TEXAS GOVERNMENT
The human rights among immigrants are often debated inside the media, including policy in the United States. Both left and right have generated persuasive arguments on the constitutionality and why they are there what their privileges are. Most immigrants claim to violate their civil rights in the United States by implementing illegitimate immigration policies, including immigration and customs compliance. There are many detention facilities throughout the country, and Texas a key to Mexico. Wong Wing v. the U.S.A., in a case of 1896, such as the Supreme Court, ruled that immigration incarceration was not a real prison but a kind of temporary arrest. The debate is widely held that the rights of individuals are violated once a defendant is guilty of illegal migration to the United States (Hancock, 2021).
The central topic of this position statement is the violation of refugee rights by countries never advocated by either a federal system concerning legal status. The immigration policy in Texas and the United States is vital as it affects: who becomes refugees, the economy, and the general population of the U.S.U.S. as a whole. The current state of immigration policy leaves regulations for I.C.E. as well as electorate I.D.I.D. Laws mostly under the jurisdiction of the executive, but citizenship is only introduced at the federal level. Immigration affects the outcome of the elections as the bulk of immigrants vote democratically. Although permanent residents are just not allowed to vote in presidential elections, immigrants are not eligible for elections without papers. Another element in immigration between Texas as well as the U.S.A. is the currency. If immigrants emigrate to the United States, they will begin finding jobs, and even though the constitution does not contain their right to operate explicitly, the federal government does not allow States in Arizona and the United States to criminalize illegal immigrant labor. Overall, as stated earlier, there were several gaps between the federal and state governments in immigration laws. The paper will address federalism’s effect or impact on the Texas legislature while the media and people’s attention fuel the growing question of immigration civil rights (Black, 2020).
The primary rationale for the change of the current constitutional laws is the persecution of I.C.E. residents and the ambiguous manner in which I.C.E. is allowed to conduct itself. Several reports have indeed been covered being recorded by I.C.E. families in the media since last year. Suppose it was children who illegally emigrated to the U.S. who were imprisoned in cages or the recent rebellion in many countries that established stricter voting laws for immigrants. Despite these refugees’ legal rights, it is not obvious that in the United States that there were no firm foundations including processes to handle immigration. The division of the federal issue has a degree of confusion since states do not properly arrest undocumented immigrants without violating their civil rights. Due to various immigrants’ political views, including their right to vote, States balance their policies with a certain partisan. Republican Texas has introduced stricter electoral legislation, such as the registration of picture I.DI.D. The increasing number of minorities and highly divided beliefs between the Republicans and the democrats have rendered the problems in Texas incredibly controversial (Mank, 2018).
They are based on what the founders felt about the inalienable rights with the need for every citizen to defend our federal government. Although most immigrants come to the United States illegally without a passport, they still have some rights as human beings. There is a certain polarization in our country’s current political atmosphere, especially in the field of immigration. There was no consensus solution by both parties to appease both sides, even though it would not threaten human rights. A complex proposal including some and all other refugee protections will not be satisfactory, but the right and left may have one thing to count on: there is an immediate need for change. As stated earlier, both Republicans and Democrats are aware of their current role on migrants’ rights, where neither the state and the federal government is satisfactory. First of all, several potential policy options must be respected, and all the benefits and drawbacks of a proposed policy adopted must be recognized (Goelzhauser, 2017).
Yet another alternative to change is more consistent with both the liberal stance on civil rights and immigrants. A scheme that is a national necessity that would not allow countries to deny or negotiate how refugees are treated. This potential policy decision is to fully open our doors and welcome anyone who wishes to immigrate to the United States for reasons such as housing, work, or home. It would therefore allow all immigrants as U.S.U.S. citizens and allow future immigrants to become Americans. This plan would clearly have the benefit of increasing the votes of existing voters who cannot vote regardless of their legal status. Another positive outcome is an accelerated reduction of the amount expended by the federal and state governments on financing I.C.E. and the southern frontiers. It would also increase the turnout of Latin Americans at both the national level, and therefore will increase public policy representation of people’s wishes and needs. At the same time, this approach has several serious drawbacks, one being a threat to national security. The inflow of criminals or terrorists coming to America will rise if anyone coming to the U.S.U.S. is granted citizenship. Another negative consequence of this approach is the possibility of major economic forces offsetting the land, food as well as other key elements throughout America because everyone will move in an unregulated manner (Black, 2020).
Votes would’ve been unfair since the majority of minority groups are Democrats, which might influence the vote of something like the Democratic Party forever, and the Republican Party would exclude almost all significant aspects of the state and federal governments. Overall, although this is a rather advanced potential approach, the opposites cloud the benefits of America’s great plan for the future. Another policy for the future could be the same reverse as that where the federal government urges governments to negotiate with refugees themselves. Since the border is actually a Republican territory, I.C.E. arrests hundreds of existing illegal immigrants every day in Texas. Although even the first policy is another unconventional view, there are both benefits and drawbacks. An advantage of this is that our southern border is tightly monitored and guarded against terrorists and illegal immigrants coming into the U.SU.S. This will cause hundreds of thousands of Latin American refugees to legally move to the U.S.U.S. (Goelzhauser, 2017).
Another champion of change will be the vote in Texas when illegal immigrants must come to their countries of birth and wait for residency prior to another return to Texas, which would also increase turnout in Hispanic elections when both immigrants are legal so that they will openly exercise constitutional rights to vote. However, this is the only option that the United States proposes to extend the boundaries of people who decide to emigrate to America. The inconvenience of this technique is enormous. It would be very costly to supply the Texas Government with a highly militarized southern border to intentionally arrest I.C.E. This plan would therefore divide thousands of families in Texas where at least one family member is not legally in the U.SU.S. It might also downsize the industry seems like a whole demographic. Millions of enterprises lose their workers or have to shut down due to work scarcity. In general, it is obvious that after considering all the benefits and drawbacks of a new potential approach, this would not be a successful policy for Texas (Hancock, 2021).
Texas and indeed the national government must take the last tactic to enhance border enforcement in the south border, yet to enable unauthorized aliens residing in the U.S.U.S. to obtain nationality and even to use I.C.E. exclusively for unlawful criminals in severe crimes. This would relieve both sides by not just border checks and through the amount of possible immigration, not only from Texas but also across the nation, but would also make it easier for immigrants to legally seek citizenship. And, as previously mentioned, this approach has its drawbacks, as there is no optimal policy. More and more protection of the southern border would most likely be expensive. Moreover, many extremists, both left and right, are expected to give up this solution because it is a compromise, and thus the division in our society in this matter does not appease many people (Black, 2020).
Conclusion
The current situation as regards the human rights of immigrants may be a critical issue in all respects. Not only for Texas or the United States, as well as for all First World countries. A policy for resolving illegal immigration and safeguarding the human rights of such immigrants is challenging to develop. While one thing is certain, the modern solution does not only work at the state level, and it still works at the federal level. The implementation of a program that, irrespective of ethnicity, does not violate any citizens’ fundamental rights needs exhaustive consideration.
REFERENCES
Black, J. R., Penn, M., & Berman, L. (2020). Evolution of Federalism in Environmental Health: Federal, State, and Local Government Control. Journal of Legal Medicine, 40(2), 195-228.
Goelzhauser, G., & Rose, S. (2017). The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy reversals and partisan perspectives on intergovernmental relations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 47(3), 285-313.
Hancock, J. L. (2021). Federalism, Constitutionalism, and the Texas Revolt.
Mank, B. C. (2018). State Standing in United States v. Texas: Opening the Floodgates to States Challenging the Federal Government, or Proper Federalism. U. Ill. L. Rev., 211.