Miami Immigration Lawyer Fears Immigration Reform is a Perpetual Football
Miami, FL (Law Firm Newswire) July 17, 2012 – The more the concept of immigration reform gets bunted about, the less likely it is to come to fruition.
“The current Administration has not done a good job in several major areas that directly affect the country: transportation funding, bolstering up a sagging national economy, a national energy policy and comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform has been, and is, the most politically touchy issue the government needs to deal with,” said Larry S. Rifkin, managing partner at Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff, an immigration law firm with law offices in Miami, Florida and Orlando, Florida, “because if they don’t the Supreme Court will do it for them.”
In fact, the Supreme Court did hear oral arguments in April 2012 in Arizona v. the United States. This is a critical case, and the decision will have a far reaching impact. The core of the case relates to federalism and the relationships between the federal government and all the states. “To summarize the point of this case, it raises the question of a state’s authority to enforce their laws if the federal government does not act in an area that the state feels critically affects their citizens,” Rifkin outlined.
Since the current Administration has been unable to get their act together over immigration reform, the states have been left to figure out what they are supposed to do with their undocumented immigrants; a major issue, as most state’s regard illegals as a burden on their local and state budgets, which more than provides an explanation for Arizona’s controversial law, with other states following suit or about to follow suit.
In the meantime, immigration reform has taken on the appearance of a football. Democrats want liberal access to means to attain citizenship for those in the U.S. for at least ten years. Republicans think illegals should go home and then apply for legal citizenship. “This question may become a moot point, given the latest statistics that show illegals are leaving the U.S. because of the faltering economy. Nonetheless, it is an issue that the court expects to decide in June 2012; an issue many across the nation will be watching with great interest,” added Rifkin.
The Supreme Court’s focus is on whether or not Arizona’s hard-hitting law on catching illegals conflicts with the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration; a role they appear to have vacated in favor of political preferences. Given the nature of the questions asked during oral arguments, it appears the court may rule in favor of Arizona’s right to demand proof of citizenship, and arrest anyone they determine is in the U.S. illegally.
“Should that be the decision, it is anticipated that other states will get on the same bandwagon and pass similar laws. Public opinion appears to favor that route. For now, immigration reform continues to bunt back and forth in the House. To say the whole thing is a colossal mess is likely a major understatement,” Rifkin added. To guess at a solution would be futile. It appears the ‘football’ will need to be in play even longer, before one team or the other ‘gets it.’
Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff, P.A.
1110 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Toll Free: (866) 681-0202