how it is made up. First of all, one would have to understand just how a federal republic operates. The federal republic can be defined as a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives (The world factbook, n.d.). This means that voting one way or another will determine which laws become effective and how each issue about immigration can be ruled upon. This is why the majority will rule because the decision that has the most votes will basically say how it should be done. Other countries handle this in a different matter and are not ruled by the majority of the voters. Some countries do not even allow their citizens to vote. However in the United States, this is how we have always conducted business and I do not see this changing any time soon.