Historical development of Intergovernmental relations leading to the development of the DREAM ACT
Executive Summary
The federal government has always been on the forefront in developing policies to control and govern the alien population that is in the country. Initially, the government of the United States did not have any enacted policy that allowed the approximately 65,000 undocumented minors to be citizens of the country. The lack of legal status for this immigrant jeopardized their dreams of working in the country and exposed them to deportation. There has been growing agreements in the congress over the last decade to formulate policies that could allow the aliens minors to be incorporated into the country’s citizenship (Perez, 2009). In this paper, focus will be on the relationship between the intergovernmental institutions with regard to the development of this new policy. A view of the historical development that led to this policy being necessary will also be looked into. Many minors have been able to benefit from the implementation of this act though it has had its own set of challenges and opposition from the respective authorities (Burns, A. & Bush, 2010).
The main aim of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors-DREAM Act was to provide permanent residence for the young aliens. It received support from both the democrats and the republicans in the congress (Whitehouse, 2013). This act had a great impact on the lives of the residence of United States of America. The conditions for the incorporation of these aliens into the country’s citizens were that they should be have lived in the U.S for at least 5 years, of good moral character, graduate from a U.S high school and they should also have completed two years at a four year institute of learning or two years in military service. This act is expected to have great impact on the education, military and economy of country. Everybody is entitled to obtain Higher Education, though many argue that these rights should only be given to the legal citizens in United States of America.
The federal government has bestowed responsibilities on the State, the tribal and local governments to ensure that the immigration acts are followed as stipulated. These governments also have their machinery that they use to implement these set regulations. The state police and the local police have clear functions outlined in the Immigration and National Act. They are given the responsibility of enforcing any violation of the federal laws on immigration when criminal acts are incorporated. Both these police forces are not certain if they are supposed or even have authority to detain the alien law breakers for civil right violations. The federal government has yet to develop policies that will determine if being in the United States illegally is a civil or criminal offence. In some instances, the local government has made agreement with the federal government to find the civil right immigration offenders using either of their law enforcement personnel (Burns, A. & Bush, 2010). These policies are made over political, geographic, demographic, and economic factors that have a determining factor on the presence of the aliens. The enforcement of the DREAM Act is done across several levels of government authority. These determining factors give a motivational drive for policy incorporation in partnering with federal governments and the state localities.
Some states passed their own local immigration policies to govern the presence of the immigrants in their region. The state of Arizona, in 2010, passed the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 which criminalized anyone’s presence in the state without immigration document. The local police were mandated to arrest and detain any aliens. This caused a tussle between the federal government and the State of Arizona. The U.S Justice Department sued this state for over riding the federal government laws on immigration. This therefore has brought a lot of concern and national attention to the implementation and development of policies to govern the aliens. The implementation of the DREAM Act therefore should be well intertwined between the local government and the federal government authorities. Often, the relationship between the federal-state immigration policies is complicated and calls for care in the enactment and development into laws. The IIRIRA-Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which was passed in 1996 provided an opportunity for corporation in the enforcement o the federal laws of immigration. This law allowed for the county, state, and the local government to make willing agreements between themselves and the federal immigration office (Perez, 2009). This provided for the law enforcers in their particular areas of jurisdiction to have training and give a helping hand to the federal officers in the identification of the illegal immigrants in the country. This act has been politicized by most of the states publicly differing on the manner of enforcing and making agreements regarding these developments. Many states have to date made agreement with the federal authorities on how to deal with the illegal immigrants.
The corporation between the state and the federal government on issues of immigration has had adverse effects on the manner of enforcement and the role of the federal and local authorities. The citizens of the country and the non citizens have been directly affected by their interaction with the law at all levels. Some local authorities have supported the corporation of the corporation with the national government to enforce immigration laws while other does not support them at all (Burns, A. & Bush, 2010). Every state or local authority has its own reasons for their decision pertains to the effect that it has on the local population.
