The Obama Administration filed a lawsuit on November 1, 2001 claiming that a South Carlina law requiring immigrants to carry a certificate of registration and that gives law enforcement agents with reasonable suspicion the authority to determine whether a person is legally in the country is unconstitutional.
The law is set to take effect January 1, 2012. The Justice Department contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration policy. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley who in June signed into law the state legislature’s Act No.69 said, “This state can no longer afford those who don’t come here the right way and we are now going to do something about it.” For the full article, please click on the link below:
For students in U.S. Constitution and American Society, please respond to the following question: Do you think that this South Carolina law is unconstitutional? Please refer to the text of the Constitution to support your answer.
This is most definitely unconstitutional, South Carolina is crazy if they believe this would be a way of helping to stop the flow of illegal immigration. The 4th Amendment clearly states that people are to be secure in their persons, homes and anything else pertaining to them against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is supported by if their is no probable cause there is no reason to search or basically even ask questions. S.C. is saying that law enforcement only needs reasonable suspicion, which is the lowest form of need to warrant an officer’s asking of questions, or doing basic searches etc. I don’t think this state has any room to make a law such as this, people come to this country for a new start, not to be harassed. Yes I do get that people come here illegally, but not EVERY immigrant should have to carry around documentation stating that they are here legally, when they did things the proper way. It’s like yes come to America and start a new life, but the police have every right to stop you whenever they want if they have the mere suspicion that you are an immigrant. I think they should work on the situation and find a better approach to cracking down on illegal immigrants, this way is a bit to invasive to basically everyone’s privacy.
The 4th Amendment (and all other amendments) applies to citizens of the United States. It doesn’t apply to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens have not gone through the proper channels to become citizens or even green card carriers. If they are here legally, they shouldn’t have a problem with producing documentation to prove it, just as you have to prove you have a license if stopped by an officer doing DUI checks, etc. Since 9/11 and the creation of Homeland Security there has been a tighter rein on illegal aliens. If anyone can come to the United States without documentation, we are just inviting an unsafe environment.
I think that South Carolina is setting up a second line of defense against people coming into this country illegally is a good idea. As we have learned, if a subject has been addressed by the Constitution then the states cannot make a law which contradicts the Federal government’s laws. After reviewing the Constitution and the amendments, while it does speak to the rights of citizens of the United States, i didn’t see anything in regards to rights of illegal aliens.
Obama is ignoring the southern boundaries of our country and yes, EVERY immigrant should have to carry legal documentation until they become a citizen of the our country. As citizens, we have to carry some sort of identification, whether a birth certificate, a driver’s license or state i.d. card. If you cannot prove who you are or where you live, you can be detained by police and declared a vagrant.
There has to be a contiguous law which requires anyone who is not a citizen of the United States to be deported and this should be rigorously enforced across the country.
Illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. In an economic time such as the one we are experiencing now, with unemployment rates up as high as 10%, we cannot afford to have undocumented persons taking precious jobs that could go to citizens of this country, people who were actually born here and have a LEGAL right to live and work here.
Just to be sure, I am not against people coming into this country legally and through the proper channels, but I am against people sneaking in and taking our money, our jobs and the privileges of being an American. South Carolina, and other states which are also trying to enforce legal immigration, are trying to protect this country in their own way.
With all do respect, I have to disagree with you. I understand where you are coming from on the points of protecting our country and yes the Constitution does not address illegal aliens directly. However, it can be argued that the 14th Amendment gives the Federal Government precedence in matters of immigration and citizenship.
Besides, what if you are a citizen of Hispanic origins and you are stopped by a police officer and asked to hand over documentation proving that you are a citizen. In that case this is a citizen whose privacy rights have been violated. Rights that are protected by the Constitution. Personally I do not carry my Birth Certificate in my pocket, nor my social security card. Not until last year did I get a license so if I was to be asked by a officer of the law to prove that I am a citizen I would be unable to do so.
As to your point of jobs, most of the jobs that immigrants are “stealing” from hard working Americans, we would not do any ways. They are not stealing our wealth, they are barely making money to survive.
Personally I think politicians are playing on the fears of Americans to assert more control over the population.
I believe that this law is unconstitutional because it undermines people’s 4th Amendment rights. The 4th Amendment is about illegal Searches and Seizure and it states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It states in the amendment that law enforcement officers cannot look at your papers without a warrant.
