Devinit: Clarification Needed On Which

Devinit Appears That There May Be Some Confusion As To Which Entity Di

Devinit Appears That There May Be Some Confusion As To Which Entity Di

Devin It appears that there may be some confusion as to which entity directly deals with and enforces national security concerns. As the U.S. Constitution doesn't plainly state whether the Supreme or Federal courts deal with immigration laws, it does seem to lean toward the Federal side. "While the Constitution's text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal government has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation's immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions." (Chacon) So it turns out that cases that are brought to federal court, are able to be dealt with at the Supreme court, which is the highest court in the American Judicial system.

However, according to our class reading, "The power problem for the federal courts is legitimacy: the legitimacy of judicial power in a democratic system of government." (Lenz & Holman, pg. 96) Majority of the cases that I have researched online are all handled at the Supreme court level. I've decided to dive into a recent article in regards to immigration; United States v. Texas , "a challenge to a Department of Homeland Security program to provide undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children temporary protection against involuntary removal." (Shane, 2016) I believe that situations like this have been going on for decades. Immigrants see this as a loop hole and I personally know Latino families that are settled in California for the very reason that the parents were illegal, and since their children were born here and have become citizens that the parents are able to stay as well.

In this case, the President was getting involved too much and perhaps over stepped his boundaries. The Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stepped up to say that he has the authority over this program that was enacted by congress. Through the use of the courts, members were able to rule out the President's exercise on the Homeland Security's program. Devin References Chacon, J. (n.d.). Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy? Retrieved November 04, 2016, from Lenz, T. O., & Holman, M. (n.d.). American Government . Jalen The Federal court system is comprised of the Supreme Court system of the United States Constitution and it has trial courts of special and also exclusive jurisdiction that decides the incidents. The Federal court system mainly handles all of the high profile type of cases in which the state and local court systems cannot handle.

However, the federal courts have what is known as a limited subject matter jurisdiction in which it serves in the federal court system. This means that they can only hear the cases that both fall within the scope defined by the United States Constitution and also the Congressional statutes. One main thing that the federal court system handles is terrorism. The sole purpose of handling terrorism is to help control ongoing terrorism with counter attacks and also prevention of terrorism. There is an ongoing case that has to do with two men who were living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that were trying to aid support for the terrorist organization that is well known as ISIS.

The two men whose names were Jason Michael Ludke and Yosvany Padilla Conde were found by the FBI in Texas trying to provide materials and support to ISIS to establish a terrorist attack on the United States. The two men trying to travel from their hometown of Milwaukee to Mexico in which they were trying to aid documents and travel all the way to what is believed Syria or even Iraq. It is up to the federal courts to lay down and establish laws to prevent these things from happening and severe consequences if these things do occur. The two men are awaiting trial in the Federal Court and could face up to a 20 year sentence as well as a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar fine if found guilty. Federal courts impose laws that protect the nation from any type of terrorism and terrorist behavior.

Two Milwaukee Men Charged in Federal Court with Attempting to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization / ISIS. (2016, October 14). Retrieved from Naomi As the leading state that absorbs the most refugees, Texas received more than 7,000 refugees in less than one year. In fact, the United States plans to receive more than 110,000 refugees throughout the early months of the 2016 fiscal year. Nearly $96 million dollars in federal funds for services rendered to refugees by means of nonprofit organizations (Jordan, 2016). In June of 2016, the federal courts dismissed the state’s lawsuit against federal officials and ruled that the state couldn’t stop the federal government from sending Syrians.

Texas became the first state to block the resettlement, which came immediately after the 2016 terrorist attacks in Paris. Terri Burke, the executive director of the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union shared that the nature of the state lawsuit had nothing to do with public safety but rather soring political points. The separation in relationship between federal and state became clear at this moment; Texans simply want to ensure that its citizens are in safe keeping. On September 21, 2016 state officials wrote to the director of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement that addressed the need to confirm that the state was not vulnerable to Syrian refugees. Paxton, Texas’s attorney general adds that he is severely disappointment with the federal’s ruling.

It is prevalent that without an appropriate vetting system, illegal refugees will likely enter through any of the "open" states. Texas Governor Greg Abbott continues to find ways to challenge the refugee resettlement status and seeks to halt all movement until Washington can confirm that the refugees do not pose a security threat. Naomi Hart 　 Fernandez, M. (2016). Federal Judge Tosses Texas’ Lawsuit to Bar Syrian Refugees. Retrieved from New York Times: Jordan, M. (2016, ). Texas to stop aiding refugee resettlement, citing security fears; state demands that national security officials 'ensure refugees do not pose a security threat'. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

Paper For Above instruction

The complex relationship between federal and state authorities in the United States' immigration enforcement system defines the scope and legitimacy of national security policymaking. Historically, the U.S. Constitution establishes a federal framework for immigration law, yet states have retained significant influence over local enforcement and daily immigrant experiences. This duality creates ongoing debates about jurisdiction, legitimacy, and the proper scope of federal power, particularly when security concerns escalate or policy conflicts arise.

