discussion response
2
Assignment 1 Module 5 Discussion
The federal rights are interlinked with the political programs used in defining the values and culture of people in a particular society. Therefore, through this, the federal government considers various religions and ethnic communities' rights without limiting where people live. The refugees are supposed to have the freedom to aspects like movement, speech, and association (Rohrer, 2019). This is explained through the Bill of rights that the states' rights hold its doctrine, and it prevents the rights of people to be disturbed if they either live in different places in the United States. Furthermore, the municipal government has the right to define how people's beliefs and culture should be respected. In areas where the government has speculated that people cannot live in, the municipal governments ensure that these areas are protected to prevent them from being spoilt (Levine, 2015). In the end, the equality between the governments and people explained through the constitution provides direction on what should be done by the citizens.
References
Levine, J. (2015, November 17). Watch Shepard Smith Smack Down US Governors Who Say They Won't Accept Syrian Refugees. Retrieved July 09, 2020, from
https://news.yahoo.com/watch-shepard-smith-smack-down-141421653.html
Rohrer, G. (2019, April 05). Rick Scott joins ranks of governors opposing Syrian refugees in U.S. Retrieved July 09, 2020, from https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-rick- scott-syrian-refugees-post.html
Respond to Zachary
After reading the two articles, it is clear that although the federal government has primary control over immigration policy, the state and local governments certainly influence the outcome as well. The article explicitly states that Scott feared his decision to keep immigrants out of Florida would be overruled by the federal government since they control immigration policy. However, that does not mean they have the final say. Rick Scott wrote a letter urging them to not allocate funds towards their establishment without proper screening and an extensive examination of how it would affect homeland security. This letter has a significant influence on policy as it has the potential to persuade policymakers, but it is not the extent of a state government’s power. State governments, as well as local governments, can enforce anti-immigration policies while working within the parameters of their superiors. For example, when municipal governments across the U.S. grew frustrated of federal immigration laws, they enacted ordinances that penalized employers and property owners that employed or housed undocumented immigrants (Welch, 2017). Although the federal government controls immigration, the state governments and local governments control aspects of society that greatly affect the daily lives of immigrants. They also directly affect the administration of policies set forth. This apparent division of power reflects the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.
References
Welch, T. (2017). Local Government Regulation of Immigration:. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/state_local_government/publications/state_local_law_news/2014-15/spring/local_government_regulation_immigration/#8
The Refugee Act of 1980 allows for anyone fleeing persecution from any place in the world to be accepted into the United States. It was widely supported for its humanitarian efforts and cost-saving measures but was a cause for concern when it got down to placement in local communities. Former US Senator Ted Kennedy clearly advised the decision to accept refugees was made by Congress, not by state governments. (Fandl, 2017).
While refugee acceptance is determined on a federal level, many states opposed the refugee program in light of the 2015 attack on Paris where a man killed by police was found to be in possession of a passport linked to a Syrian refugee that was admitted. Many state Governors voiced their opposition to the placement and the federal government responded with very detailed procedures of the screening process. The states, with the interest of protecting their citizens asserted their Tenth Amendment right and several bills and lawsuits have been introduced to allow the states individual rights to refuse refugees as long as there is no discrimination (Fandl, 2017).
At the time of this article, there has been nothing that indicates a state cannot refuse to accept refugee placement. The federal government informs states about intended refugee distribution, however states have the right to withdraw from the Refugee Resettlement Program and if they do, the program director is authorized to find a replacement person to coordinate with within the state that withdraws. Community based programs have been authorized by the state to withhold funding in the private sector as a way to limit placement of refugees. Ultimately, states fall within federal borders and are not given a choice on placement because the support primarily comes from federal assistance, not state or local.
FANDL, K. J. (2017). States’ Rights and Refugee Resettlement. Texas International Law Journal, 52(1), 71–101.