A win for the Trump administration's fight to strengthen immigration laws occurred in Texas this week as the appeals court approved a ban on sanctuary cities. After the U.S. justice department supported Texas for suing California for 'protecting' immigrants, they passed this ruling as, "the toughest state law in the country." If law enforcers fail to comply with this ruling, they can be removed from office and even be criminally charged. However, Lee Gelernt who is an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, is disappointed in the ruling and will closely monitor the implementation of the state law.
This ruling was in response to the increasing Hispanic population in Texas that has grown three times faster than the white population. Sanctuary cities are cities that limit their enforcement on immigration laws which can be seen as either a safe haven or a law-breaking havoc - depending on which side of the spectrum you stand. It will be interesting to see how this law will be implemented With a close eye on the law from the American Civil Liberties Union and if the Trump administration will have success.
1. Do you think sanctuary cities could potentially be banned across the nation?
2. Are sanctuary cities a problem with the law?
5 comments:
Yes, I think that this ruling is foreshadowing the banning of other sanctuary cities across the nation. I think that this win for the Trump administration will serve as a precedent for other cases to strengthen immigration laws and ban sanctuary cities. And in response to your second question, while I don't personally believe in the ban on sanctuary cities, they are technically against the federal law since they go against the country's immigration laws.
Considering how Trump has often talked about wanting stricter immigration laws I doubt he will stop here so this is probably the start of banning more sanctuary cities. I don't really know too much about sanctuary cities, but I don't think banning them is the best way to take care of problems with illegal immigration. I guess we will have too see how effective this new law is.
I'm pretty sure the point of a sanctuary city is that they prevent immigration officers from getting the information they need. The city just does not cooperate and tries to protect immigrants, especially those without serious crimes. I think this is probably a legal issue, and there is nothing wrong with a ban on them. This ruling definitely sets the precedent for future banning of sanctuary cities, and if things work out, it is definitely a success for Trump and resolves one of his promises.
There are fewer than 20 sanctuary cities nation wide. I don't think that they are nearly as wide spread as the right media is making them seem. I support having sanctuary cities. No one deserves to have their door busted down and to be deported. I think that the fact that Trump's new immigration plan will require 12 years to become a citizen, it's ridiculous to expect everyone to come here legally. If we want legal citizens, then we have to make it easier to come here legally because past laws against "illegal" immigrants have not stopped people from coming to the US.
I actually don't support sanctuary cities-at least, not in practice. In response to that second question, the answer is a clear and resounding 'yes'.
Sanctuary cities are cities that stand in violation of immigration laws passed by Congress. They have broken the law. That much is clear. The problem here isn't immigration (and I definitely believe that the language on the books has to change), it's respect to the rule of law, for which sanctuary city councils have demonstrated a blatant disregard. President Trump was correct in saying that we are a nation of laws, but sanctuary cities haven't seem to have caught on.
Post a Comment