Also, in amendment 14, section 1; it explains how to become a citizen. Section 5 of that amendment gives the power of enforcing, with legislation, this amendment. I my interpretation of this, is that the federal government has power over immigration policy and the state governments cannot set their own immigration laws.
Is the South Carolina Immigration law Constitutional? In my opinion no it is unconstitutional. These types of state legislation have been drafted since Reconstruction. The Back Codes and Jim Crowe Laws; for example, hold the same merit as the immigration laws in both Arizona, and now South Carolina. The majority of people in times of economic uncertainty, decide that the price they pay for immigrants or minority persons is to great a cost. Despite the fact, the jobs these people tend to hold are ones no one in the majority are willing to take.
Despite my beliefs that these types of laws are unreasonable and immoral, the fact of the matter, is under the Constitution are these states allowed to make laws regarding immigration that gives law enforcement agents the power to determine whether a person is in this country legally. The U.S. Justice Department claims, “South Carolina’s law clearly conflicts with the policies and priorities adopted by the federal government and therefore cannot stand.”
What it boils down to is what power is supreme, Federal or State Government?
In this case I would turn to the 14th Amendment (1868) that addresses the issues of citizenship and equal rights.
Section 1 “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
And Section 5, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This gives power to the Federal Government taking away the States right to enforce such laws. Federal Government has been given this power by the Constitution therefore State legislation that contradicts such laws are unconstitutional. If it were not for a clause in the Constitution giving Federal Government this right then the South Carolina would be allowed to apply legislation under the tenth Amendment.
I like the fact that all three of you referred directly to the Constitution, though different portions of it. Just to play devil’s advocate, where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government, in particular the executive branch, has jurisdiction over immigration?
The Constitution doesn’t specifically state anywhere that the federal government or any particular branch has control over immigration. It does not provide any direction of power over which branch has power to do what, what there is is something known as plenary power, which is the ability of Congress and the executive branch to regulate immigration. “…the political branches have been able to exclude and deport aliens or deny certain benefits according to political, social, economic, or other considerations, largely without being second-guessed by the judicial branch” – Jon Feere.
I believe that this immigration law trying to be passed in South Carolina is unconstitutional. The law being passed is allowing the police and other law officials to search anyone that look suspicious of being an illegal immigrant. I believe this is more of a stereotype than a law. There are many immigrants that came to this country legally and they should not be burdened with these laws that will make them have to constantly carry ID and always being worried that they could be searched at any time. This violates the 4th amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. There is no probable cause or any reason that justifies the search besides the suspicion of the person being an illegal immigrant. The 4th amendment states that no property or person can be seized without a warrant or probable cause. This means that an immigrant cannot be randomly searched to show identification and prove they are a legal citizen. There is no physical attributes that can prove someone to be a legal or illegal immigrant. This would cause these law officials to constantly stop large percentages of everyone they believe to be an illegal immigrant even if they have lawfully obtained their citizenship.
This also relates to the 14th amendment because it has to do with citizenship in the United States. Section 1 of Amendment 14 states that:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Section 5, after this section, states that congress has the power to enforce the legislations mentioned in the article. This means that congress has the power over states to enforce the laws on immigration. The article is correct when saying that if the feds were doing their job they would not have to take this issue to the state level.
I still believe that these state laws dealing with immigration are unconstitutional and violate portions of the fourth and fourteenth amendments. There is no reason that every person that seems suspicious of being an illegal immigrant should be searched by law officials. This seems like it will cause more problems than it will solve.
I believe this law is unconstitutional. The fourth amendment gives people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. It protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is completely going against the fourth amendment. How can you have probable cause by just looking at someone? You need a warrant to search someone or their property so what gives you the right to go search someone or ask questions based on suspicion. I believe they have gone about this situation in the wrong way. That’s not going to stop illegal immigrants from coming here. If one person looks suspicious but they’re not, then the person that doesn’t look suspicious could be the one that is illegal. There’s nothing to justify what one person’s suspicion against another person could be. It’s violating people’s constitutional rights, so it’s unconstitutional. As West said in the article that not only is it unconstitutional, it’s going to create more problems than it solves, seems like a very true statement. As I heard once before, law officers should not be able to break the law in order to enforce it.
