(Actual Final Paper Link)

Everyone is Deserving of Freedom of Speech

Abstract:

This paper will discuss the phrasing of the First Amendment and how this interpretation potentially affects undocumented immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants, and their need to obtain First Amendment protection especially now during President Donald Trump’s administration while implementing a legislative comprehensive immigration reform. This paper will argue in favor of protection towards those who express their beliefs, and opinions towards the American society while still not being considered part of an exclusive group called “citizens” and “residents,” but taking part in today’s American economic society nonetheless. The issues importance in today’s society will be portrayed by the Department of Justice’s statement in the case of Pineda Cruz v. Thompson(2015), President Donald Trump's mass deportation policies, and undocumented immigrants economic contributions to America.

 

A legislative comprehensive immigration reform should be created guaranteeing undocumented immigrants, with substantial ties to the U.S., the rights, and considerations to be a part of “the people” in regards to the First Amendment due to a historical consistency with the U.S. taking economical advantage of minorities. To address this issue is to acknowledge the injustice done to this group who has provided economical, and social ties to this country. This group is especially vulnerable today with the current changes in political, and social attitudes in our society which is shown by the “Trump Effect,” and mass deportation influenced policies. America’s First Amendment is based off a basic human right which the U.S. has recently denied this group, but continues to benefit from.

Political Influence in An Era of Trump:

In 2015 the Department of Justice stated that, undocumented immigrants who have not lawfully been admitted to the U.S. hold no rights to the First Amendment within the case of Pineda Cruz v. Thompson. Michael Kagan, professor of Law and Director of the Immigration Clinic in the University of Nevada, argued that this particular case with a group of detained woman in Korens, Texas would have been ruled unconstitutional had their national status been different. Woman who had silently protested their living conditions by holding a hunger strike were punished, and threatened with separating them from their children. To protest is a right given by the First Amendment, and attacks on this form of expression with the intent to censor is a violation of this Amendment which the woman argued for. The Court denied their case on the basis of their undocumented status and the Department of Justice’s statement. Professor Kagan in his analysis of the case went on to explain how the case of Citizens United v. FEC shows doctrinal support against the claim denying First Amendment rights based on identity rather than content of speech. This claim affects existing undocumented movements who seek rights, and march for justice leaving them limited to a voice of fear from deportation if they report possible injustices such as: exploitation from employers, or from being racially discriminated. By not allowing this group to have First Amendment rights it opens a door to the exploitation of this group. The stance taken by the Department of Justice was influenced by the idea of the new president elect becoming Donald Trump who holds a racially discriminating tone. This political stance also signals the increase discomfort towards the topic of immigration, and the social implications which arise from a political occurrence such as the election of a new president.

The election, no longer the nomination, of President Donald Trump, has signaled large implications towards the social acceptance, or rejection towards those who hold an undocumented status in the U.S. With the election of Donald Trump there has been a rise in immigration enforcement, and racial discrimination which is often aimed at Mexican immigrants, but also includes African Americans and Muslim American immigrants. Increased proposals towards mass deportations, a proposal on aggressive enforcement of immigration laws empowering local law enforcement to perform the functions of immigration officers, and the proposal for a Wall at the Border of Mexico has increased the racial tension in the nation between Mexican undocumented immigrants and the American society. This does not only affect Mexican undocumented immigrants, but also includes those who are look “Mexican” being affected. CNN addressed Trump’s proposal of local law enforcement increasing their functions to empower them to act as law enforcement officers. Trump claims his proposals are normal of border patrol agents, but the Department of Homeland Security explains how Trump’s expectations are not common functions of an expansion of existing laws. There is a difference in execution between the Obama administration, a thought out plan, and Trump’s administration, one which is built off of racial discrimination. President Obama sought to target three groups in deportations including: convicted criminals, public safety threats, and those who recently crossed the border illegally. Trump, however, explains his plan by: the building of the wall in the Southern border, and detaining and deporting individuals who have any sort of criminal record including DUI’s.

