The immigration history in America can be studied from four viewpoints namely: the colonial era, the mid nineteenth century, early twentieth century and after the year 1965. All the above brought into America a different yet distinct ethnicity, race and group. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw an approximated 175,000 Englishmen migrate into colonial America; half of which arrived as servants (Deege, Robert, Jon and Genovese 133). The 19C immigration was dominated by an incursion from Northern Europe, the 20th Century was characterized by Southern and Eastern European immigrants and the era subsequent to 1965 saw immigrants mostly originating from Asia and Latin America.
The great depression in 1930 saw more emigrants than immigrants to the US. A recorded 279,678 immigrants in 1929 drastically dropped to a meager 23,068 in 1933. Programmes, such as the Mexican Repatriation and Operation Wetback, aimed at coaxing the masses to willingly move to Mexico saw as many as 1.5 million Mexicans forcefully deported by the commencement of 1954.
The enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which equalized immigration policies, saw more non-European refugees settle in the U.S. resulting in the alteration of its ethnic make-up. European immigrants made up about 60% of total foreign population in 1970 and only 15% in 2000. Legal immigration into the States went up by 40% after George W. Bush signed the Immigration act in 1990 and the appointment of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform by Bill Clinton reduced legal immigration by slashing the number of recommended immigrants annually by about 300,000. The rapidly changing ethnic makeup of the citizens of U.S. presented its equal share of challenges but their contribution to the economy could not be ignored.
Almost eight million immigrants had settled in the country between the year 2000 and the year 2005, the highest number ever recorded. Half of them were illegal, the seven amnesties passed by congress for undocumented immigrants in 1986 notwithstanding. The reforms, signed by Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. The first victims of the 2007 recession were mainly Hispanic but its end in 2009 saw the immigrants gain over six hundred thousand jobs. This prompted the granting of legal residence of over 1 million immigrants.
Immigration was a major bone of contention leading up to the 2012 presidential election, the division of responsibility between the federal and state government being a focal point. Currently, the enforcement of immigration has been marred by conflict and disorganization. Devolution has greatly impacted immigration and this has seen the rise of local authorities’ involvement. Different jurisdictions have adopted differing policies and practices that have resulted in conflict among states.
Until recently, the federal government enforced national immigration laws. Involvement by the local law enforcement was novel. Nowadays it is impossible to enforce immigrant laws without involving local authorities mostly due to the gradual devolvement of power by the federal government since 1996. Local officers have received rigorous training on the arrest and subsequent screening of suspected undocumented immigrants; recent laws adopted by different states require it. (Bellia 48). Arizona’s SB1070 is one such law. Most of its elements bypassed the state’s jurisdiction but the sections authorizing the local police to question the immigration status of those they arrest were maintained, if they should suspect their immigration status. In order to aid and abet this, local jails have been given unrestricted access to federal immigrant data bases. This has had the opposite effect, further complicating the matter.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act made devolution a federal policy. The IIRIRA enlisted various state law enforcement agencies in a partnership with the federal government. They were now required by law to implement civil infringements of federal immigration laws. Presently, 63 agencies have been enlisted with about 1300 trained officers. However, this is a negligible percentage of the local departments countrywide which serves as a reminder to the federal government that it can only go as far as proposing or requesting state agencies to take on new law enforcement duties.
Discussions on how to increase state involvement with the federal immigration enforcement are still ongoing, eliciting contrasting outcomes. Larger cities oppose such partnerships although policy making is a responsibility charged entirely to the state. This conflicts with the fact that the sheriff wields a considerable amount of influence on matters involving the county. Implementation on federal immigration policies is therefore plagued by poor coordination of the policy makers involved leading to jurisdiction overlaps and constant conflicts. The most affected party is the immigrants, who are left thoroughly confused on which policy is prevalent. Community policing is also affected as all the available resources, by all the available local authorities, are directed towards the balancing of enforcement options (Deege, Robert, Jon and Genovese 36). Aptly dubbed the ‘multilayered jurisdictional patchwork’ immigration enforcement in the U.S.A is a mass of confusion and contradiction.
The time period between 1990 and 2000 was marked by a seemingly uncontrollable influx of documented immigrants into the country. Devolution of central authority to the local level was prompted by the nation’s government failure to curtail these flows. Federalism has been the go-to solution for limited government capacity, immigration was no different. Before their amendment, the immigration policies did not support this sharing of responsibility.
The relevance of immigration federalism is slowly gaining importance and relevance. Its definition is the state’s and localities’ responsibility of formulating and executing immigration law and policy. It has resulted into the emergence of two dynamics: the IIRIRA authorized devolution of immigration authorities and the welfare reform law of 1996 and the recent influx of immigration policies and implementation practices of the local authorities.
Debate rages on between those who are pro and anti-immigration federalism, each citing the constitutionality and desirability of the trend. Immigration federalist Peter Spiro was a staunch supporter of steam valve federalism, which supports the formation of immigration policies by local authorities to take the pressure off the federal government to pass an unfavorable national policy. (Bellia 33)While some scholars saw the outcome of this trend as not harmful to the immigrants, some view this as an enforcer against terrorism.
Both trends have been cited by immigration federalism activists as an oppressive tool to the immigrants. Devolution of federal authority is seen as an erosion of the 14th amendment which effectively stopped the local and federal discrimination of citizen based on their nation of origin. Immigration federalism leaves illegal immigrants before the mercy of the local state policies.
Court cases and referendums involving the immigration policy includes the California preposition 187. (Californian Coalition for Immigration Reform). Widely known as the SOS initiative, the campaign was launched to create a state running screening system of immigrants, which would deter further aliens from entering the state, therefore straining the already strained social services accorded to the state citizens. A referendum was held in November 1994 and the proposed law was passed, for the first time in the country. It was an issue restricted only to the federal government. Consequently the law was found unconstitutional when it was challenged in a legal suit but Governor Gray Davis impeded appeals in opposition to the made ruling. (Kozlowski and Jennifer 43)
The passage mirrored the concerns of the Californian citizens stemming from the huge influx of Hispanic residents into the U.S. and later their state. Proponents of the law emphasized their economy would not be able to support the entire population, immigrants included, while the opponents saw the article as discriminatory to the Hispanic and Asian immigrants.
The passing of this article was seen as an impediment to the federal governments’ effort to bring immigration to heel. Many Latino students and workers staged massive protests that were sadly counterproductive and did not interrupt voting. The law was passed by a large margin much to the dismay of the government and the immigrants. It faced many legal problems including numerous lawsuits against it. The law was subsequently killed when Governor Gray Davis withdrew the appeal in 1999. (Californian Coalition for Immigration Reform)
Rapid participation by the Latino population in election has not gone unnoticed in California. It might have caused the downfall of Gray Davis and resulted into the elections of an immigrant to the senatorial, gubernatorial and presidential seat since 1994. (Whithed 17)
Other states that have had such laws passed through a referendum include Arizona, Colorado, Florida Georgia Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico New York Oklahoma and Texas.
Works Cited
Bellia, Anthony J. Federalism. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. Print.
Clayton, James L. The Economic Impact of the Cold War: Sources and Readings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 2000. Print.
Deege, Robert, Jon Reich, and Sam Genovese. Federalism. Falls Church, VA N.p., n.d. Print.
Kozlowski, Darrell J, and Jennifer L. Weber. Federalism. New York: Chelsea House, 2010. Print.
Whithed, Marshall H. Urban Simulation Modeling Handbook. Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Fedralism [sic], Temple University, 2001. Print.,