At the constitutional level, the supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) reinforces that federal law overrules state law, especially in immigration matters. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Arizona v. United States (2012), have emphasized federal primacy in immigration enforcement while delineating the limits of state intervention. Despite this, states like Arizona, Texas, and California have enacted laws and policies aimed at enforcing immigration control within their borders, often leading to legal challenges, highlighting the tension between national security imperatives and state sovereignty (Chacon, n.d.).

The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary have played pivotal roles in adjudicating disputes involving immigration and national security. According to Lenz and Holman (n.d.), the legitimacy of judicial power hinges on its capacity to uphold constitutional principles within a democratic framework. Federal courts tend to handle high-profile and complex cases such as terrorism, which directly threaten national security, and immigration policies that are contentious or have broad implications. For example, the case of United States v. Texas (2016) involved a challenge to the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, which aimed to provide temporary relief to undocumented parents with American-born children. The legal tussle revealed the delicate balance of power between the executive (president and Department of Homeland Security) and Congress, with courts acting as arbiters of constitutional boundaries (Shane, 2016).

The role of the executive branch, particularly the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has expanded in recent years, often leading to conflicts with judicial authority. As Jeh Johnson, then Secretary of Homeland Security, stated, his agency has the authority to implement programs authorized by Congress, yet these actions sometimes face judicial review and are contested in courts. An illustrative case involves the DHS's program to offer deportation relief to certain undocumented immigrants, which faced injunctions and rulings questioning the executive’s overreach. These legal battles underscore the importance of judicial legitimacy in maintaining a balance of power in a democratic system (Lenz & Holman, n.d.).

Furthermore, federal courts are tasked with countering terrorism, a significant national security threat. The federal judiciary handles cases involving individuals supporting terrorist organizations like ISIS. For instance, the case of Jason Michael Ludke and Yosvany Padilla Conde, who were found attempting to support ISIS from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, exemplifies the role of courts in prosecuting terrorism-related activities. Such cases underscore the importance of federal jurisdiction and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding national security by prosecuting those involved in plotting threats against the United States (Federal Court Case, 2016).

Refugee resettlement presents another facet of federal authority intersecting with state concerns. In 2016, Texas challenged the federal government's efforts to resettle Syrian refugees, citing security fears after terrorist attacks in Paris. The courts dismissed Texas’s lawsuit, affirming the federal government’s authority to manage refugee programs without interference from states. Nonetheless, Texas officials expressed disappointment and continued efforts to scrutinize refugee vetting procedures, reflecting ongoing tensions over federal supremacy and state security concerns. This legal and political dynamic highlights the importance of federal authority in maintaining consistent national security policies while balancing state-level apprehensions (Fernandez, 2016).

In conclusion, the relationship between federal courts, the executive branch, and state authorities in immigration and national security exemplifies a complex constitutional system designed to balance power and legitimacy. While the Constitution grants federal primacy, states actively participate in immigration enforcement, often leading to legal disputes that test the boundaries of authorized powers. Judicial legitimacy, especially in handling terrorism and security threats, remains crucial to uphold constitutional principles within a democratic society. As evidenced by recent cases such as United States v. Texas and the ongoing disputes over refugee resettlement, maintaining this balance is vital for the effective and lawful enforcement of national security policies.

References

• Chacon, J. (n.d.). Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy? Retrieved November 04, 2016.
• Lenz, T. O., & Holman, M. (n.d.). American Government.
• Shane, S. (2016). U.S. v. Texas: Supreme Court Blocks DAPA Immigration Program. The New York Times.
• Federal Court Case. (2016). Milwaukee Men Charged with Supporting ISIS. Retrieved October 14, 2016.
• Fernandez, M. (2016). Federal Judge Tosses Texas’ Lawsuit to Bar Syrian Refugees. The New York Times.
• Jordan, M. (2016). Refugee Resettlement and Federal Funding. Congressional Quarterly.
• Wall Street Journal. (2016). Texas to stop aiding refugee resettlement, citing security fears.
• Additional sources: U.S. Constitution, Arizona v. United States (2012), Department of Homeland Security official statements, scholarly articles on federalism and immigration law.