The fear in today’s undocumented immigrant society is in mass deportations, and even though Donald Trump claims he will no longer conduct these mass deportations there is doubt. Only one of his cabinet members is hispanic, and those who didn’t agree with his vision of America as a nation of Americans, not America as a nation of immigrants, not America as a nation to grow, but to make, “America Great Again” were not appointed to cabinet member positions. How can we make America Great again when it was not great to begin with. The only period of time when America was profiting economically was at the peak years of 1920, and 2007. What do these two years have in common? Governments provided social insurance, and expanded public investment, according to Robert Reich: America’s Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s Presidency. However, during the 1970s social investment was only aimed towards White Americans rather than people of all skin tones. Donald Trump does not want to provide social insurance, but rather is aiming to end Obama care, and not implementing pregnancy leave for fathers to help their wives with child caring. Donald Trump also does not want to expand public investment except for spending towards aggressive deportation policies. He seeks to conduct massive taxes cuts for the top one percent. The last time this was done the difference in earning wages between the rich and the poor grew exponentially in the Reagan administration. So, why is the fear in mass deportations still present? Because Trump has been known to change his mind continuously in the forty seven days he’s been in office. Why does this lead to an importance in addressing the issue of undocumented immigrants needing First Amendment protection as part of “the people”? Because the President we currently have is not aware of his actions, he has no political background, and he is implementing policies which have been ruled unconstitutional before. There is also a rise in racial discrimination towards immigrants who are both here legally, and illegally, and there is little way to tell these two groups apart in most instances. This has also lead to what some are calling, the “Trump Effect,” which indicates instances where incidents of hate crimes have occurred since Donald Trump’s campaign launch in June 2015. To say Donald Trump as a President is suitable for the position is to neglect clear signs of a regression in society rather than a progression.

By proposing an increasingly aggressive enforcement of immigration laws and empowering local law enforcement to perform the functions of immigration officers exclusively. The proposal set forward by Donald Trump shows a repetition of past events, and how there is a dramatic political change in power shifting towards affecting American society in a social context. This new proposal is not unique, if you look up SB 1070 which was targeted at Mexican undocumented immigrants in Arizona(2010). Trump’s proposal is paired with the idea of building a wall aligning with the southern border which clearly targets mexican undocumented immigrants for deportations above other groups. Similarly, SB 1070 allowed police officials to stop those who seemed “reasonably suspicious” of being illegal, and to some extent this led to the individuals deportations if they were not carrying proper identification stating that they were in the U.S. legally. Justice Kennedy deemed SB 1070 unconstitutional because it required legal immigrants to carry proper identification at all times, and allowed police officials to arrest anyone who seemed suspicious of being an illegal immigrant according to the Washington Post. Without the voice of Mexican (un)documented immigrants in these cases, and their protests of these laws the bill would’ve still been ongoing, and their freedom of expression would have largely been limited because they would’ve been targeted as illegals by their skin color. To address President Trump’s proposed immigration policies, society has to take into account the racial injustice of previous laws such as SB 1070 which have been found unconstitutional. Today many of these laws are targeted at mexican undocumented immigrants in particular because in 2015 they made up ⅓ of the immigrant population in the United States according to the Migration Policy Organization. To put this into perspective, in the U.S. there are 61 million immigrants residing here, and of those 61 million immigrants there is an estimate of 15.7 million undocumented immigrants according to the Washington Examiner in 2016. It is important to consider undocumented Mexican immigrants to be part of “the people” which the First Amendment addresses in order to protect them from exploitation, and in order to more strongly believe one’s ideals which comes from the idea of, “freedom for the thought[s] that we hate.”

Ten Largest U.S. Immigrant Groups, 2015

 

History Repeats Itself, and So History We Will Become:

“Lack of Knowledge….That is the Problem.”(W. Edward Deming)

It is fundamental to consider this group as being considered part of “the people”  with the inclusion of First Amendment rights due to a historical consistency of the U.S. denying these rights to other minority groups while, at times, also economically exploiting them. These groups include: African Americans, and Chinese Immigrants. African Americans were were not regarded as being part of “the people” which the United States intended to protect when the U.S. created the Constitution largely because of racial discrimination, and slavery; this point later made law interpreters conclude that because they did not originally have rights as “the people” they could not gain rights from the First Amendment. Because African Americans could not claim rights from the First Amendment this group was largely exploited for the gain of the U.S. in economical terms because they provided cheap human labor rather than having the U.S. use laborers who would demand a higher pay. African American’s lack of rights under the First Amendment also denied them right to court hearings because they were not considered citizens according to the Constitution, which connects to the case of Pineda Cruz v. Thompson, such as was seen in the case of Dred Scott. The group following African Americans as a minority were the Chinese immigrants who were denied First Amendment rights by not being able to testify in courts which helped racial discrimination continue towards this certain group. To put the implication of this into perspective: Vincent Chin, who was a Chinese immigrant was murdered by two white males, and the court only fined the individuals $3,780 each and two years probation because Chinese immigrants could not testify in courts and were not considered to be part of “the people” who were protected under the First Amendment rights. By not providing a minority group First Amendment rights this invites racial injustice, and economical exploitation to take place. This historical instances have shown that there is a connection between a country willing to exploit laborers and reap economic benefits while denying those helping the economy the basic human right of freedom of speech.

