Federalism and Fundamental Rights: Safeguarding the Rights of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States and the European Union

• Author: Rachel B. Rosenbloom
• Position: Professor of Law, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Many thanks to Professors Alejandro del Valle and Miguel Acosta at the University of Cadiz and Professor Joaquin Alcaide at the University of Seville for inviting me to present these ideas to the faculty and students at those institutions; to Professor Irene Sobrino for...
• Pages: 13-45

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 4, janvier-décembre 2016, pp. 13-45

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_ int.2016.i4.01

13

FEDERALISM AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: SAFEGUARDING

THE RIGHTS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN THE

UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

RACHEL E. ROSENBLOOM1

I.- DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. II.- STATE AND LOCAL ANTI-

IMMIGRANT INITIATIVES. III.- LEGAL CHALLENGES TO “ATTRITION

THROUGH ENFORCEMENT” LAWS. IV.- FEDERALISM AND FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS : LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CHALLENGING ANTI-IMMIGRANT

LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION.

ABSTRACT: In both the United States and Europe, governments have stepped up initiatives to

reduce unauthorized immigration. Direct immigration control measures such as border security are

just one aspect of these efforts. Another key aspect consists of indirect immigration control mea-

sures, in the form of laws that restrict the ability of undocumented immigrants to work, study, rent

property, or access public services.This article reviews recent developments in the United States

with respect to indirect immigration control measures and maps out some points of comparison

with analogous developments within the European Union. It provides an account of the wave of

state and local anti-immigrant laws that swept the United States between 2006 and 2011 andsum-

marizes the developing U.S. jurisprudence on the constitutionality of these measures. It then offers

some initial observations comparing the United States to the E.U. This comparison highlights the

distinction between approaching anti-immigrant laws through the lens of federalism (or, in the

terminology more common in Europe, competence) and approaching such laws as violations of

fundamental rights.

Keywords: Irregular Migrants, Undocumented Immigrants, Federalism, Competence

FEDERALISMO Y DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES: DEFENDER LOS DERECHOS DE

LOS INMIGRANTES EN SITUACIÓN IRREGULAR EN ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EN LA

UNIÓN EUROPEA

RESUMEN: Tanto en Estados Unidos como en Europa, se han intensif‌i cado las iniciativas para

reducir la inmigración irregular. Las medidas directas de control de la inmigración, por ejemplo

la seguridad fronteriza, son sólo un aspecto de estos esfuerzos. Otro aspecto clave consiste en

medidas indirectos de control de la inmigración, en forma de leyes que restringen la capacidad de

los migrantes irregulares para trabajar, estudiar, alquilar una propiedad, o acceder a los servicios

públicos. En este artículo se analiza la evolución reciente en los Estados Unidos con respecto a

las medidas indirectos de control de inmigración y se ofrecen algunos puntos de comparación

con la evolución análogas dentro de la Unión Europea. El artículo describe la ola de leyes anti-

inmigrantes locales del estado y que se extendió por los Estados Unidos entre 2006 y 2011 y resume

la jurisprudencia EE.UU. sobre la constitucionalidad de estas medidas. A continuación, ofrece

 Professor of Law, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Many thanks to

Professors Alejandro del Valle and Miguel Acosta at the University of Cadiz and Professor

Joaquin Alcaide at the University of Seville for inviting me to present these ideas to the

faculty and students at those institutions; to Professor Irene Sobrino for comments on an

earier draft of this article; and to Alyssa Telander for her excellent research assistance.

Federalims and Fundamental Rights : Safeguarding the Rights of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States

and the European Union

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 4, janvier-décembre 2016, pp. 13-45

14

algunas observaciones iniciales que comparaban los Estados Unidos a la E.U. Esta comparación

pone de relieve la distinción entre acercarse a las leyes anti-inmigrantes a través de la lente del

federalismo (o, en la terminología más común en Europa, la competencia) y acercarse a esas leyes

como violaciones de los derechos fundamentales.

