Fluent Essays

Part II - Writing Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1. Should Sanctuary Cities Receive Federal Funding? Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005... website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. Explain your answers to the "believing" questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the "Believing Game," even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.  just this is the second part of the assignment you did about Sanctuary Cities attached below Attachments area Running head: FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SANCTUARY CITIES 1 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SANCTUARY CITIES 5 Federal Funding for Sanctuary Cities Name Course Tutor Date Federal Funding for Sanctuary Cities Introduction ‘Sanctuary cities’ are cities or towns that do not adhere to federal regulations regarding undocumented immigrants. Ordinarily, there is a legitimate expectation that the management of cities, states, and towns need to help in enforcing federal regulations on undocumented immigrants. For instance, when the federal authorities make detention requests, it is expected that the management of these entities should facilitate the presentation of the individuals to the federal authorities. There are arguments to the effect that those states, cities, and towns that fail to adhere to the federal regulations concerning undocumented immigrants need to be denied federal funding. While this is not an official policy position by the federal government, the fact that it is being suggested by different people makes it inevitable to have a robust discussion over the matter. When states and cities make decisions concerning undocumented immigrants, they do so based on their interests and realities of the moment, including humanitarian grounds, thus making it not only illogical but also unconstitutional to deny them federal funding on the basis of such decisions. Response to arguments opposing this position One argument that is fronted by individuals who support the denial of federal funding to sanctuary cities is that many of these cities protect criminals, and as a result, they contribute to the creation of an environment that is generally unsafe for Americans (PROCON.ORG). The assumption of the argument is that many immigrants are criminals, and thus, their presence among Americans will contribute towards the creation of unsafe environments for Americans. The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it is immigrants who contribute to the breakdown of law and order in the United States. The primary reason for the increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is that many regions across the world are facing a wide range of economic, political, and environmental challenges, and many people believe that the United States is the ideal destination for them. While there is evidence that there is a relationship between undocumented immigrants in the United States and crime, it is also evident that their status could be playing a critical role in their involvement in the crime. When individuals are classified as undocumented immigrants, their economic opportunities are limited, and that may, to a large extent, push them on the trajectory of crime. Thus, the ideal solution to the problems that this group faces would be to help them obtain the necessary documentation rather than punishing them. Most importantly, criminal behavior is not isolated to undocumented immigrants. Even Native Americans are involved in crime. Rather than punishing sanctuary cities with financial limitations, it would be necessary and profitable to facilitate them so that they may improve their management of this population. The argument that it is necessary to punish states for defying federal, state, and local government laws are fallacious. The proponents of this argument indicate that for any state or local authority to receive funding from the federal government, the Department of Justice must be satisfied that the entities obey all federal laws (PROCON.ORG). One of the principles of interpretation of laws that govern the relationship between states and the federal governments is the consideration of the interests of both parties. It is necessary or every entity to interpret and apply the laws in ways that would protect and promote the interest of every unit. In this case, it is notable that the interpretation of the federal laws would be serving the interests of the federal government to the disadvantage of the sanctuary cities. To this extent, such an interpretation of the law is skewed and may not be to the interests of any person. Finally, the argument that sanctuary policies prevent local officers from executing their roles is baseless. The proponents of this argument suggest that when sanctuary cities refuse to fail or neglect to adhere to the federal regulations on immigration, they prevent police from investigating and prosecuting individuals who break the law (PROCON.ORG). This argument fails to recognize that even undocumented immigrants have rights that must be protected. States and local authorities have the right to protect all the fundamental human rights. The assumption is that all these fundamental human rights are superior to any federal law. Thus, by protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants, the sanctuary cities will be preventing federal officers from breaking the law. Conclusion There are arguments to the effect that those states, cities, and towns that fail to adhere to the federal regulations concerning undocumented immigrants need to be denied federal funding. When states and cities make decisions concerning undocumented immigrants, they do so based on their interests and realities of the moment, including humanitarian grounds, thus making it not only illogical but also unconstitutional to deny them federal funding on the basis of such decisions. There are several reasons for this argument. Rather than punishing sanctuary cities with financial limitations, it would be necessary and profitable to facilitate them so that they may improve their management of this population. Besides, states and local authorities have the right to protect all the fundamental human rights. References PROCON.ORG. Sanctuary Cities: Top 3 Pros and Cons. Retrieved from https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005333