I have to state this again. Isn’t the 4th Amendment a right to citizens only? Can anyone just come into America and claim rights and privileges that are due an American? Where would this country be financially? Security-wise? Doesn’t each and every person carry identification? I know this isn’t in the Constitution, but shouldn’t the states also have laws to protect their citizens where the Federal government fails?
I would also like to mention that there are criminals who have escaped their own countries and come to America. Such people might have a tendency to enter the country illegally, without documentation or proof of whom they are or why they are here. Do we want to take the chance that people of this type are running around our country with no documentation. This is an infringement on our own sense of safety. It is not something that can be overlooked because an individual is taking it personally officers are being cautious. It is the same thing as the back scatter x-ray machines at the airport. Do they infringe upon our sense of privacy? Sure they do. Is that why they have been put into use at airports all over the country? Absolutely not. They have been put into place to insure security in our country. I surely would choose safety over a moment of possible embarrassment.
I think Bunni raises an excellent point. The question then becomes, however, if a person is here legally and yet South Carolina authorities believe (falsely) they have good reason for suspecting a person is here illegally, isn’t that a violation of that individual’s 4th Amendment right? Does that citizen have a claim that his or her constitutional rights have been violated?
I think that as Americans we have to make some sacrifices for safety’s sake. Anyone who doesn’t understand this, considering what we have been through as a country, should reconsider where they are living. Is asking for an i.d. such a bad thing? I don’t think it constitutes an unreasonable search. Reasonable search doesn’t mean “on a whim”, it means there has to be something about that person or his/her behavior which constitutes a question in the officer’s eyes.
I like what Bunni is saying. I understand that a lot of people would say that this law is racist because it’s directed towards immigrants who probably have different color skin and “funny” names. But if they’re not a legal citizen yet, then yes, they need to have ID and their certificate. No, things weren’t always like this. But 9/11 only had to happen once for us to crack down on security.
I agree, all Amendments, and particularly the 4th since some think it applies here, only protect American citizens. Any immigrant could be stopped and searched if they’ve done something suspicious or given law enforcement any reason to suspect wrongdoing.
This law isn’t a stereotype; these people really DID attack our country. Not all of them, but it was a serious enough threat to our security that now we’re taking no chances.
So the 4th Amendment does NOT apply here, and no, this law is not unconstitutional. Once these immigrants have become legal citizens, this law no longer applies to them.
Thanks Emma. And you are absolutely right, it only had to happen one time for people to become more concerned. Honestly, haven’t we all seen the commercial about “something”‘ If you see “something” you should alert someone because something might be nothing, but it could be something!
Also, I believe you are correct in saying all the amendments are for citizens only, and immigrants are required to carry i.d. and documentation.
Yea it only had to happen once! Are we really gonna take a chance on it happening again? I don’t want anything like a repeat of 9/11 EVER!
I believe that South Carolina’s law is unconstitutional. First of all, what would South Carolina do about immigrants that are traveling from another part of the U.S. to South Carolina? For example, many people travel to South Carolina’s coast every summer. If other states do not require immigrants to carry certification, then are they violating South Carolina’s law if they are in South Carolina without a certificate?
Second, this law affects the U.S.’s foreign policy. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal government the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations”. Commerce usually refers to the buying and selling of goods but it can also mean social dealings between people. If South Carolina treats an immigrant badly, this reflects the U.S. as a whole and can create problems with another nation. Article 1, Section 8 also give the federal government the right to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. If South Carolina has this law and other states do not, then there is not a uniform way of dealing with aliens.
I think that in this generation, if an officer suspects anything suspicious then they should look into it further (checking I.D’s and backround checks, and green cards if they were not born here in America.) I dont think it is right to stop random people who look unamerican and ask to see proof of American Citisonship. This to me seems very racist and can casue alot more problems. Americans are checked daily for registeration; when driving, applying for jobs, ex. People have no problem with this, why then is it a problem to check suspisous people considering what happened to the coutry after 9/11. This law seems to be a good idea if it is not abused, meaning no random checks, only when there is suspicion.
Even if you believe in this law, the problem is that this law was not made by the federal government so there is not consistency across the country.
