Immigration Federalism: Study on State Resistance to Federal Exclusivity on Immigration Policymaking

Abstract

U.S. immigration policy and policymaking has been the purview of the federal government. However, recently, there has been increasing local activism in immigration-related policymaking by the sub-federal units of government. Coined as immigration federalism, such sub-federal activism is changing the direction in which American immigration policymaking is headed, as individual states attempt to share the regulatory power that has been intuitively known to have been exclusively vested in the federal government. In this dynamic, this research examines several factors related to the triggering mechanism of sub-federal activism in immigration policymaking in the United States. In doing so, it employs a mixed methodological approach, triangulating the findings of a multivariable regression analysis that tests the degree of influence of social, economic, demographic, political, and safety factors on igniting sub-federal activism throughout all 50 states across the US, with an in-depth case study of the State of Arizona. This research is divided into five chapters. First chapter lays out the foundational framework of the research, including literature review and research design to foster better understanding of specified terminologies and concepts exhibited throughout the research. Findings from the statistical analysis is also introduced in this chapter. Chapter 2 discusses the constitutionality and legality of immigration federalism in greater detail and explains the logic behind the state governments legitimization of their activism. Further, in Chapter 3, this research triangulates the findings from the statistical analysis with an in-depth analysis of State of Arizona, and its infamous state-based immigration policy, AZ SB 1070, which was introduced in 2010 by the Arizona State Legislature. This analysis suggests that there is low correlation of the statistical findings with the process and backgrounds in which individual states enacts their own immigration policies, hence it is difficult to generalize the motives behind every sub-federal activism on immigration policymaking. Thus, this research traces possible paths in which an anti-immigrant/immigrant sentiment had proliferated throughout the State of Arizona via examining public opinion and local politician who is a key supporter of the states anti-immigration policy. Chapter 4 extends the research analysis by dissecting the legal battle of two local immigration laws, California Proposition 187 (1992), and Arizona SB 1070 (2010), and finds that there are remarkable similarities in ways in which the federal government handles states challenges to the exclusive and preemptive authority to regulate immigration. The final chapter reviews the findings of the research and offers fresh interpretation of immigration federalism phenomenon by introducing the concept of shepherded federalism. Further, it makes the case that many immigrants in the U.S. today are scrutinized by the inter governmental competition over policymaking authority, and ultimately become the homo sacer of the time.