
In the United States, each state has its specially established laws regarding immigration on top of the governing federal laws. Consequently, some states have tougher immigration rules than others, depending on several factors. Some of these factors include demographics, geography, religion, history, and lawmakers. The state immigration policies shape the lives of immigrants in terms of education and socioeconomic status, among others. While Alabama and California have a relatively high immigrant populations, Alabama has tougher immigration policies than California.
Immigration Laws
In Alabama, the immigration policy regarding access to education is more unfavorable to undocumented immigrants compared to that of California. According to “Alabama state immigration laws” (2019), a new immigration policy requires schools to run checks on the immigration status of students to track and collect data. This controversial policy restricts immigrants from accessing public and state-owned schools (“Alabama state immigration laws,” 2019). Furthermore, despite the court having halted this law, Alabama education institutions are still causing havoc for immigrant students by making it impossible to access equal education as other students.
California, on the contrary, ignores federal laws to run policies that favor immigrants’ access to education. The state prohibits running checks for immigration status during the administration of students in schools. Indeed, California passed the Dream Act, which allows immigrants to pay equal tuition fee rates as other Native Americans (“California laws protecting immigrants’ civil rights,” 2019). The policy allows immigrant students to pay in-state tuition fee rates as those of public universities (Migliarini & Stinson, 2021). The in-state immigrants can also apply and enjoy tuition fee-related financial benefits given to all students. For undocumented students, alternative ways of identification are allowed during the sitting of graduate exams.
Theories of Power
Alabama’s strict education policy against immigration could be explained by the state autonomy theory. In-state autonomy theory, a state politically operates towards retaining its territorial integrity against the indigenous or ethnic demands for independence (Svarstad, 2018). Alabama’s political powers retain their territorial power by denying the immigrants the chance to grow in terms of education. By limiting their level of educational access, the state ensures that the minority will forever remain dependent on the majority.
Pluralism, on the other hand, explains the large acceptance of immigrants in California educational institutions. Pluralism is the recognition and acceptance of diversity in a political body (Svarstad, 2018). This power theory permits the coexistence of various lifestyles, convictions, and interests. California’s political system supports diversification by allowing immigrant students to access equal education as the Natives so long as it achieves a stable and democratic political power. The state promotes power across various elite groups, including minorities.
Other Factors Explaining the Differences
Demographic is a major factor that explains the differences in immigration policies between the two states. In Alabama, at least 3% of its general population is immigrants. As of 2019, 27% of the California population was composed of immigrants (Kashyap, 2019). The higher population of immigrants in California pushes the states to create a positive environment for the majority as opposed to Alabama. Furthermore, most of the immigrants in California are located in urban areas, in contrast to the majority of Alabama immigrants who live in rural areas.
Socioeconomic status, history, and access to power are other factors that explain immigration law differences between the two states. Due to the lack of access to quality education and other public benefits as restricted by immigration policy in Alabama, the immigrants maintain low socioeconomic statuses compared to those living in California (Kashyap, 2019). In terms of history, California has a long history of having the largest number of immigrants, especially from as far as the 17th century (Kashyap, 2019). Alabama, on the other hand, has a shorter history of hosting immigrants hence the reluctance to embrace the ethnic groups. Lastly, California has easy access to power for immigrants considering their high population, which gives some immigrants a chance to be in political seats. Vying for a political seat in Alabama is impossible for immigrants, especially with the restricted I.D. application procedure.
State of Migration Patterns in the States
The existing immigration policies in the two states have altered the patterns of migration, with California having vivid and Alabama with fading patterns. The tougher immigration laws in Alabama have significantly reduced the growth of the immigrant population in the state. In the past 20 years, Alabama has started attracting a sizeable number of immigrants due to high potential growth for the group (Kashyap, 2019). However, the recently aligned policies have made it harder for immigrants to access education, health, and economic stability. The lack of these major factors that play a great role in human development has seen a reduced pattern of immigrants moving into the state. Although Alabama legalizes same-sex marriage, the patterns of migrations are likely to go graphically down in the future.
California started to attract immigrants highly in the 1970s, and recent policies have increased the number of immigrants entering the state. In the United States, California is known to have the highest immigrant population, and the number is still growing in recent years (Kashyap, 2019). The favorable policies create a positive environment for the growth and development of immigrants in the country. The legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008 also played a role in pushing up the pattern of immigrants in the state. Furthermore, with more expected favorable immigrant policies, the patterns of migration to California will rise in the future.
U.S. Supreme Court Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 539 539 (1842)
The Pennsylvania statute of 1826 was deemed lawfully wrong for penalizing a slave owner that crossed jurisdictions to recover the slave. Edward Prigg, a citizen of Maryland State, was penalized in the court of Pennsylvania for forcibly taking a negro woman from the county to Maryland State. Margaret Morgan, a Negro slave, had escaped from Maryland to Pennsylvania in 1832. Morgan was the slave of Margret Ashmore according to the laws of Maryland. Prigg, as an agent and attorney to Ashmore, caused Morgan to be kidnapped and brought back to Maryland.
The Pennsylvania law indicted Prigg for breaking the law which protected negro women from forcibly being taken and used for the slavery trade. The Pennsylvania court charged Prigg with felonies and imposed various penalties, including a sum of not less than 500 000 dollars and a jail sentence of not less than seven years which would be served under hard labor conditions, among other provisions. Prigg pleaded not guilty, and the case was moved to the Pennsylvanian Supreme court.
The supreme nullified the statute judgment by citing that the ruling had violated constitutional provisions. According to the U.S. constitution of 1842, slaves were the property of the owner so long as the owner legally acquired them. Therefore, Prigg was not wrong for using whichever means possible as an attorney to help Ashmore recover her property, Morgan. In this case, the Pennsylvania State had to alter its case ruling as it violated constitutional law. The state changed its law by allowing slave owners to recover their slaves as their lost property.
Lesson and Interpretation
One lesson learned here is that the U.S. constitution always puts the majority, who are the Natives, over the minorities. States are under federal law, and even though they might develop laws in favor of the majority, their rulings may not hold in supreme courts. Concerning this topic, the U.S. constitution or federal law mostly favors Native Americans. The states have always wanted what is good for the minorities in the U.S. However, no matter how much the states may alter their policies to protect the immigrants, minorities will always be insecure about federal law.

Tougher immigration policies in Alabama make it difficult for immigrants to thrive in the state. California, on the contrary, has policies that set a positive environment for immigrants to prosper. The differences in the policy development in the two states are based on the immigrant population, history, access to power, and geography, among many other factors. As opposed to Alabama, California continues to have a rising pattern in migration activities. The pattern is expected to keep rising in the future while that of Alabama declines due to imposed immigration policies. The U.S. constitution has always put the interest of the Native Americans first despite the presence of minority ethnic groups in the country.