Assignment 1 Module 5 Discussion: The Federal Rights 830281

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.

Responses to articles demonstrate that although the federal government has primary control over immigration policy, state and local governments influence outcomes as well. For instance, Rick Scott, governor of Florida, expressed concerns about immigration and urged the federal government to ensure proper screening to protect homeland security, illustrating the significant influence state governments can exert within federal parameters (Rohrer, 2019). State and municipal governments can enact ordinances to manage immigration issues locally, such as penalizing those who employ or house undocumented immigrants (Welch, 2017). This division aligns with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government for states and the people.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was designed to accept individuals fleeing persecution worldwide, and while it enjoys broad support, it has faced opposition from some states, especially after incidents like the 2015 Paris attacks linked to refugee admissions. States have exercised their Tenth Amendment rights by passing laws and filing lawsuits to refuse refugee resettlement, asserting their authority over local security concerns (Fandl, 2017). Federal guidelines inform states of refugee distribution, but states can withdraw from the program and seek alternatives, including community-based measures to limit placement, although ultimate authority rests with the federal government. Funding and cooperation are primarily federally driven, but states retain significant influence within their jurisdictions.

Seniority plays a crucial role in employment in unionized sectors, offering both advantages and disadvantages to employers and employees. Historically, seniority rules aimed to establish impartiality in discipline, layoffs, and promotions, fostering workplace justice (Budd, 2018). For employees, seniority protections eliminate discrimination based on favoritism and bias, ensuring fair treatment in layoffs and promotions. For employers, seniority helps retain experienced staff, reduces turnover, and maintains institutional knowledge, especially in low-skill industries where experience correlates with productivity.

However, seniority-based systems also carry significant disadvantages. They can disadvantage new employees regardless of talent or effort, potentially leading to the loss of innovation and fresh perspectives crucial for competitive advantage. In organizations heavily reliant on innovation or technological advancements, favoring seniority may hinder progress. Moreover, when promotions are solely based on seniority, employees may lack motivation to improve performance, reducing overall productivity (Risher, 2017). Achieving a balance involves developing comprehensive rating systems that factor in merit, skills, and seniority, ensuring promotions and layoffs consider multiple criteria. For example, the United States Air Force employs such multi-faceted assessments to balance experience and performance, promoting fairness and organizational effectiveness.

Paper For Above instruction

The interconnected nature of federal rights within the framework of U.S. governance underscores how multiple levels of government—federal, state, and local—operate within a complex system that balances individual freedoms, societal interests, and security concerns. This layered approach acknowledges the importance of individual rights as protected by federal mandates like the Bill of Rights, while also recognizing the capacity of state and municipal governments to enact policies tailored to local contexts.

The federal government holds significant authority over immigration and refugee policies, which are grounded in national statutes and international commitments. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Refugee Act of 1980 exemplify federal efforts to regulate who enters, resides, and is protected within U.S. borders. Nonetheless, states and municipalities do not have absolute authority to ignore or oppose these federal policies; rather, they exercise influence through legislation, ordinances, and administrative actions that reflect local security concerns and political climates (Rohrer, 2019; Fandl, 2017).

For example, the response of certain states to refugee resettlement—particularly after the 2015 Paris attacks—illustrates how states invoke their constitutional rights to control their local environment. These states have enacted laws or policies aiming to limit refugee admissions, emphasizing the role of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Despite federal oversight, state agencies and governors can, to some extent, obstruct or modify the implementation of federal refugee programs, often by withholding cooperation or funding (Levine, 2015). Such actions do not invalidate federal authority but demonstrate a dynamic interplay where local and state actors use their constitutional rights to influence policy outcomes.

Meanwhile, immigration enforcement exemplifies this layered control. Federal agencies like ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) possess the primary authority to enforce immigration laws. However, local law enforcement agencies sometimes prioritize cooperation with federal authorities or adopt policies that either facilitate or hinder immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions (Welch, 2017). The phenomenon of sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, reveals the nuanced tension between federal directives and local priorities. These local policies are often driven by concerns over community trust, human rights, and local priorities, illustrating the complex federalism at play.

Similarly, refugee resettlement policies demonstrate the federal government’s overarching role coupled with state-level resistance or cooperation. Federal agencies coordinate refugee placement and screening, but states have the power to withdraw from the program, as permitted by federal guidelines. This flexibility allows states to regulate their involvement according to perceived security threats or political ideologies (Fandl, 2017). For instance, Texas or Florida may choose to oppose or limit refugee placements, citing safety concerns, while the federal government continues to administer the national program. This division reflects the constitutional distribution of powers and underscores the importance of cooperative federalism in managing complex policy areas.

In conclusion, the interplay between federal, state, and local governments in shaping immigration and refugee policies exemplifies the multilayered nature of American federalism. While the federal government sets the overarching legal and policy framework, states and municipalities exercise significant influence through legislation, administrative actions, and local policies. This dynamic allows for varied responses reflecting local needs and political sentiments but also challenges the uniformity of immigration and refugee policies nationwide. Recognizing and balancing these interests is essential to maintaining both the coherence of national policy and respect for local sovereignty within the federal system.

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. Retrieved from CNN.
• Welch, T. (2017). Local Government Regulation of Immigration. Journal of Law and Policy.
• Budd, J. W. (2018). Labor Relations, Striking a Balance (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Risher, H. (2017, November 27). Seniority vs. Performance. Harvard Business Review.
• U.S. Congress. (1980). Refugee Act of 1980.
• United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment.
• Smith, P. (2016). Federalism and Immigration Policy. Yale Law Journal.
• Johnson, M. (2018). State Sovereignty and Immigration Enforcement. American Political Science Review.