Sara, I believe there are currently six other states which have similar laws as the one South Carolina is proposing. If some states are taking the initiative to pass into law additional protection for the citizens of their state, I say good for them. If is a case which is somewhat similar to the death penalty. It varies from state to state, but what doesn’t vary is that immigrants HAVE to carry i.d. and documentation proving that they are in the United States legally (just as murder is illegal, but not all states carry the death penalty). If the federal government cannot do a sufficient job of keeping track of illegal immigrants, it should be legal for states to add another line of defense against illegal immigration.
AGREED!!
yes i learned this in high school. i feel that this is unconstitutional because it goes against the 14th amendment. you can be a citizen walking down the streets and if you look “like an immigrant” the officials have a right to stop you..which means they will be mostly stopping hispanics. this is racism and discrimination. and you HAVE to carry your documents or i.d on you, if you dont and they think you are an immigrant you can get taken into custody. i believe the whole immigration thing itself is dumb. if people want to come to our country to live a better life they should be able to. As they say “America is a free country” so why not let others have the chance to that same freedom. yes i understand they shouldnt just come without being somewhat evaluated to make sure their intensions are good but other than that they are mostly here to work and make a living. i also feel the states shouldnt be making these kind of laws, i believe it is up to the government to make such big decisions without going against the constitution.
I have a couple of responses. First, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not take jobs away from Americans. Rather, they tend to do work that most Americans do not want. Also, studies show that immigrants are responsible for stimulating the economy not contributing to its decline. It should also be noted that immigrants contribute to population increases in a positive manner. Nations that do not have steady increases in population growth tend to suffer from decline. Any healthy society replenishes itself through population increases and a balance between young and old. If you look at nations such as Greece, Italy, and France, there are long-term social problems they face from population decline.
The United States would be in the same position except for one significant factor: immigrants coming in by the tens of thousands each year and having lots of children. You can make the argument that immigrants are saving the United States from the same decline that we are seeing in European nations.
On an unrelated note, Arelis mentioned that anyone who wants to come here, so long as their intentions are good, should be allowed to. Does that include immigrants who come here without the proper documentation? I would suggest that the rule of law matters in this case. We have a legal system in place and if we do not honor it then we will undermine the very Constitution that provides rights to citizens. If we think that the law pertaining to immigrants is not a just one, then we should work to change it, not bypass it.
These are my thoughts for now. All your comments have been quite good. Keep it up. I hope to hear from the rest of the class as well.
Dr. Fierro, I agree that immigration is good for the country, but legal immigration, not people coming into the country without going through the proper channels. There are illegal immigrants who are taking jobs that I am sure someone would want. We are facing an unemployment rate of approximately 9.0 percent, per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the month of October and I am sure there are people who would take a job beneath their abilities so they can support their families. I do believe that I personally know people who would gladly clean houses, and toilets for that matter, be nannies, groundskeepers, or maids, but the jobs are taken by illegal immigrants. There have been a slew of articles published about politicians or people running for office who hire illegal nannies, housekeepers, maids, etc. In most cases they are paid less than an American might be paid, but they do exist and they are taking someone else’s job and therefore increasing the unemployment rate of Americans and legal immigrants. What hope do we have if politicians even hire illegals and know they are doing so–illegally.
In my Composition class a few semesters ago I wrote a paper on the issue of Illegal Immigration in this country. Originally, I believed that illegal immigration was a horrible issue that needed to be prevented. However, throughout the course I learned about the lives of these people, and of the positive effect they had. In the Composition course we read a book by Ted Conover, titled Coyotes: A journey through the Secret World of America’s Illegal Aliens. The book was about an undercover journalist posing as an illegal immigrant. He went as far as crossing the Mexican border with the illegals, working with them, and living among them. The book taught me about the lives of some of these people, and it helped me understand the issue much more. The majority were hardworking at jobs that most Americans wouldn’t even consider.
I believe that this new law is unconstitutional. It violates the fourth amendment. Nowhere in the text of the fourth amendment does it specify that it is exclusively for citizens. It says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” Don’t immigrants, even illegal ones, qualify as people also? In addition to the fourth, it also violates the 14th because it has the potential to abridge privileges and immunities of those who are citizens.
Beyond the unconstitutionality of the law, I also have little faith in it working. What qualifies as a “reasonable suspicion?” And if officials are just working off of these suspicions, many illegals are sure to slip through the cracks. I believe that the money spent in order to enforce this law will greatly exceed the results.
