Elizabeth Wydra And Tamar Jacoby: A Comparative Analysis

“Texas v. United States was a federal court challenge to President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.  On November 20, 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued directives that both identified longstanding immigration enforcement priorities and directed federal officials to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to defer removal of certain parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in order to remain consistent with those priorities in light of limited enforcement resources.  Twenty-two states, four governors, and the Nevada Attorney General challenged the directives,

The government’s role for the people is to challenge them like how contestants from “The Amazing Race” or “Fear Factor” are challenged. Government should be like a reality competition show filled with adventure and danger (Amazing Race, 2003) (Fear Factor, 2005). Just like the government in “The Hunger Games” (Collins, 2008). People should compete for rights and liberties. The competitions can be held under the government’s supervision. These competitions can involve multiple life daring tasks and only the ones that survive win. The losers or the ones not so fortunate die in the process, a true fight to the death. Government works from a federal standpoint and does not get involved in local affairs.

The influx of illegal immigrants into the United States affects every level of government in a significant way. Although the actual effects of illegal immigration are hotly debated, it remains the government's difficult duty to balance the massive amounts of data and diversity of public opinion in order to best accommodate the overall will of its people. In recent times we have witnessed a vast disconnect between what constituents want for their state versus what the nation as a whole considers Constitutionally justifiable. And therefore the necessity of a federal system, wherein the national government is playing a virtual tug-of-war with its states, comes to light. Using the issue of

The U.S. federal government has been leading in immigration policy. During this time, the Supreme Court and Congress have also granted states to regulate the lives and living conditions of immigrants within their borders. The states can regulate health and welfare services and business

“Both the House and Senate versions would ban cities, counties and universities from prohibiting law enforcement officers from asking about a person’s immigration status or enforcing immigration law.” (Dallas News) In this case, local government would be penalized and fined if they went against this ban. It is very unfortunate because a lot of innocent undocumented people would now be afraid to report any form of crime from fear of deportation. I believe that it is the responsibility of all branches of government including local to determine what is best for their citizens but it is equally important for them to carefully review the effects that any laws or regulations will have one the community as a whole and not just target specific groups.

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

The authors worst argument is that without a large Republic, the country will not be unified. This argument is the worst because each state has it’s own priorities and problems. For

There were solutions for these problems caused by the AOC. For the problem about the states being more powerful than the national government, the solution

State and local governments have been handed the problem of illegal immigrants by the Federal government. The Feds are not funding the services that have to be provided to these people and yet Government - either elected official or civil servant - is doing nothing to strengthen enforcement of the laws to remove those that are here illegally or to strengthen the borders and immigration process to keep illegal immigrants out. For the financial survival of many of our Border States; either illegal immigrants are breaking the law and need to leave the country or the laws need to be changed. This schizophrenic attitude towards immigration law enforcement has to stop - either the law has been broken or it has not and appropriate action needs to be taken. Either people are breaking the law and should be deported or they should be offered citizenship or the legal ability to stay. The States and Local Governments cannot afford to support illegal immigrant services and still take care of their own citizens.

Since the beginning of humanity, there have always been the rulers, and the ruled. The rulers have always been the government, and the ruled has always been the people. One would believe that the government would be truthful and be interested in their people's well being, but clearly, this is not the case. In fact, lies are often more common than the truth. Facts are changed based on the governing party's current needs. The government wants to control their people, to have an unquestioning, thoughtless population that make them more powerful, as this is their main priority. As a generalisation, the government is more interested in their well-being than that of the people who drive it.

The government loses its credibility, overestimating of its power and falsely claiming about the perfect control of the

reflect that there is a commitment to a strong national government since it gives them the power

According to Asumah, the lack of implementation of new immigration policies and the deferment of President Obama’s immigration reform “has given incentives to especially anti-immigrant border states within the Union to generate their own policies which are generally xenophobic in nature” (29). Therefore, a compromise must be implemented through laws and policies that will guarantee the enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S.-Mexico border through the increase of border-patrol groups and agreements with the Mexican government. With an increased control of the border, the number of new unauthorized immigrants entering the country will be reduced dramatically. Moreover, an effort of governors, senators and the president himself is needed in

Unquestionably, the most resented and controversial aspect of America’s immigration policy has been the growing concern over illegal immigration and its effects on the economy. During the mid 1990’s, public fury over illegal immigration reached new heights especially in the state of California, which borders Mexico. It was during this time when the United States witnessed one of the highest profile immigration bills in United States history emerge. Proposition 187, also known as the “Save Our State” initiative, appeared on the 1994 California ballot (Migration Dialogue 1994). Proposition 187 sought to restrict illegal immigrants from receiving public education, non-emergency medical care, and publically funded social services. Even though California voters passed this bill by a narrow margin, it was eventually overturned and never went into effect.

INTRODUCTION: According to Politics in States and Communities (Dye and MacManus, 2009), government in the constitutional form is primarily about conflict resolution. It exists to find solutions or at least to set parameters for implementing solutions within strict limitations. At the state and local levels (which operate together under state authority), governments have the freedom to address issues and conflicts very directly through the governance policies and restrictions they put in place. For the federal government, however, decisions are tied more directly to what the US Constitution says or what it has been interpreted to mean, and it is very difficult to change.