Federal Immigration Policy Analysis

959 Words2 Pages

Federalism in action is the process of the complex network of governments within the federal system. It is the shared revenues of lower units of government that are mandated to perform under specific requirements in order to receive federal assistance. One such primary function of states and localities is to integrate immigrants into the union of the United States and thus to bring the country to terms with demographic change. There are currently mandates in place for sub federal immigration regulation that demonstrate how the federal-state-local dynamic operates as an integrated system to manage immigration. However, this process cannot be managed by a single government, and it often results in states and localities adopting positions in …show more content…

Nowhere is this change more apparent than in fiscal federalism and the economic connection that exists within the intergovernmental funding system. Among the most debatable regulatory trends of recent years is the rise of state and local efforts designed to control immigrant movement and define immigrant access to government funding. Politicians who have addressed immigration federalism largely have focused on whether the national government or the states will be better at protecting or advancing immigrants’ interests. However, the Constitutional conditions set forth in 1787 created the precedence that the states would give up their power to the federal government in order to “form a more perfect union” and in turn, the federal government would provide values and uniform national policy implemented by the states. Additionally, the fiscal or financial federalism would also ensure the equally distributed wealth, employment and resource allocation among the states. This checks and balances process should work consistently across the nation however, not all states are fiscally equal. The federal government, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, does not have a general power to give directions to the states in their primary areas of power. Consequently, more often than not, financial enticement, through grants of money tied to a particular policy objective, has been the favored mechanism …show more content…

Describing the intergovernmental system as much less cooperative as it was in the mid-20th century but how it still lies in the heart of national policy. In defense, they set forth new state-federal lobbying objectives one such that supports a comprehensive immigration reform. This policy has been at the top of the list of policy makers for more than thirty years. The political climate in Washington, D.C., has made it increasingly difficult for these associations to influence the formulation of policies by Congress and the executive branch. It is only unless powerful nongovernmental interests also support their policy proposals that it could move forward, but then state and local governments retain some ability to block objectionable policies (Kincaid, 2014, para. 3). President Obama is taking executive action to protect millions of non-documented immigrants from deportation, however his Republican controlled Congress has a conflicting interest. Therefore these new objectives will ultimately lie in limbo with the states over who will support his plan (Santana, 2014). Immigration and our global demographic changes remain in the hands of the function of states and localities and the fiscal federalist bureaucracy of an intergovernmental mess. It will most likely be left

Open Document