Illegality in action: a comparative analysis of the US' federal and the EU's evolving political systems regarding immigration policy and human rights law

摘要

Unprecedented levels of migration occur due to ever-increasing globalization. Because of this, countries that once promoted welcoming immigration policies now face immense challenges to reform their immigration laws. Some of these attempts, however, appear to actively target and discriminate against ethnic minorities whilst undermining central political authority and jurisdiction over immigration policy. To better understand the issue of controversial immigration policies within the Western World, this paper will place two case studies into their proper legal context. The goal of this paper is to address the issue of why centralized authority is being undermined by member-states, and how illegality, with reference to immigration policy, occurs and is allowed to continue.udThe two case studies, Arizona’s SB1070 and France’s Repatriation Policy of 2010, are analyzed because in both political systems, the US federal system and the EU’s more loosely organized political entity, these two member-states circumvented central authority to address the issue of illegal immigration. With an examination of each political entity’s laws, legal precedent, the controversial policies and arguments relating to the policies, this paper will establish the credibility or illegality of each state-level immigration policy. Only through a comprehensive legal interpretation of immigration policy and human rights law will we better understand the issue’s controversial nature.