Do Sanctuary Cities Have a Right to Defy Trump?
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Sanctuary Cities Have a Legal Right to Defy the Federal Government
Cesar Vargas, a former national Latino strategist for Bernie Sanders and co-founder of the DREAM Action Coalition, is New York's first openly undocumented lawyer. He is on Twitter (@DREAMerJ_D).
In terms of the strength of his argument, this is also a place where I should look out for bias, since it is likely that he will favor the perspective of the undocumented immigrants.
Due to the Cesar Vargas being an undocumented lawyer, demonstrates that there is bias towards the writing and therefore, the writing will be more one-sided because Vargas will strongly argue for undocumented immigrants. Ultimately, making this editorial to be limited in information of the topic.
UPDATED DECEMBER 1, 2016, 3:21 AM
It is not only legally defensible but crucial to our national security for cities and states to be allowed to pass and uphold sanctuary laws to assure taxpaying residents — regardless of immigration status — that their local government will protect them from federal overreach.
In order to maintain a balance of power between federal and local governments, I agree with Vargas’s argument here.
It is fundamental principle for any local, state or federal sovereign to have discretion over how it will enforce its laws. As the Supreme Court noted in Heckler v. Chaney, an enforcement agency's decisions should reflect “factors which are peculiarly within its expertise.” Localities, not Washington bureaucrats, are best suited to determine local law enforcement according to a multitude of factors, in any given situation.
Here, he cites a specific court case, and then uses that to draw the logical conclusion that local governments are better suited to deal with undocumented immigrants than federal governments are.
Local governments have constitutional authority to grant residents more rights and protections.
Vargas uses this evidence in order to support his argument that sanctuary cities need to remain under local law. According to the constitution, citizens under a local can get more rights and protections which is beneficial for illegal immigrants who can be in trouble from the federal government.
Even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, like immigration, it cannot force state or local governments to strip residents of rights and protections that have been passed by local legislature.
And at a time of eroded trust in police, states and cities must focus on how enforcement can be aided by local cooperation. A study by the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois, Chicago, found that increased involvement of local police in immigration enforcement in cities only served to erode trust in the legal system among residents.
By the author using a direct study preformed by officials, he helps strengthen his argument.
Should the U.S. use all of its might to protect our neighborhoods from those who threaten violent attacks? Of course. But Donald J. Trump's diatribes against sanctuary cities do not protect Americans — they only seed suspicion and divert attention from real concerns. The immense power of the U.S., and the money of taxpayers, should not be used to persecute, incarcerate and deport an undocumented parent working hard with the hopes of one day seeing her daughter become an attorney.
He lists the words, “persecute, incarcerate and deport,” to portray how the federal government could potentially treat an undocumented immigrant.
More broadly, opponents of sanctuary cities — like Kansas's secretary of state, Kris Kobach, the president-elect’s immigration adviser — forget that the U.S. fought against and declared independence from an imperial naval power to protect cherished liberties from an arbitrary central government embodied by an executive that could act by caprice through the throne.
Vagas talks about how the basis of America is freedom and rights. He talks about how Americans fought for their rights and independence from a controlling government. He brings up America’s history to back up the idea that the Federal government can be too powerful.
The president-elect has a clear choice: Build trust among all Americans to keep the nation safe or allow disconnected political swindlers to divide the nation for their own careers. When each and every American — including the undocumented — has a stake in national security, in their neighborhoods, this country will have an even firmer foundation for protecting itself against foreign and domestic attacks.
Vargas emphasizes his strong bias towards undocumented immigrants to go right to the source of the change, meaning President Trump. Vargas is using his political skills to try to make a change.
Sanctuary Cities Must Cooperate With Federal Enforcement
Jan C. Ting, a professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, is a former assistant commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
UPDATED DECEMBER 1, 2016, 4:27 PM
Immigration laws, like all laws in the U.S., can be criticized and challenged. But those laws enacted by Congress under the authority of the U.S. Constitution need to be respected and enforced. The defiance by some cities of U.S. immigration law and efforts to impede its enforcement, reflect a deeper questioning of our constitutional processes.
In Professor Ting’s opinion, he thinks that the Federal government should hold a higher authority over the local government. Any laws that congress passed should be respected by the local governments, with basically full cooperation.
Sanctuary cities became controversial after a series of high-profile crimes were committed against innocent victims by illegal immigrants who had been released from detention by local authorities — without notification to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau of the Department of Homeland Security.
Outrage over the issue may have helped Donald J. Trump get elected, as he denounced and promised to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities. They were also an issue in the successful re-election campaign of Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who denounced the sanctuary city policy in Philadelphia, in his own state.
Laws imposed locally for the protection of illegal immigrants interfere with the normal cooperation between law enforcement agencies.
It was right for these politicians to critique sanctuary policies: Laws imposed locally for the protection of illegal immigrants interfere with the normal cooperation between law enforcement agencies.
That is why the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under pressure from a Republican Congress, notified sanctuary cities that they must be in compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which prohibits any agency from restraining the exchange of information among federal, state and local agencies regarding the immigration status of any individual. The attorney general warned that sanctuary cities would not receive Justice Department funding in the current 2017 fiscal year if they did not comply. President-elect Trump and the Republican Congress can be expected to attempt to cut other federal funding to sanctuary cities in 2017.
Any prohibition against state and local officers sharing information and cooperating with federal immigration enforcement is a threat to public safety, and should not be supported by federal funding.
The author responds to the previous author’s idea that the nation would be better protected. The author does this in a respectful manner
Law enforcement agencies have traditionally relied on each other for support and back-up in carrying out their respective missions: It helps build trust and avoids unhappy surprises. Now, more than ever, with law enforcement officers and agencies under both scrutiny and attack, such coordination and cooperation should be facilitated and encouraged.
General Document Comments 0
Describe the overall claim of each editoral as a reply to this comment.
This is because this interferes with law enforcement agencies.
The claim for the first editorial was that any taxpaying resident, no matter if they are an immigrant or not, is a citizen of America. If they have been paying taxes and haven’t been a threat to American society, being an immigrant should not be the final say in their fate and treatment.
The second editorial was that Congress and law enforcement should respect the rights of every citizen in the U.S., no matter if they are immigrants or not.
Vargas argues that local governments have the constitutional right to grant their residents protection. and that the federal government cannot force local governments to get rid of the rights and protections granted to its undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, Ting claims that laws enacted by Congress authorized by the Constitution must be enforced and complied with by all.
Vargas believes that the federal government should not be involved with sanctuary cities because it’s a state issue under the constitution. He also believes that they defy the federal government on the topic of illegal immigrants.Ting argues the opposite, and believes that these cities should follow federal laws.
Continued → The states should decide whether or not to accept undocumented immigrants
Having a person that doesn’t have a large tie with immigration, except for job title and career, this editorial will have more of the general and broad information of immigration and the effects of both decisions.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments