Symposium Sanctuary Cities Law on Texas




Date of Submission

Symposium Sanctuary Cities Law on Texas

The Sanctuary Cities Law regards the lawsuit aimed at the enhancement of immigration law. The immigration enforcement laws are contained in the constitutional law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 4, which is against the sanctuary cities. The term “sanctuary cities” is associated with the local authorities that in a way or the other does not bother in putting into action the federal immigration laws as per the United States Constitution. The members of the symposium joined their heads together in scrutinizing all the things involved in the Texas education strategies regarding the immigrants without legal documents to states suggestion on the boundary safety. As it is the case when implementing any other policy in the government, it is common to have the disagreements among the members of the symposium as well as the public. People who see the validity and essential of a policy will tend to support its implementation while those who fill burdened will be against it.

The case is similar when it comes to the enforcement of the immigration law. The Senate Bill 4 was supported by many including the government leaders such as Gov. Greg Abbot, while on the other side of the opposition are the Democrats who argued that the right of the minority in the nation is being oppressed (Chen, page 22). Different reactions have been seen in various state governments which are part of the scandal of not making use of the immigration lawsuit arguing that many marginalized families will be victims threatening their wellbeing and survivability in the American community. In this discussion, the Sanctuary Cities Law on Texas is discussed into a profound extent in consideration of its validity in the United States, the detrimental effects to the affected civilians as postulated by the Democrats as well as the impacts of the court hearings regarding the immigration lawsuit enforcement.

Change is inevitable, and there come situations where a human being has to adjust to it as it is an effective way to enhance development. For instance, let us relate the implementation of the Senate Bill 4 law with a business situation. In every running firm, the aim is profit maximization which is attained by the introduction and adoption of new strategies whether it is in the production sector or the marketing segment. The new policy here is the merely the changes made in the company for its benefit and proper running. However, the introduce change may have adverse effects on the organization leading to enormous loss occurrences making it vital to carry out research and follow the right procedure to be sure that the new strategies will be beneficial. The case is similar when it comes to the legal implementation of policies at the government and local authority level where there must be consideration of both sides before passing any bill into law. The process of certifying the validity of banning the sanctuary cities in the nation brings about the influential commotion from both the defendant and proposing side.

Looking at the positive attributes regarding the passing of the Senate Bill 4 into a current law the fundamental issue regards the criminality committed by the illegal immigrants threatening the wellbeing of other civilians as well as the economic development (Lasch, page 32). It is in these sanctuary cities that all sorts of crimes starting from human violence, burglary, drugs peddling and substance abuse among many others. The enforced immigration law states that the local officers have the mandate to see and inquire about the immigrant’s legal documents. The sanctuary cities law can be significantly be regarded as the “present your papers” propaganda. The security officers at the local authority are anticipated to be asking the immigrants to show their paper in various scenarios such a during the traffic and border checkup. Furthermore, the legal document presentation can be done in the local area to sure that all the residents are officially incorporated in the society.

The illegal immigrants are considered merely to lawbreakers, and the induced penalty follow the victim even during imprisonment where to be agreed upon penalties such as fines have to be imposed. In any nation, the security issues matter most and have to be given priority to ensure peaceful coexistence of the citizens. In the current situations the regarded cities which allows undocumented settlement of immigrants registers the worst security matters in the nation. It is right that many minority communities do not have the legal documents in various local regions, but the aim is not tormenting and segregating them but security maintenance and helping them gain legal citizenship. The imposed lawsuit aims not only at eradicating unauthorized citizenship but also educating the immigrants imposing to them the mentality that they are an essential part of the nation and them have also to take part in its development but not degradation. The Texas law case is a reflection of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 of the year 2010 regarding the actions of police officers asking about civilians’ immigration status. However, the Arizona law was dulled by legal proceedings making the attorney general request the security officer ignore the issue to settle an agreement.

On the other side, there immerged the opponents defending the implementation of the sanctuary cities law. Sylvia Garcia was on the higher post of Democrats who were against the enforcement of the immigration lawsuit claiming that it will be oppressing the immigrants’ civil and human rights. Together with Garcia were other defendants such as Sen. Charles Perry and others mentioned in the Paxton’s suit including Sally Hernandez, Travis County sheriff and American Legal Defense and Educational Fund body. Garcia argued that the immigration law would lead to the development of an exchange mundane where the police officers will have excuses for banishment at the traffic points. The bill will also to a greater extent spread racism in the nation where the immigrants can be segregated merely and mistreated not because they do not have their legal documents, but due to ethnic differences. All in all the excuse will be undocumented settlement criminality, but in a real sense, the rivals will be aiming at eradicating the minority ethnic groups.

Charles Perry who the core activist of the anti-sanctuary legislation that stated that stipulated that it is not a requirement for the security officers to keep asking the immigration status of the legally detained immigrants. However, it is still lawful according to the country’s law. The policymakers also argued that the sanctuary cities law encouraged criminality at the local level where the immigrants without legal documents have fear to approach local authorities for interventions (Chen, page 21). For instance, an immigrant is a victim of crime will not take the initiative of contacting police officer as he is afraid that the case might not be put into consideration because he is not documented. He may be the one to end up being penalized and imprisoned as it is against the law not to have legal documents.

According to Fernando Garcia, the Senate Bill 4 comes at the awful condition of persecution, when the immigrants are outlawed denying the productive and potential personnel opportunity to have a stay in the country. It is heartbreaking to understand that instead of insisting on the police officers protecting the immigrants’ families, they are emphasized to maltreat them for minor reasons. The immigrant has to be educated in accordance to understand their civil right in this sovereign nation as a way of ending their abuse in the name of not having legal papers. They should know that it is not as per law to allow these officers in their residential house and property unless they have the license and they also do not have to answer questions regarding their immigration status. People have the right to remain silent when put in custody as well as not signing any document. Also, one can request a lawyer and hearing before being taken to the court of law (Bell, page 9).

The Senate Bill 4 has been faced with enormous opposition from the Democrats. It is true that the lawmakers have seen the eradication of undocumented civilians as an effective way of eradication criminality and enhancing peaceful existence of the citizens, but they have to put in consideration its devastating effects. It is inhumane to mistreat the immigrants according to the sanctuary cities law without review of the personal case. Many families were deported to the nation unintentionally, and they are living under harsh conditions colonized by poverty in the marginalized local areas. The government together with the local authorities have to put in place effective strategies to help the immigrants get the legal documentation and also deport the ones who are unethical aiming at spreading criminality in the nation. With that, all the civilians will productively take part in enhancing economic development as well as social mobility in the society.

Work Cited

Bell, Bernard W. “Sanctuary Cities, Government Records, and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.” Rutgers UL Rev. 69 (2016): 1553.

Chen, Ming H. “Trust in immigration enforcement: State noncooperation and sanctuary cities after secure communities.” Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 91 (2016): 13.

Chen, Ming H. “Trust in Immigration Enforcement: State Noncooperation and Sanctuary Cities after Secure Communities.” Immigr. & Nat’lity L. Rev. 36 (2015): 335.

Lasch, Christopher N. “Sanctuary Cities and Dog-Whistle Politics.” New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 42 (2016): 159.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *