The first article is claiming that immigration status is something that should not stop someone from living normally in their city. However, the other author is saying that it is important for all illegal immigrants to be fully and federally documented, because otherwise it would be a security issue.

The author agrees that the government should do everything in its power to keep the country safe, but getting rid of sanctuary cities is not the way to do this. It is unconstitutional according to the author to get rid of sanctuary cities. The author’s bias is justified considering he himself is undocumented.

The first article expresses the idea that the recent focus on illegal immigration has diverted our attention from other, more important concerns in America. It is suggested that our concerns on national security should not intrude on the rights of people who have come to America for a better life.

Cesar Vargas, the first writer, believes that Sanctuary cities, which do not have to allow search for undocumented immigrants, should be allowed to exist. He believes they prevent mistrust. He also believes that since the federal government is not given the power to search for undocumented immigrants by the constitution, the power goes to the city. The second writer, Jan C. TIng believes that sanctuary cities should not be allowed to exist and that funding to them should be cut off. He believes laws imposed to protect illegal immigrants interfere with cooperation of law enforcement agencies. He also provides that illegal immigrants have committed series crimes, and should not be allowed to reside in the country through these sanctuary cities.

In the first article, the author believes that the government should focus their attention to other concerns rather than attacking undocumented aliens that are trying to have the “american dream” and allow their children to better succeed in life. There seems to be issues with finding whether or not it is worth it to persecute aliens or fight battles within the country itself.

Article 2 however holds the opposite opinion of the state of the sanctuary cities. There is an element of the idea that even when the people don’t agree with all that a president or government service does, there should be a respect for the office. People believe that there should be restrictions upon how much funding is given to these cities so that they don’t exist anymore since they go against the ideals of the President

Vargas argues that states should be able to allow sanctuary cities because by law they have authority to do that and the federal government cannot force them to search out illegals. Ting, however, argues that the authority of Congress and the Constitution must be enforced. Ting argues that all citizens must be documented for the safety of the people.

In the first article, the author is arguing that local governments have direct authority over their residents, and is responsible for granting them more rights or protections. The second article argues that the Constitution gives laws enacted by Congress supreme authority, and it is up to local governments to enforce those laws and not counter them with by establishing their own rights.

The main argument Cesar Vargas is making is that the federal government should not be allowed to force local governments to restrict a citizen’s rights. The article believes local governments should be in charge of enforcing their laws in the area. If the government limits the rights of its people, the residents lose their trust in the legal system.

Cesar Vargas argues that sanctuary cities should have the right to govern the people in their cities the way they wish in specifics. This includes the decision on what to do with their undocumented citizens. It also prevents the rise in conflict with the government and its people.

The first article points out that local governments are very beneficial to the people and should have control over how it enforces its laws and cities should focus more on using local advantages to aid enforcement. The local government expresses each individual at its best which will allow for enforcement to be at its best.
The second article enforces the fact that local laws do not help while there are national laws made specific for the issue. Local laws create issues for what the national government feels necessary that they must set out to do.

Vargas argues that the federal government should not be focusing on trying to get illegal immigrants out of the country. That is up to the local governments to decide on the situation of undocumented immigrants. Their main focus should be on the protection of the nation. Ting discusses how

The author uses words like “innocent victims” with words like “illegal immigrants” to make it seem like immigrants are the only people who commit such crimes. This use of rhetoric evokes logos: “if immigrants cause crimes, why should local government protect them?” However, the bias is quite authoritarian and goes against the ideas behind the tenth amendment and general federalism.