Migration controls were initiated as early as before the Second World War. Many immigrants were moving into the United State in search of greener pastures due to the harsh conditions brought about by the First World War and the promise of better living conditions in this foreign land. Low restrictions were given to the Asian and the European immigrants in 1880 to 1920. High unemployment during the great depression forced Mexicans to flow into the US and most of them were deported back to their country during this hard time. This was the period that the federal government was made the chief arbiter of policies regarding immigration. There was often referred to as the Classical Immigration Law period. This was established in the 1880s and during the First World War. No major changes were witness during this time until the 1960s.
During and after the Second World War, the US government made agreements with states to make a program that would allow the immigrants to migrate to the country due to the shortage of labor in their factories. During this time, most of the countries workers hard been enrolled into the military, moreover, there was improvements in technology and increase of agricultural activities which needed more labor. For instance, the state of Mexico signed an agreement with the federal government in 1942 to form a program that was to allow the migrant guest workers into the country to boast the human labor force. This program came to be known as the Bracero Program. This program was established and it favored the Mexican immigrants over others. This Mexicans were given a minimum wage guarantee, transport, health benefits and also housing. The authority of enforcement of this program was given to the Mexican consuls after the agreement was signed by the Mexican government officials and the US. This program was in place until 1962. The worker then persuaded the federal government and the democrats in congress to eliminate this program (Perez, 2009).
Immigration policy changes since 1986 has continuously produced positive results. There was the passage of the IRCA-Immigration Reform and Control Act which criminalized illegal migration into the country. This law gave the US government the authority that made life changing decisions for many of the residence in the country (Perez, 2009). At the local level, the local Legalization Officer gave interviews to those that desired to migrate to the US and then this was forwarded to the regional offices for reviewing. This federal government gave authority to the states and local authorities to conduct assessment that would see an immigrant given permanent residency in the country. The federal government then did no provide for the public benefits for the first five years of stay which was mandated upon the State to provide them. The states were reimbursed for these expenses by the federal government with $1 billion yearly for a period of four years under the State Legalization Impact Assessment Grant program. This program entailed the incorporation of immigrants who had been in America before 1982 and for some identified unauthorized workers in the farms.
In 1990, the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed by congress which allowed increased spending at the borders and also criminalized employer who employed illegal non citizens. The IIRIRA of 1996 also came with more restrictions on the illegal immigrants and government responsibilities. The DREAM Act was first introduced into the senate in 2001. It was targeted at the young aliens only who passed a criterion for permanent residency. There was a crisis in 2005 over the enrollment of new recruits into the army which further necessitated the passing of this bill. It was seen that it would close this gap as some of the aliens would be allowed into the military. The federal courts are courts system that represents each state. They are separate courts but are not entirely independent of each other. These courts help in the interpretation of the laws that are passed by congress and ensure that the laws are correctly implemented. The state government and the federal government are both deemed to be sovereign. The Supreme Court of the United States of America handles the appeal cases (Perez, 2009).
The debate over the corporation of the States with the federal government over the implementation of immigration laws comes from the impact of the growth of the American federalism. Immigration policy has been given to the federal government and the states important roles are often ignored. Important contributions that have been given in the past by the state governments are ignored by the federal dominance. The roles of implementation of the immigration policies have overlapping roles that the federal government has established. This roles overlap between the local governments, the state, and the federal government itself. However, the powers of the federal governments are expansive in American history; the policy development is still seen to come from the cooperation of federal-state relation and also the devolution that has mandated the states and the local governments.
Initially during the founding of the nation, immigration policy establishment was a reserve of the localities and the states. They established policies that regulated the entry and the residence of immigrants in the USA. However, the federal government took part passively in the development of these policies as seen in the Alien and Sedation Act of 1798. The federal government wanted to allow immigrants to be given full citizenship and did not go by the immigration policy of the time. Over time, the federal government established its supremacy over the other governments and authorities in immigration policy making. The government prohibited the imposing of taxes on immigrant between states and local governments who might become public charges of the particular state or of the transporter who brought them in.
