Assignment 1 Module 5 Discussion: The Federal Rights Are Int

2assignment 1 Module 5 Discussionthe Federal Rights Are Interlinked Wi

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 Rohrer, G. (2019, April 05). Rick Scott joins ranks of governors opposing Syrian refugees in U.S. Retrieved July 09, 2020, from 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 Respond to Britany 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. Timotheus Durden MondayJul 6 at 5:26pm Manage Discussion Entry 9. How are grievances resolved in a nonunion work place? Do some additional research. What is the normal process? (ULO 1) Lets first start with the normal grievance process that would occur while in cooperation with a union. This a four-step process.

The steps start with the employee contacting the employer to inform them that they have cause for grievance. If after talking to the employer the employee can then fill a written grievance that will include (a) the nature of the grievance, (b) the facts on which it is based, (c) the article(s) and section(s) of this Agreement allegedly violated, and (d) the remedy or correction requested of the city (Budd, 2017). The next step is an appeal to the second step in which a hearing of the grievances will be held within five days. The second to last step is the grievances heard in the second step will be appealed by the Association’s representative and the designated representative. This will happen within 10 standard work days after the appeal to the third step.

In the fourth step we find that if the answer to the third-step was not acceptable to the employee, it can be appealed to the arbitration. At this time the two parties can mutually come up with an arbitrator. The arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding (Budd, 2017). The nonunion work place grievances process is more of a wild west approach as there is not much that is set for a one size fits all approach. Balfour discusses the advantages and disadvantages of five: an open-door policy; ombudsman; juries of peers; hearing officers; and binding, outside arbitration.

In doing so, he distinguishes between those that simply address the facts of a case and those that try to get to the root of a problem and solve it in ways that repair the relationships involved (Balfour, 1984). We can see that the process is not at all streamlined on the non-union side but they have their ways of taking care of the people that need it. You can even take note that the last process that Balfour mentions is one that is in the final step of the union process, the arbitrator. References Balfour, A. (1984). Five types of non-union grievances systems. 61(2):67-76. Budd, J. (2017). Labor Relations: Striking a Balance, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Paper For Above instruction

The interconnection of federal rights with political programs shapes the cultural and societal framework of the United States. These rights are embedded within the constitutional structure, primarily through the Bill of Rights, which safeguards individual freedoms such as speech, movement, and association. Importantly, these rights are protected not only on a national level but are also interpreted and enforced by state and municipal governments, which have the authority to define and uphold cultural and religious practices within their jurisdictions.

The federal government holds the primary control over immigration policy. However, state and local governments significantly influence how these policies are implemented and experienced. For example, the articles discussed clarify that state officials like Governor Rick Scott of Florida expressed opposition to accepting Syrian refugees due to security concerns. Such actions are rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Consequently, states have enacted legislation or policies aimed at controlling immigration and refugee resettlement, including refusing participation in federal programs or implementing local restrictions that affect immigrants’ daily lives (Levine, 2015; Fandl, 2017).

This division of authority demonstrates the complex federal system in the U.S., where the federal government sets overarching immigration policies, but states and municipalities possess significant autonomy in local enforcement and community-level decisions. The capacity for states to oppose or limit refugee acceptance was notably highlighted in the wake of international events such as the 2015 Paris attacks, which led several governors to oppose the placement of Syrian refugees, citing national security concerns. In response, the federal government outlined rigorous screening procedures, reaffirming its constitutional role while respecting state sovereignty (Rohrer, 2019; Fandl, 2017).

Furthermore, the ability of local governments to influence immigration enforcement is exemplified by ordinances penalizing employers or property owners who house undocumented immigrants. This highlights the broader influence of local policies on immigrant communities, affecting their access to housing, employment, and social services (Welch, 2017). These local actions often stem from state-reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment, illustrating the layered legal framework governing immigration and refugee resettlement in the U.S.

When considering refugee resettlement specifically, it is primarily a federal responsibility, mandated by the Refugee Act of 1980, which allows individuals fleeing persecution to seek refuge in the United States. Despite this, some states have attempted to resist or impose constraints on refugee admission, citing concerns about security and resource allocation (Fandl, 2017). The federal government occasionally permits states to withdraw from resettlement programs, and some have used this authority to limit or refuse refugee placements. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that, within the federal structure, decisions about refugee placement are governed by federal law, and state actions are often challenged or overridden unless legally justified (Rohrer, 2019).

In the context of non-union workplaces, grievance resolution lacks a standardized, unified process. In unions, grievances typically follow a structured four-step process involving initial employee notification, written grievance, hearings, and arbitration. This process provides clear avenues for resolving disputes, with arbitration serving as a final, binding resolution (Budd, 2017). Conversely, non-union workplaces often employ a more flexible and informal set of methods, including open-door policies, ombudsmen, peer juries, hearing officers, or outside arbitration, depending on the organization's policies and culture (Balfour, 1984). These approaches aim to address employee complaints effectively, though they lack the consistency inherent in union procedures.

References

• Fandl, K. J. (2017). States’ Rights and Refugee Resettlement. Texas International Law Journal, 52(1), 71–101.
• Levine, J. (2015, November 17). Watch Shepard Smith Smack Down US Governors Who Say They Won't Accept Syrian Refugees. Fox News.
• Rohrer, G. (2019, April 5). Rick Scott joins ranks of governors opposing Syrian refugees in U.S. [Online article].
• Welch, T. (2017). Local Government Regulation of Immigration. Retrieved from [URL]
• Budd, J. (2017). Labor Relations: Striking a Balance (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
• Balfour, A. (1984). Five types of non-union grievances systems. Employee Relations, 61(2), 67-76.