By basic human right, I will address Steven J. Heyman’s, professor of law at the University of Chicago and Supreme Court editor of Harvard Review(1984), view on the First Amendment. In his book, “Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity,” he takes into account how the First Amendment was founded on “the basis for respect for autonomy, and dignity of human beings” including the eighteenth century view of Americans believing freedom of speech was a natural right of mankind, and was essential to the Republican government. If this is the case in which America’s First Amendment was founded upon, with the views of John Locke incorporated, than this means that African Americans as human beings, and Chinese immigrants should have been allowed to hold First Amendment rights by the simple idea that they were human. However, interpretations have caused a blurring in law for which when proposing a solution to this problem, of addressing who should be considered part of “the people” in regards to the First Amendment, should be taken into account.

Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are human. To name them illegal is to treat them as prohibited, toxic, and oppressive things, not humans. To be human is to deserve basic human rights. Therefore, undocumented immigrants who have substantial ties to the U.S. should be given and considered to be part of “the people” in regards to the First Amendment because the U.S. has benefitted economically from this group while denying them a voice. Economically, undocumented immigrants do not cost the state $113 billion dollars as Donald Trump stated in one of his presidential elections as an “alternative fact.” Rather of the 11 million undocumented immigrants their contribution in taxes every year is $11.74 billion dollars while paying eight percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while America’s top 1% of taxpayers pay only five percent of their income, according to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy(ITEP). ITEP also stated that granting this undocumented immigrants legal status to the U.S. for work purposes would increase state, and local tax contributions by $2.18 billion dollars a year. However, I am not advocating for the granting of their legal status, but rather their consideration as being part of “the people” under the Constitution with regards to the First Amendment. The cost the U.S. would have to pay for deporting the majority of these undocumented immigrants would be $30 billion dollars which would come out of increased taxpayer money used from economic cuts to other departments of the nation, because this is also one of Donald Trump’s goal: to cut spending on less important aspects to the government including health care, and women's reproductive services. Therefore, to reap from the benefits of this undocumented immigrant group with substantial ties to the U.S. and deny them basic rights such as the First Amendment right of freedom of expression: to protect against exploitation, racial discrimination, and unnecessary force by government officials is to deny them the basic human rights which the U.S. constitution was founded upon. It is necessary to consider this group as being “part of the people” for which the First Amendment is inclusive of because they have helped built up the U.S. economy, and provided to the wealth of the U.S.

“America the land of the [somewhat] free.” Even though these individuals have helped built up the U.S. economy there is now a greater sense of fear than in previous years. This is because America the land of the free has now become America the land with restrictions to those it doesn’t deem worthy. To believe that getting a documented status to solve this issue today is simple is to not take into consideration the process of getting a green card. Those who have wealth can get a green card, but those who come to America to seek opportunities often do so because of the hardships they face in their home countries as is seen by the film  The Other Side of Immigration directed by Roy Germano. These individuals who have been denied First Amendment implications will suffer more than they’ve previously suffered because of the growth of racial discrimination. The implications to their voice is monumental. I’ve grown up my entire life around communities with a largely mexican population. Jobs which are not taken by the American lower class are often taken by Mexican immigrants such as street ice cream vendors(“paleteros”). When I was six years old one of the paleteros was doing the same thing he always did: selling ice cream. Out of nowhere, a group of individuals come up in their bikes, and start throwing around the ice cream he bought to make a living out of, and meanwhile no one did anything to help the man while he tried to run after the thieves who were stealing his cart. He couldn’t reach them, and ended up crying in the middle of the street out of despair. Did he file a theft claim?  He didn’t because there is a fear in undocumented immigrants that they have no rights, and that if they approach any government officials they’ll immediately be deported. This was fourteen years ago, and the Trump Effect hadn’t taken any effect yet. Therefore, this undocumented immigrant groups have been and are exploited in many occasions while no evidence is shown of the events due to fear of their status.This is why Freedom of Speech should be given to this undocumented immigrants with substantial ties to the U.S. because many times when undocumented immigrants decide to state a claim towards authorities they are already left at a vulnerable position.

