The Pros And Cons Of Senate Bill 4

The state of Arizona has issued a new state law which enables police officers to act as immigration officers. With this underestimated powers given to the police, it will cause a lot of problems, and sensitivities to all the legal and illegal immigrants (Cnn.com). Undocumented students residing Arizona will be in a constant fear of being deported since any minor issue such as calling the police for help in any case given can put their lives in the danger of deportation. It’s only a matter of time if the government doesn’t stop this act, Arizona will impose unfair laws for education toward undocumented students. This will only cause chaos, and taking away the validity of the American Dream.

One of the most talked about bills is TX Senate Bill 4. SB4, often referred to as a “Sanctuary City ban,” has already been signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott. SB4 requires local law enforcement, including campus police, to comply with the requests of federal immigration

It is clear that illegal immigration has gotten out of control and constringent measures need to be taken to protect the United States borders. The local Government of Arizona recently decided to take control of the situation, by passing the “Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” {House Bill 2162}. This bill gives law enforcement officers and agencies the authority, to lawfully stop, detain and arrest anyone who appears to look like an illegal alien. The bill out-right condones racial profiling and it violates civil rights, as well!

As Donald Trump’s presidency unfolds his promise to crack down on immigration and cut funding to sanctuary cities is becoming a reality, however, each city is handling it differently. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump promised to crack down on illegal immigrants and “sanctuary cities”. Sanctuary city is a vague term that is being thrown around right now. It loosely refers to a towns or cities that don’t immediately turn over illegals who commit small crimes, and don’t cooperate fully with immigration services (“Sanctuary Cities: Top 3 Pros and Cons”). Most Texas cities have vowed to remain loyal to their citizens, and not rip families apart due to politics and money. Cutting federal funding to a city is not an

With new years day, 2017, Missouri Senate Bill 656 went into effect. A highly contentious change to previous laws, it was vetoed by Jay Nixon, who was in turn overridden by Republican--and one Democrat--state senators. The primary function of the bill, though certainly not the full extent, is to allow all Missouri residents the right to carry firearms concealed in public without a liscense or training. While pro-gun and pro-gun-control advocates both have their laundry lists of arguments and rebuttals, most of what the public hears about gun rights is mere rhetoric, design to sound appealing. For a true understanding of changes in gun laws, the 2nd Amendment must be understood. Senate Bill 656 is a step forward in regards to the 2nd Amendment

Pro: Helps to create jobs for veterans and improve school facilities which could improve safety standard.

Before being elected as sheriff, she campaigned to end voluntary compliance with ICE as one of her leading issues. This means that Austin, Texas will become the first true sanctuary city of the state. Under her policy due to have taken effect 1 Feb 2017, she will only honor ICE detainer requests for inmates who have been charged with murder, sexual assault, or human trafficking. In a statement Sheriff Sally Hernandez said, “[My] office in completely lawful and upholding the constitution with our ICE policy. We are in full compliance with 8 USC 1373. Our policy states in item #10 that “This policy in no way prohibits or restricts sending information to or requesting or receiving information from ICE regarding an individual’s immigration or citizenship status….” She is very confident that her stance on immigration does not interfere with federal laws. “I just don’t think you solve the criminal process by deporting them” said Sheriff Sally

It also subjects law enforcement to a class A misdemeanor for failing to “hold non-citizen inmates subject to removal” (Aguilar). This creates various responses from police officers whom come from an undocumented family and do not personally agree with this. Sheriff Sally Hernandez from Travis county in Texas decided to take a stand against this new ban against sanctuary cities. Sheriff Sally decided that her county will not comply with this infringement on families and their safety (Aguilar). This caused the state to “deprive the local government of all of its state funding,” showing that this is going to be a long battle between the state and local government of Texas and Travis County. The state is disciplining the local government of Travis County by withholding all state funding which is quite detrimental to the county itself (Aguilar). State government definitely uses their money as a source of power over local government. This seems very over-the-top but it is what the state finds necessary to uphold order and

In a quest to solve the question of if the new law (SB4) harmful or necessary, I think that this new law is necessary to keep out illegal immigrants. This new law requires city council members, members of the county commissions court or other governing bodies, sheriffs, district and city attorneys and even campus police of colleges and universities in the effort to enforce it. People that get to be here illegally should be held accountable for their actions. Sanctuary cities are not necessary in my opinion, because they are allowing people to come illegally in the U.S and commit crimes that they are able to get away with.

Cities such as San Francisco fail to cooperate when illegal immigrants are being released from prison by not contacting the Department of Homeland Security. This causes a threat to local residents because undocumented criminals that have been incarcerated are once again given the power to commit illegal crimes and harm U.S. citizens. In the article, the author emphasizes “ The American people “‘ are justifiably angry’” about these sanctuary policies that endanger them. They understand something that local officials don’t seem to care about” (Von Spakovsky). Jurisdictions that adopt “sanctuary policies” happen to think that the protection of illegal criminals is more important than the protection of legal U.S. residents.

Can sanctuary cities be effective in both the policing and protection of undocumented citizens and if so, how will they regulate the population in question? A main issue being displayed here is a lack of standardized regulations being set by sanctuary cities. Instead of setting a precedent of resisting government immigration policies, these efforts would better have spent towards setting up and promoting programs that assist illegal immigrants in becoming American citizens. This paper will look at articles regarding sanctuary cities from Slate, Vox and the Wall Street Journal and decide which has the strongest argument.

Despite the name, The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act ironically increases minorities’ fear of discrimination. As a result, many people question the constitutionality of the law. States laws like SB 1070 infringe on basic constitutional rights such as potential violation of the fourteenth amendment. In fact, these laws violate the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law, treaties, and the Constitution are supreme law of the land, thus “allow[ing] discrimination against a discrete and insular minority or infringe on a fundamental right in violation of the Constitution” (Gilbert 201). Therefore, this law violates the fourteenth amendment because it deprives citizens of equal protection under the law. Additionally,

Arizona SB 1070 was passed in 2010 and it “requires police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is “reasonable suspicion” they are not in the U.S. legally.” (“Arizona’s SB 1070”) This SB has had a dramatic increase in racial profiling against Latins, Asian-Americans, and others who are suspected of being foreign based on their physical appearance.  The bill also gives law enforcement the authority to demand papers proving the individual’s citizenship or immigration status.

This is a “controversial immigration bill authorizing police officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship” (The Huffington Post). This is giving the police too much authority and can lead to many other problems such as discrimination against Hispanics.

I think the reason the U.S. government opposed the REACH bill in 2007 and has not made a program to regulate their chemicals and their safe use is because it offers few advantages. By passing this bill it would have created many considerable problems and unjustified administrative burdens. A lot of these huge company's that use chemicals help the economy and if they stopped making their products the competition would be rough. Not to mention, it would cost billions of dollars to complete the required technical studies and related work. Generally, if this bill did go through, it would force companies to share confidential business information, and it would effect trade, global competition and businesses that are investing/developing new