Immigration laws come from the government, and no single state can alter its requirements (Matos, 2017). The decision of making the state supreme for the formation of the immigration laws came from the desire to avoid confusion among the states, from the implementation of different laws on an issue that touches across the migrants (FindLaw, 2021). FindLaw (2021) further confirms that the government is responsible for ensuring that the immigrants are offered visas, green cards, and citizenship. However, Matos (2017) further confirms that the states can create laws that touch on the different activities that the immigrants can participate in while at the different states. Some of the activities that the State laws on immigration can control include education, employment, and licensing. The diversity in the California and Montana States’ immigration laws, as detailed in this paper, stems from the autonomy that the states have to control their citizens and the independent states’ cultural and social backgrounds through its decisions.
According to Johnson and Sanchez (2019), California State has the highest number of immigrants in the US, 27% of the total population at over 10 million immigrants. On the contrary, Montana has among the lowest number of immigrants in the US, at 2% of the total population, about 20,000 immigrants. The difference in the number of immigrants compared to the total population and each other shows a high variation and possibilities of differences in how the immigrants are treated in both states. California is more urban than Montana, with 87% of its population living in urban areas, while Montana has more than 600,000 individuals out of almost 1 million living in rural areas (Garcia & Schmalzbauer, 2017). Therefore, the variation of the two cities’ laws relies on the social and cultural backgrounds, from the number of immigrants and the citizens’ way of life. Despite the reliance on the national immigration laws, the two states have different requirements that guide the immigrants’ ways of life, including their participation in public projects and benefits.
Since California has more immigrants than Montana, there is a possibility of more focus on immigrants’ issues. On the contrary, California is more urban; therefore, the high population is influenced by individuals’ desire to find employment opportunities. The higher number of California citizens makes the state have varying challenges from those experienced in Montana. The larger percentage of rural areas in Montana means that less focus will be on immigrants’ issues, such as employment laws. The state has fewer employment chances than California under urban and rural area comparison. The high number of immigrants in California leads to a more focus on immigration laws in the state.
FindLaw (2021) details the main similarities of the California and Montana immigration laws, including fingerprinting of arrested individuals and running checks through immigration status, a requirement of the national laws. The two states also adhere to the federal employment eligibility verification and the requirements of Form 1-9. The two states restrict illegal immigrants from public benefits apart from essential services as health, aimed at saving lives, a requirement of the national law. Most of the comparisons on the immigrants’ laws across the two states rely on the national immigrants’ laws, which the states do not have the power to alter or avoid. The similarities, however, do not mean that the two states lack differences in immigration laws.
The main difference in the laws is from the Montana law issues, while the same has provisions in California. Various issues are not applicable in the Montana immigration laws, including the lack of e-verification requirements, lack of education checks, and lack of housing ordinances and immigration (FindLaw, 2021). There is no consideration of the three outlined factors on Montana’s immigration laws, a direct contrast to California. FindLaw (2021) further confirms that for California, there is a restriction on the use of E-Verify, as compared to other states. E-Verify is restricted and should not be used as mandatory by any employer unless to an individual’s wish. In California’s immigrants’ education case, the Dream Act was passed, which supports the same tuition fees as in-state legal residents at public universities by undocumented immigrants (Castañeda, 2017). The law is different from most states that bar undocumented immigrants from paying the same tuition fees as the legal residents in public universities. Lastly, California does not prohibit the payment of rental or housing services to immigrants.
The major differences in California and Montana’s immigration laws rely on immigrants’ numbers in the states. Montana has a low number of immigrants than legal citizens, making it hard for the state to concentrate on the immigrant’s issue fully. On the contrary, California has many immigrants, and it is quite challenging for the state not to consider the issue. Immigrants constitute a significant part of the state; thus, the government must develop the most effective measures of dealing with the issue. Some of the proponents on immigration are not considered in Montana since the state’s immigrants hardly come across such issues. Therefore, California and Montana’s immigration laws’ diversity relies on the state’s needs that the laws aim to meet.
A theory that can be effectively used to explain how the laws are made differently at each state is the state autonomy theory. According to Tomkiewicz and Postuła (2020), the state autonomy theory refers to the thought that the state is an impervious entity to external social and economic impacts and makes decisions on its interests. The state autonomy theory means that the state makes decisions for its benefit, depending on its internal factors. In the law-making process, state autonomy means that the laws made by a state are driven by the needs or demands of its citizens. States come up with specific laws that benefit their own, as the decisions are made regarding the states’ internal well-being (Tomkiewicz & Postuła, 2020).
From the immigration laws, the state autonomy theory means that the two states made laws related to immigration while considering their state of immigration. For instance, Montana lacks provisions on immigration issues since they are not present with the few immigrants. Similarly, California has provisions that are different from most states due to their high number of immigrants. The state allows undocumented immigrants to pay the same tuition fees as legal residents through their Dream Act (FindLaw, 2021). The law or decision made through the Dream Act might have been driven by the thought that many undocumented immigrants in the state have not gone through higher education. Denying the immigrants the chance for education might lead to more challenges to the state’s future when there are many non-professionals or unlearned individuals across. Allowing the group to learn might be way much beneficial than when having them all illiterate.
As detailed before, the national government is the primary law enforcer for issues that deal with immigration laws. The states cannot create such laws or even enforce them at any level. Instead, they focus on using what the state has created to ensure that they generate their service delivery guidelines to the immigrants. In consideration of such, there are no specific discrepancies on the national and state laws when it comes to immigration laws. Instead, all the states are guided by the national proponents, as they focus on meeting the national government’s requirements.
As detailed from the two states’ case, the significant similarities in the immigration laws come from the proponents of the government’s laws. Any area where the government has put a specific requirement of how immigration should be taken in nations has been respected by the two states, making it similar from both areas. Such similarities confirm that the national government is supreme when it comes to making laws on immigration. The states are responsible for implementing the same laws and only making regulations on how immigrants can operate within their boundaries. Despite states’ autonomy, as brought out before, they still have no power over the national government regarding the laws that relate to immigration. Therefore, there are close to no chances for the state laws on immigration to conflict with the national laws. The only case available is the possibility of the state laws complementing the national laws. The state laws are created to ensure that the citizens at different states keep the laws regardless.
Policy creation across different states is diverse due to the needs and requirements of the laws or rules. In consideration of the immigration laws, the national government is the supreme body in determining the laws. The states only implement or make guidelines of how the immigrants will enjoy different services across the states. The state autonomy theory also helps to see how the states can make laws that differ. The states are responsible for ensuring that their citizens are effectively treated. The diversity of the immigration laws across the states is evident in California and Montana due to the difference in the number of immigrants across the states and the rural and urban factors. Diversity of laws stems from both autonomy and cultural and social backgrounds across the states.