A VOICE of “alternative” equality:

There is an urgency to this issue today because of an inexperienced political President, and his choice of cabinet members which makes this topic show its urgency. Most of his cabinet members lack a sense of expertise in political affairs with regards to 10 members specifically: Rex W. Tillerson(State), Scott Pruitt(E.R.A.), Linda McMahon(small business), Wilbur Ross(commerce), Rick Perry(energy), Ben Carson(Housing), Stephen K.Bannon(Chief Strategist), Jared Kushner(Senior Advisor/Husband of Ivanka Trump), Kellyanne Conway(Counselor), and Carl Icahn(Regulatory Czar). Two other members are qualified for the position, but carry heavily racist undertones which pose a threat to this issue if undocumented immigrants are regarded to hold no rights under the First Amendment Constitution during Donald Trump’s Presidency. These members include: John F. Kelly(Homeland Security), and Jeff Sessions(Attorney General). Therefore, Trump’s Presidential chosen cabinet out of twenty eight carries twelf inexperience political individuals, some big time money moguls, or with regards to immigration: individuals who openly express themselves with racist undertones. Because of his cabinet picking, and with regards to his plans of mass deportations and the increase of racial discrimination incidents occurring in Trump’s first one hundred days in office it is essential to address this question of whether undocumented immigrants with substantial ties to the U.S. fit into the description of “the people” which the First Amendment address.

Most of us who grew up in largely undocumented immigrant communities have seen the implications of Donald Trump’s presidency. You may know a Jose from down the street who was deported because ICE detained him while on his way to work at a revision point, or Maria who was detained on her way to pick up her kids from school. Therefore, to give these groups a voice would mean to allow them to hold protests, to fight against injustice, and to not be afraid to file claims to police officials. President Trump’s proposed movement, “VOICE,” Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, particularly targets undocumented immigrants as all being criminals while its primary purpose is to promote information about crimes committed by immigrants not excluding Green Card Holders and Visa holders even though undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than naturalized citizens. The Huffington Post recently stated how this movement would, “create a sense of crisis across communities that are not even impacted by national immigration policy.” This movement’s aim is purely to limit the voice of undocumented immigrants even further while denying them First Amendment rights under “the people,” and in an ironic way mocking this fundamental human right by naming the program, “VOICE,” which they do not hold.

Undocumented and Confined:

“There really can be no peace without justice. There can be no justice without truth. And there can be no truth, unless someone rises us to tell you the truth”(Louis Farrakhan). With this implication towards undocumented immigrant’s voice regarding injustice there will be a preconceived notion about their truth leading to an impact by political affairs affecting their social lives. Donald Trump’s new appointed Justice, who is 40 years old and will replace Antonin Scalia, will ultimately decide the implications of the political change affecting our societies in coming years. Neil Gorsuch does not only hold large implications towards legal issues of immigration, including the case of Hernandez v. Meza which is scheduled for a rehearing once Gorsuch is officially appointed to court in April, but also holds power in issues involving women's reproductive rights, issues regarding housing, and transgender rights to certain bathrooms.

By replacing Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch will have to address his view on undocumented immigrants with regards to the First Amendment. He will compete with Antonin Scalia who once stated “the people in a political context,” and the case of Verdugo-Urquidez versus the Supreme Court(1990) implementing the Supreme Court decision that the term “the people” used by the U.S. Constitution referring to, “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have developed sufficient connections with this country to be part of that community.” To address his view on the issue may come sooner than expected with the case of Hernandez v. Meza, and his view will reflect future and current implications in the First Amendment interpretation.

The case of Hernandez v. Meza with the death of a Mexican boy, age 15 who held no substantial ties to the U.S., accounts of a family being entitled to a court hearing which previously dismissed the claims against all defendants. However, a panel of the Fifth Circuit judges reinstated the action against Mesa, stating the family was entitled to a trial, and that the killing of the boy amounted to a violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment which states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property. By the court’s initial dismissal of the case, a conflicting view is regarded with the First Amendment rights, and who this legal statement entitles. This is because of the court’s initial hesitance to accepting the case hearing. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Additionally, the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property. For this case, I would like to tie the connection between the First and Fifth Amendment for which they both address an individual and community connection with a multiple set of “person(s)” making up part of “the people,” and who these rights are meant for. This urges a response with regards to the problem of court cases involving undocumented immigrants in the U.S. with substantial ties, and freedom of speech in its necessity towards protecting inequality, corruption, racism, and discrimination.

The implication of Sergio Hernandez’s case would’ve impacted cases such as Anastacio Hernandez’s because both cases took place at the Mexican Border, and both held strong implications towards First Amendment rights to injustice done from racial discrimination. The difference between both cases, however, is that Anastacio Hernandez held substantial connections to the United States, and had been working in the U.S. for the past ten to fifteen years clearly showing economical, and substantial ties to the U.S. with regards to holding a family here which shows under Verdugo-Urquidez v. Supreme Court that he held substantial ties in the U.S to deserve First Amendment rights. By substantial ties I define this as living in the U.S. more than ten years, and holding family or a job in the U.S. Anastacio Hernandez plead with border patrol officials to “stop,” tasing him and held little resistance according to camera footage of the event. This shows an implication of the impact of restricting undocumented immigrants rights to Freedom of Speech in the form of court cases looking the other way despite camera footage showing a clear racial discrimination implication while the victim doesn’t show any aggressive response apart from asking government officials to “stop.” The government also tried at one point to destroy this evidence which shows a violation of the First Amendment because the government tried to attack forms of expression with the intent to censor evidence to their benefit.

The case of Anastacio Hernandez, however, was not impacted, and will not be impacted by the case of Hernandez v. Meza. This is because recently in early March a San Diego federal judge approved the government's one million dollar settlement towards the ongoing case for justice in Anastacio Hernandez’s name. The cause for this deal was made because of the ongoing pressure the U.S. Supreme Court has obtained in recent years with similar cases, and with Hernandez v. Meza gaining more national coverage which would create more coverage for cases like Anastacio Hernandez’s too, by association, but this implication would bring light to the First Amendment rights of undocumented immigrants as being part of “the people,” or there lack of this status. The significance of this settlement is not the one million dollars given to make up for past wrongs, but to silence the voice of a group which has been affected, but the government does not want to acknowledge, and in this way silences them further.

The case of Sergio Hernandez, and his implications to Freedom of Speech while being able to take a border patrol agent to the Supreme Court arises the question of his substantial ties to the U.S. If his case is taken into the Supreme Court then he will have obtained First Amendment rights even though he holds no substantial ties to the U.S. in any form which is shown with his lack of residency in the country at all, or in an economical contributing form. Turner v. Williams(1904)concluded that “an excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights because [he] does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution.” To say that a member who holds no substantial ties to the U.S. in any form, including economical ties or family ties, holds First Amendment rights in the U.S., but not undocumented immigrants is to say that undocumented immigrants, although, contributing to the nation in an economic form, and residing in the nation while following the laws, with the exclusion of their illegal entrance to the U.S., are not of priority even though they have helped shape the nation in economical, and labor forms. Therefore, how is it fair for undocumented immigrants to have no regard as being part of “the people” which the U.S. includes in the First Amendment rather than someone who holds no ties to the U.S. Anastacio Hernandez case should’ve been revisited allowing him to obtain First Amendment rights, and point out the injustice of his case.

It’s Time to Create Justice:

The issue of undocumented immigrants, and their rights under the phrase “the people” has been addressed before with cases such as: Turner v. Williams(1904), United States v. Verdugo, Heller(2008), Mariano Meza(2015), and INS vs. Lopez-Mendoza(1984); however, the importance of this issue today is because of the Department of Justice’s statement in Pineda Cruz v. Thompson(2015) claiming that Undocumented immigrants hold no Constitutional rights under the First Amendment because they are not part of “the people” which the Constitution intended to protect adds on to the unease in the Presidency of Donald Trump, and his increased policies towards undocumented immigrants.

There should be a legislative comprehensive immigration reform created in order to address this issue, and give individuals with substantial ties to the U.S. rights as part of “the people” in the First Amendment. By substantial ties I define a time period of 10 to 15 years while also taking into account their economic involvement in the American workforce not necessarily their wealth value, and their family ties in the nation.This would be the most effective method to address this problem because by making the proposal a legislative comprehensive immigration reform it would allow states the opportunity to implement such a decision if they see this issue to benefit their country, or to help their communities. Additionally, it would allow for states opposing this reform to disregard its implications, and not address this issue. In this way states with a majority of immigrant influx would be lenient to this proposal. By creating a legislative comprehensive reform it would also allow a consistency of interpretation because of similar laws being created in the states, and social response to the reform.

By proposing a national law or a national comprehensive immigration reform this would create a new difficulty for lawyer and judges to interpret with new and unfamiliar concepts which could be interpreted in a variety of ways, according to Steven J. Heymen. This proposal for a national law would reach no conclusion with regards to the a consistency of interpreting the law seeing as every state varies in social norms, and the feelings towards immigration are substantially different in states like: California, and Arizona.

On a different scale, to propose an amendment to the Constitution in regards to this issue would be futile, and would not be considered by law officials at all because of the current issues regarding immigration, and the vast majority of the House of Senate is currently ruled by “conservative” Republicans limiting any sort of national passage of an immigration reform. However, even if an amendment was passed this would guarantee nothing because if you look at the Women's Movement, and their achievement of the 19th Amendment(1920) leading to their voting rights because they wanted an inclusion in the Constitution with regard to the Equal Protection Clause mentioned in the 14th Amendment, but they did not gain this protection until 1971 with the case of Reed v. Reed. Additionally, African American’s wanted to gain a voice by the 15th Amendment(1870), but they did not gain an end to segregation, or obtain a sense of equality until the 1960s. Therefore, an amendment would not be suitable to address this issue today because it would be interpreted in a variety of ways, and the initial purpose for its creation may not be addressed for a couple of year until there is traces of inequality long engraved in our social and political communities.

With regards to a social and legal theory being proposed towards this issue I believe we could follow this proposal; however, we shouldn’t do this because that is what our society has been doing or the past fifty or so years when Mexican immigration began to rise with mass immigrant influx from other parts of the world. To propose a theory would not address the urgency of this issue in today’s society, but rather address it, and leave the issue forgotten behind closed books until there is a serious threat to safety. Taking advantage of an undocumented person while still claiming the Constitution protects human autonomy, and dignity with regards to “the people,” but not giving rights to those it reaps economic benefits from is not morally just.

The only logically consistent plan which would have a small hope of passing would then be a  legislative comprehensive immigration reform plan. Particularly consistent with the terms I am proposing is a recent Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan that has been attempted to be passed by Congressman Garamendi which incorporates giving help to immigrants who have created businesses in the U.S., offers hardworking immigrants a pathway to earning citizenship, and helps Dreamers pursue an education or join the military without fear of deportation. The Congressman limits the granting of a citizenship status in his proposal which is a bonus for this groups, but I believe in his proposal there should be an implementation of undocumented immigrants with substantial ties to the U.S. being able to claim rights under the First Amendment while benefitting the groups he is targeting. This is because by addressing this issue early on in a previous comprehensive immigration reform the proposal of the plan would bring to light the importance of this issue in current day America even if the comprehensive immigration reform were not to be passed. However, I do believe that a comprehensive immigration reform should be proposed at a smaller scale aiming for legislative approval before it becomes a national proposal.

This proposal, however, does not include criminals, apart from their first and only misdemeanor being that they entered the U.S. illegally, which I would not portray them as criminals in this sense, who have been arrested with a series of felonies. I am not stating that this proposal is perfect, or complete. I am stating, however, that if a legislative comprehensive reform bill were to be enacted this issue should be regarded and addressed. I also believe that a legislative comprehensive reform bill would be the best option to give this problem a solution while maximizing state responses to such a proposal. This issue is of importance, particularly today because of President Donald Trump’s administration, and the only response to combat against Presidential and Federal power is enacting a state power, by the use of a legislative comprehensive reform bill which will give each state the freedom to respond to certain proposed categories of this proposal while still being able to deny those they don't agree with. I acknowledge that this proposal isn't perfect, but with social support, and a political shift to one of opportunity I believe this proposal could hold great potential; additionally, this proposal is a starting point towards addressing this issue which should be held at importance at a national level, but to not complicate things further address this issue at a legislative level in order to not disengage to the initial purpose of the legislative immigration reform bill in terms that each state will hold acceptable.

 

Annotated Bibliography

"After Puzder Debacle, Trump Opts for a More Conventional Labor Nominee in Alexander Acosta." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

Trump's new labor secretary. only hispanic in the group. Does not hold strong thought for immigration.

Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law for Now, Strikes down Other Provisions." The Washington Post. WP Company, 25 June 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2017.

Arizona Law struck down by US Supreme court of SB 1070.

