Federalism and Immigration 1
Southern New Hampshire University
Pad 633
Werlaine Badio
Federalism Short Paper
Federalism and Immigration 2
Main Elements
Federalism is an important and innovative idea in the United States. It means that
national and state governments share power. From this idea came the coordinate authority model,
the inclusive authority model, and the overlapping authority model of intergovernmental
relations, or IGR. The coordinate authority model shows the "clear separation between national
and state/local relationships and the clear boundaries between the levels of government"
(Agranoff & Radin, 2014, p. 2), while the inclusive authority model shows the opposite. The
inclusive authority model "shows a system in which relationships between governments are
based mainly on a set of hierarchical relationships and puts the national level in the lead"
(Agranoff & Radin, 2014, p. 2). Lastly, the overlapping authority model shows IGR as
an2intersection between all levels of government.
Each of these frameworks considers intergovernmental interactions' role in formulating
policy choices. For example, the overlapping authority model focuses on six key characteristics
"limited and dispersed power, modest and uncertain areas of autonomy, high degree of potential
or actual interdependence, simultaneous competition and corporation, bargaining-exchange
relationships, and lastly negotiation as a strategy for reaching agreement" (Agranoff & Radin,
2014, p. 7-8). "This model requires a bargaining decision-making process different from the
hierarchical or the market approach. In their entirety, these models are significant as "negotiation
remains a primary interactive tool, but it often follows other IGR processes, ranging from two-
party regulatory and fiscal parameters to the endpoint of multiparty network processes"
(Agranoff &Radin, 2014, p. 24).
Federalism and Immigration 3
Inquiry and Analysis
In my opinion, the inclusive authority model is the most appropriate form of federalism
regarding immigration policy inside the United States and the intergovernmental interactions of
these sorts of policies. When interpreting a policy problem or program, the states will defer to
federal authority under the inclusive authority paradigm. "As a result of changes in the
legislation over the last several decades, state and local governments have been more active in
the debate over, and ultimately the implementation of, immigration reform. The federal
government is the major, if not exclusive, seat of immigration authority, and has remained so for
the subsequent 125 years because of its effect on the states" (Gulaeskaram & Ramakrishnan,
2013).
The Supreme Court "established the principle of federal exclusivity in the sphere of
immigration" in Chy Lung v. Freeman (Gulaeskaram & Ramakrishnan, 2013, p. 2076). This
ruling paved the way for jurisdictions to pass rules to detect and deter the presence of
unauthorized immigrants.2 For example, after the federal government made its judgment,
numerous states passed E-verify legislation that "enables enrolled employers to check the legal
right for their hirees2to work in the United States" 2(About E-Verify, 2018). In addition, some
states, such as Massachusetts, have passed laws that directly go against2federal removal
procedures and help all immigrants, regardless of legal standing, establish themselves and adapt
to life in the US. These states are often known as sanctuary states.
The degree to which a state can comply with or surrender to a policy enacted at the
federal level is almost entirely determined by the state itself. In the realm of immigration,
individual states retain the authority to formulate and interpret their policies, as is the case
generally. Although the federal government's authority is often believed to be boundless, in
Federalism and Immigration 4
reality, it is both restricted and extensive. "The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal
government from asking states and their subdivisions to function as federal agents in the
enforcement of federal law" (Rodriguez, 2017, p. 523). Having said that, the federal government
can nevertheless get a lot done2by using its spending power, which is something it could not
otherwise achieve without the imposition of direct rules.
Integration and application
The rational and ad-hoc incremental decision-making models influence decisions in the
public sector.2 The rational model employs a "sequence process to analyze evidence and facts,
whereas the ad-hoc incremental model typically takes more time but tends to be more thorough
and provide a comprehensive and inclusive solution"(Shafritz et at., 2013, p. 1).2According to its
proponents, the rational decision-making model2"emerged from an endeavor to prescribe an ideal
route to good judgments rather than from an attempt to represent reality" (Comparing Public
Policies, 2023). Using a cost-benefit analysis, this approach determines the value of an object.
The ad hoc incremental decision-making model was developed as a response to the shortcomings
of rational decision-making models. This approach was supposed to be "motivated by the
cognitive limits of humans and a desire to reduce the political costs of the new choice”
(Comparing Public Policies, 2023). The concept operates under the premise that "it is
considerably simpler politically to get consent for tiny adjustments in current policies than to
negotiate a markedly different approach” (Comparing Public Policies, 2023).
Given this information, the ad hoc incremental decision-making model would be the most
appropriate framework for immigration regulations. Changes to citizenship law in the United
States have been gradual but constant. While several presidents have made little adjustments to
immigration policy, none of these changes have been very progressive in helping those already
Federalism and Immigration 5
living in the United States. The rising expense of maintaining infrastructure to accommodate
illegal immigrants’ forces states to take matters into their own hands while federal action on the
issue moves slowly. As a result of federalism's inherent "push and pull dynamics and the federal
government is unable to avoid either” (Rodriguez, 2017, p. 536). Furthermore, "while
immigration admissions, deportations, and citizenship policies are the exclusive domain of the
federal government, state and local governments influence immigration patterns through policy
choices" (Unenforced Boundaries: Illegal Immigration and the Limits of Judicial Federalism,
1995, p. 424).
Federalism and Immigration 6
References.
About E-Verify. (2018, April 10). E-Verify. https://www.e-verify.gov/about-e-verify
Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (2014). Deil Wrights Overlapping Model of Intergovernmental
Relations: The Basis for Contemporary Intergovernmental Relationships. Publius: The
Journal of Federalism, 45(1), 139-159. doi: 10.1093/publius/pju036
Comparing Public Policies. (2023, February 10). SAGE Publications Inc.
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/comparing-public-policies/book236354
Gulasekaram, Pratheepan, and Karthick Ramakrishnan. 2013. Immigration Federalism: A
Reappraisal.” New York University Law Review 88(6): 2074-145.
Rodriguez. 2017.“The President and Immigration Law Redux.” Yale Law Journal 125(6): 104
225
Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., and Borick, C. P. (2013). Introducing public administration. New
York, NY: Routledge
Unenforced Boundaries: Illegal Immigration and the Limits of Judicial Federalism. (1995).
Harvard Law Review, 108(7), 1643. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341811