Jess provides an interesting perspective on the issue of illegal immigration.
When I finished reading this article my first though was thats its unconstitutional for states to create immigration laws. The 4th Amendment is about illegal Searches and Seizure and it only seems fair that an officer would need a warrant to look at someones papers. It also doesnt seem right for officers to randomly select people that appear to be illegal immigrants based on race and skin color. However, after reading Bunny’s opinion on the article i will have to agree with her side of the argument. The amendments of the constitution are rights given to citizens of the united states, not people who illegally make there way into he country. People may take offense when they are accused of being an illegal immigrant but people need to realize that removing illegal immigrants will help secure the saftey of citiznes as well as help South calonlina with other problems such as the affording the poeople that live in the state.
Thanks Lauren! It does really come down to making this country a more safe and secure place for people who live here legally.
I beleive south carolinas law is constitutional…it seems that they’re just trying to have a little bit more control over immigration and maybe make it a little harder to live as an immigrant in America (or at least South Carolina) instead of as an American citizen. Like others have said, if this law applied to an “american citizen” then yes, it would violate the 4th ammendment (having a right against unreasonable searches and seizures)…but because this law is directed at people who are not yet considered citizens, it is certainly constitutional. If an immigrant isnt happy with a law such as this, then maybe they should become a citizen and be protected from unreasonable searches.
I agree with Lisa and no matter what the court decides I believe this type law would help to strengthen our immigation policies. I do need to mention that the road to becoming an American citizen can be a long one with many obstacles. It could take (en years or more in some cases.
I have a friend who attended Tunxis last year who has been going through the process for eleven years. One little mistake and you start all over! Regardless, they continue with the process and the obstacles because they desire to be Americans. Having to carry documents does not deter them. In fact it is more like they carry them with the knowledge that someday they won’t be required to do so.
Can you imagine the stress levels of someone who is illegally here? Always wondering if they will get caught today?
I think Obama needs to get down to the business of being a president for this country. He should leave these states alone. They are reinforcing safety for Americans when he doesn’t reinforce immigration policy with the same iron fist he is stifling South Carolina.
I understand why South Carolina wants to put this law into effect. Illegal immigration has been an issue in the US for years and it’s clear that South Carolina wants to take a stand and deport the illegal immigrants that are in the state. Over the summer I went on vacation to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. While there I participated in conversation with the workers and I found out that a good portion of them came from other countries to work for so many months and then go home. So to some extent I can see why South Carolina wants to make it a requirement for immigrants to have documentation. I’m going to take a guess and say that the people that I came across had green card and I’m sure that there have been immigrants with expired green cards that stay in this country.
However I do see more bad than good coming out of this law.Many people have stated that they think this law is unconstitutional and I agree. In the article it states the purpose if this law is to,” criminalizes an immigrant’s failure to carry a certificate of registration.” In my eyes this seems rather unfair. I don’t see why an immigrant who are in this country legally should have to prove their citizenship. They worked hard to come here, they took all the right steps to citizenship so why should they be treated any differently than a person that is born in this country. In a way it seems a little like segregation and I feel that this law goes against the idea of equality. I believe that equality can determine a persons happiness and when people are treated unequally it effects their pursuit of happiness. Also in the article it states that the law, ” requires law enforcement agents with reasonable suspicion to determine whether a person is lawfully in the U.S.” This statement makes me questionable because immigrants come from all over the world so how does someone determine who looks like an illegal immigrant and who doesn’t. If anything I can see this law leading to discrimination and other problems.
everyone has good points and do provide good explanations. and i agree with shannon in the consitution it does say everyone should be treated equally, so why should immigrants have to work more for less the pay. i understand they are here illegally but they are people and we do not know their background so why act so hastily. i understand that people should not come here illegally and they should have documentation but what if theres a reason why they cant but their intensions are still good. then we should let them be, how can we speak of the constitution aand doing everything to not go against it when we ourselves are not taking it into consideration. if we are the land of the free then why not let them be free. as long as they dont cause us any harm i dont see the problem.
The 10th Amendment gives State (and it’s citizens) the power to make their own laws. . . . . and that, like it or not, was the mandate as intended.
If someone can show me where the Federal Government can supersede this . . . . please do so.