Barney Henderson; Nick Allen; Chris Graham. "Donald Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch as Supreme Court Justice as Democrats Warn of Tough Confirmation Battle." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 31 Jan. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Donald Trump chooses Neil Gorsuch for new Supreme Court Justice

Bureau, US Census. "FFF: Hispanic Heritage Month 2016." FFF: Hispanic Heritage Month 2016. 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

56.6 million hispanics in U.S. population in the census

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Comprehensive Immigration Reform | Congressman John Garamendi. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Comprehensive immigration reform supported by Congressman Garamendi.

Davis, Kristina. "San Diego Judge Poised to Approve $1 Million Settlement in Border Death Case." Sandiegouniontribune.com. 02 Mar. 2017. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

March 2nd 2017 SD judge to settle $1 million in border patrol death 2010 anastacio Hernandez

"Death on the Border: Shocking Video Shows Mexican Immigrant Beaten and Tased by Border Patrol Agents." Democracy Now! Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Video footage of the death of Anastacio Hernandez.

"Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856)." Justia Law. Web. 08 Feb. 2017.

With Regards to slavery and A.A. holding no voice in earlier history.

"Hernandez v Mesa: Supreme Court Landmark Case on Cross-Border Shooting." Daily Kos. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.

Hernandez v. supreme court shooting and shot in the head at a distance of 60 feet from officer Mesa.

Heyman, Steven J. Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale UP, 2008. Print.

On human dignity, autonomy, and 18h century view on the creation of the First Amendment.

KAGAN, MICHAEL. "When Immigrants Speak: The Precarious Status Of Non-Citizen Speech Under The First Amendment." Boston College Law Review 57.4 (2016): 1237-1285. Academic Search Complete. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Case of Pineda Cruz v. Thompson with Department of Justice Saying No First Amendment rights.

Krogstad, Jens Manuel, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D’Vera Cohn. "5 Facts about Illegal Immigration in the U.S." Pew Research Center. 03 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. 2014

Mexicans make over 50% of undocumented immigrants in 2014. Research with rising share of undocumented immigrants to live in the U.S. for at least a decade(Use charts???)

"Largest U.S. Immigrant Groups over Time, 1960-Present." Migrationpolicy.org. 18 Oct. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Migration policy 2015 1/3 Mexican immigrants

Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. New York: Basic, 2007. Print.

“Freedom for the thoughts that we hate” quote.

March 1, 2017 09:30 AM. "Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions." ITEP Reports. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.

ITEP reports with undocumented immigrants contributing to the state and local taxes in revenue.

"President Obama, Pardon the DREAMers." CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Obama to say won’t grant amnesty for dreamers because he can’t. only congress can.

Robertreich. "The Truth About the American Economy." Robert Reich. 30 May 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.

The truth about Amercan economy and the need for government spending in social programs to help economy.

Stone, Brian. "President Trump's VOICE Is About Justifying White Supremacy." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

VOICE- to justify White supremacy and point towards crimes of undocumented immigrants making them out to be crimnals.

"Supreme Court to Decide Whether U.S. Border Patrol Agent Can Be Sued for Shooting Mexican Teenager." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Web. 16 Feb. 2017.

SUpreme court to decide if border patrol agent can be sued for shooting teenager.

Times, The New York. "Donald Trump's Cabinet Is Taking Shape. Here's the Latest List." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Nov. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Donald Trump’s cabinet list. Most unqualified.

"Trump Hate Map." America's Voice. Web. 02 Mar. 2017.

Trump report on hate crimes by his followers harassing or attacking Muslim American, AA, or other minority marginalized group.

"Trump Admin Sets Stage for Mass Deportations." CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

Trumps statement with stopping mass deportations, and beginning police and federal states to allow those seeming illegal to be asked for identification

"Turner v. Williams 194 U.S. 279 (1904)." Justia Law. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

Turner v. Williams with undocumented status saying they held fifth amendment implications as part of the people wit due clause.

"United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990)." Justia Law. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

U.S. vs. Verdugo Urquidez(1990) w/ mexican citizen believed to be drug lord and th amendment right.

Viebeck, Elise. "Trump’s First 100 Days: Illegal Immigrants, Anti-Semitism and Transgender Students." The Washington Post. WP Company, 21 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Donald Trumps first 100 days and its implications towards immigration policy and stuff.

"The Real Cost of Illegal Immigration." The Washington Times. The Washington Times, 06 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

racist view on cost of illegal immigration and them taking away american jobs. says the increase inequality and corrupt democracy