There are legal conflicts on opinion to the exact extent of the powers of the federal government as the overall authority on the policies touching on immigration. Many scholars have argued against the interpretation of the law that gives the federal government inherent powers over immigrant’s policies. In public’s concerns, immigration is an issue of the state and the local governance levels although this issue is almost wholly deliberated at the federal government level.
Each state bears the cost of the main three mandated cost of immigration including; that all children regardless of their citizenship be given free education, regardless of persons citizenship, emergency services must be provided, and finally that all aliens that the federal government has not deported be incarcerated for their criminal offences. Some states have sued the federal governments for the expenses that they have incurred in the enforcement immigration laws but have been unsuccessful. As we examine the interstate relationship with regard to DREAM Act, it is very important to put into perspective this tensions that exists between the federal government and the states and the repercussions of such policies. It been argued that the classical laws of immigration are being defeated two forms of pressure; that of structural changes witnessed in politics and the economic changes, and change in ideas regarding legal analysis and partnerships.
How the laws and policies are implemented by the state and localities in the United States of America shows the inherent tension that there is in the federal system. The overlapping dualism in the content of the immigration policy and in the country’s legal system for criminal and civil violations has heightened this tension. There has been three events that ahs changed the notion on the enforcement of civil and criminal act by the on the immigrants, that is if it the local or the federal government that is responsible. These events are the 9/11 attacks, passage of the IIRIRA and the sentiments by the Attorney General Ashcroft’s John Office of Legal Counsel. IIRIRA passage opened doors for the devolution of the enforcement responsibilities to the localities and the state on immigration matters. A memorandum of understanding has to be entered into by the local and state agencies in order to take part in federal law enforcement activities.
Conclusion
There has been a very broad acknowledgment that the young children who arrived in the United States at a tender age should not be punished for not having immigration documentations. Its argued that they have been brought up and given an education in the United States of America and therefore they should be part of the system. Many have agreed that these youngsters should be allowed to be part of the system. However legislation has to be provided that will give a guidance on how their incorporation is to be implemented. The DREAM Act was therefore drafted. This law should be well interpreted to avoid confusion and prevent the penalizing of well deserving minor aliens. The benefits of the law should be taken into consideration.
However, the DREAM Act would allow illegal minors in the United States to give evidence that they migrated to the country before they attained the age of 16 years and have been in the United States for at least five consecutive years. After a full background check of the student and confirmation that they possess a good moral character, they be allowed in state tuition and their path to citizenship shortened after a higher degree or two years of military service. Many of the suffering aliens will have rights that are supported by the law (Burns, A. & Bush, 2010). The country will have a highly skilled labor that will enable the economy to grow and even sustain it. Future generations that will be a product of these aliens will have a brighter future since they will have parents that will be able to support them socially and also economically. Instances of child labor will decrease drastically as most children will have the opportunity to be in formal education as opposed to hiding from the law as they may be illegally in the country (Burns, A. & Bush, 2010).
Reference
Burns, A. & Bush, R. (2010). Marketing Research. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson Education.
Kaplan, R. & Saccuzzo, D. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Bruno, A. (2011). Unauthorized Alien Student: Issues and ŻDREAM Actż Legislation. New York: DIANE Publishing.
Mayorga, E., Picower, B., & Rader, S. (2008). Camouflaged. New York: Lulu.com.
Perez, W. (2009). We are Americans:Undocumented Students Pursuing the American Dream. New York: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
The DREAM Act. (2012, N.D). The DREAM Act. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from The DREAM Act: http://dreamact.info/Wepman, D. (2008). Immigration. Chicago: Infobase Publishing.
Whitehouse. (2013). THE DREAM ACT: GOOD FOR OUR EC. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/DREAM-Act-WhiteHouse-FactSheet.pdf
