Opinion ID: 2095393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act

Text: Under the United States Constitution, the power to regulate immigration rests exclusively with the federal government ( see US Const, art I, § 8 [4]; De Canas v Bica, 424 US 351, 354 [1976]; Takahashi v Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 US 410, 419 [1948]). Pursuant to this authority, in 1952 Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ( see Pub L 414, 66 US Stat 163, as amended, codified at 8 USC § 1101 et seq. ) as a comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization ( De Canas v Bica, 424 US at 353). The purpose of the INA was to delineate the terms and conditions of admission to the country and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in the country ( id. at 359). This congressional act, however, expressed only a peripheral concern regarding the employment of illegal aliens ( id. at 360); the INA did not make it unlawful for an employer to hire an alien who is present or working in the United States without appropriate authorization or for an alien to accept employment after entering this country illegally ( Sure-Tan, Inc. v NLRB, 467 US 883, 893 [1984]). As a result, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exclusive authority of Congress to regulate immigration did not prevent the states from enacting labor laws that forbid the employment of illegal aliens ( see De Canas v Bica, 424 US at 365). Because the INA did not make it a crime to employ an illegal alien or be employed as an alien lacking work authorization, the Supreme Court subsequently held that the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the purpose of which is to protect employees and provide remedies against illegal actions by employers, could be applied to employment practices that affect illegal aliens ( see Sure-Tan, Inc. v NLRB, 467 US at 892). Rejecting the argument that application of the NLRA would conflict with the purposes of the INA, the Supreme Court concluded that enforcement of the federal labor relations statutes was compatible with immigration law: A primary purpose in restricting immigration is to preserve jobs for American workers; immigrant aliens are therefore admitted to work in this country only if they `will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed.' . . . Application of the NLRA helps to assure that the wages and employment conditions of lawful residents are not adversely affected by the competition of illegal alien employees who are not subject to the standard terms of employment. If an employer realizes that there will be no advantage under the NLRA in preferring illegal aliens to legal resident workers, any incentive to hire such illegal aliens is correspondingly lessened. In turn, if the demand for undocumented aliens declines, there may then be fewer incentives for aliens themselves to enter in violation of the federal immigration laws. The Board's enforcement of the NLRA as to undocumented aliens is therefore clearly reconcilable with and serves the purposes of the immigration laws ( id. at 893-894). [3]