The two articles that are being compared deal with immigration laws across the country. While one author has a great perspective on the benefits of a policy enforced by the national government, the other author sees a bigger advantage in letting the states individually implement policy. As of now there is no standing National policy regarding the status of immigrants already living illegally in the United States; however there have been multiple states that have already tried out legislation to address the issue at hand, such as Texas and Arizona. In the article titled, “Let the States Experiment”, Tamar Jacoby explains how state legislature has affected immigration in the United States.
She feels that the states should play a larger role in creating policy regarding immigration. Jacoby even goes as far as implying that the states serve as good testing grounds for new legislature. “they should give the laboratories of democracy a chance to work – give states leeway to experiment with constructive solutions.
” She even notes the occurrence of this is happening in the present. She writes, “states across the country taking immigration lawmaking into their hands.” Unlike the other article, in “The Constitution settles it” by Elizabeth Wydra, the author explains that the Constitution bestows upon the National Government the power to set law and policy regarding foreign relations.
Although the state governments can also play a role in the immigration regulations, she argues that state legislature creates conflict with any standing federal legislature.“Arizona’s decision to pursue a single-minded, aggressive, nondiscretionary policy of “attrition through enforcement” conflicts with the complex balancing act that the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and specific congressional enactments have delegated to the executive branch.” The Founding Fathers wrote a new document, the Constitution, to replace the Ar.