Palabras clave: Migración Irregular, Inmigrantes Indocumentados, Federalismo, Competencia

FÉDÉRALISME ET DROITS FONDAMENTAUX : DÉFENDRE LES DROITS DES

IMMIGRANTS EN SITUATION IRRÉGULIÈRE AUX ÉTATS-UNIS ET AU SEIN

L’UNION EUROPÉENNE

RÉSUMÉ : Aux États-Unis comme en Europe, nombreux gouvernements ont intensif‌i é les ini-

tiatives visant à endiguer l’immigration irrégulière. Les mesures de contrôle direct, tels que les

contrôles aux frontières, ne forment que l’un des aspects de ces efforts. Un autre aspect clé sont les

mesures de contrôle indirect, sous forme de lois visant à restreindre l’accès à l’emploi, à l’éduca-

tion, au logement ou aux services publics. Le présent article fait le point de l’évolution récente aux

États-Unis des contrôles indirects de l’immigration, et établit les grandes lignes de comparaison

avec les développements analogues au sein de l’Union Européenne.

L’article offre un compte rendu de la vague de lois, au niveau des États aussi bien qu’au niveau

local, qui a balayé les États-Unis entre 2006 et 2011, et offre un résumé de la jurisprudence relative

à la constitutionalité desdites mesures. L’article offre ensuite quelques premières comparaisons

entre les États-Unis et l’Union européenne. Ces comparaisons mettent en relief les différences dans

la lutte contre les lois anti-immigration, entre une stratégie fédéraliste d’une part (en Europe, on

parlera de compétence), et d’autre part, une stratégie visant à révéler ces lois comme contraires aux

droits fondamentaux des personnes.

Mots clé : Immigration irrégulière, immigrés sans papiers, fédéralisme, compétence.

In both the United States and Europe, governments have stepped up

initiatives to reduce unauthorized immigration. Direct immigration control

measures such as border security are just one aspect of these efforts. Another

key aspect consists of indirect immigration control measures, in the form of

laws that restrict the ability of undocumented immigrants to work, study, rent

property, or access public services.2

This article reviews recent developments in the United States with respect

to indirect immigration control measures and maps out some points of

comparison with analogous developments within the European Union (E.U.).

Part I brief‌l y reviews the evolution of U.S. immigration policy at the national

level over the past three decades. Part II provides an account of the wave

of state and local anti-immigrant laws that swept the United States between

2 While the term “irregular migrant” is used more commonly within Europe, this article

follows common U.S. practice in using the term “undocumented immigrant” to refer to

noncitizens who lack authorized immigration status in the country in which they reside.

RACHEL ROSENBLOOM

Paix et Securité Internationales

ISSN 2341-0868, Num. 4, janvier-décembre 2016, pp. 13-45 15

2006 and 2011. Part III summarizes the developing U.S. jurisprudence on the

constitutionality of these measures. Part IV offers some initial observations

comparing the United States to the E.U. This comparison highlights the

distinction between approaching anti-immigrant laws through the lens of

federalism (or, in the terminology more common in Europe, competence)

and approaching such laws as violations of fundamental rights.

I. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

This section reviews three central issues that have shaped immigrants’

rights debates at the national level within the United States over the past three

decades. First, U.S. immigration policy has become increasingly focused on

enforcement, marking a departure from the liberalization of the 1960s and

1970s. Secondly, the number of undocumented immigrants living in the

United States has grown signif‌i cantly. And f‌i nally, although the U.S. Congress

has considered regularization programs numerous times over the past decade,

legislators have been deeply divided on the issue and have failed to enact any

proposed immigration reform legislation.

1. HEIGHTENED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

Statutory changes and spending increases have transformed the U.S.

immigration enforcement system over the past three decades. Immigration

policy in the United States underwent a number of progressive reforms in

the 1960s through early 1980s, including the end of a racially discriminatory

system of national origins quotas in 1965 and the passage of the Refugee Act

in 1980.3 However, in the years since then there has been a growing emphasis

on enforcement. Between 1984 and 2014, the number of people deported

annually from the United States increased more than twentyfold, from fewer

than nineteen thousand per year to more than four hundred thousand per

3 See MILLER, T.A., “Citizenship & Severity: Recent Immigration Reforms and the

New Penology,” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. L.J. Vol. 17, 2003, p. 15 (noting that

“immigration – seen primarily as a civil rights issue during the Civil Rights Era spanning

the 1960’s and 1970’s – is now seen as a critical issue of national security”). See generally,

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, The Growth of the U.S. Deportation Machine, 2014,

www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/f‌i les/docs/deportation_machine_march_2014_

f‌i nal.pdf>.