Essay Sample Analyzing the Immigration Policies in Texas

Over the last couple of years, the Texas government has had a lot of conflicts with the national government. Majority of these conflicts have been as a result of the difference in the policies of immigration of the two governments. One such policy that has caused the two governments to be in and out of court is the laws on sanctuary cities. The government of Texas had passed a law that would ban sanctuary cities but the national government having other ideas, went to court and the implementation of the law was halted. The Texas government went to court to have the hold lifted and when it was, sanctuary cities were banned and police officers were now able to stop anyone in traffic and question them on their immigration papers. This was not what the federal government wanted. This is just one example of the difference in the policy of the two governments. Another example is during the Obama administration, the Texas government went to court to strike down an executive order from the then president that would have given many people the relief of not being deported.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Policies of the Texas government on immigration

The policy of the Texas government on immigration is to allow as few immigrants through its borders as possible. They argue that as it is already, the resources of the state are stretched as far as possible in order to accommodate the few immigrants already in the state. Opening their gates to more refugees and immigrants will only further stress the already stressed resources. The federal government policy is to allow more immigrants and asylum seekers into the country. This is because they believe that all refugees and asylum seekers have a right to be given asylum. There is a need for changes to happen in the immigration policies of both parties if there is any hope that the two governments will ever work together.

Policy Options

There are many reasons that policy changes in the two governments should be initiated. The main one is to find a common ground and stop the inter-government hostility and ensure there is development. The two governments should find a common ground on the immigration policy and ensure that instead of the tug of war between the two, the energies of the governments should be directed at how best to develop their country further. Finding a middle ground will also reduce the amount of taxpayers' money that would be spent by the two governments suing each other. For example, the Texas attorney general estimated that the Texas government spent more than 5.9 million dollars on the 39 lawsuits that it filed against the government. Finding middle ground will ensure that this money is saved and put into better use.

One policy option that the two governments should consider is setting an acceptable limit by both parties on the maximum allowable immigrants at any one time in the state. To achieve this the two governments must have a sit-down and discuss what they both want and together reach on a number that the two will be happy about. Once they have reached an understanding, they should put some laws in place to ensure that no party will go back on its word. The advantages of using this policy option is that the taxpayers' money will be saved and all time the two governments spent in court will be used to do something else. One disadvantage of this option is that since the people in government change so frequently, the chances of the new leaders going back on the government's word is high. This is especially the case when the new leaders have different opinions in mind about the immigration policy.

Another option is to conduct a referendum. Many people in the state have different viewpoints on immigration in their state. If the two governments cannot come to a decision that will benefit both concern parties, then they should resort to asking the people what they want. Most people will be more than willing to have their voice heard on the entire immigration matter. Whatever the outcome of the referendum will be, neither party should dispute as that is the voice of the people. However, this option has one main disadvantage. It is the cost of conducting a referendum. The cost of conducting a referendum is even higher than the money that would have been used if the two governments would have been in and out of court. Apart from this, this option has lots of advantages. Getting the complete and unaltered opinion of the people. Instead of leaders working on their own on drafting and implementing these policies, they give the public a chance to give their thoughts on the matter. The leaders will not have to speculate and hope that they are acting in the best interest of the public. Another advantage is the better utilization of government funds in the long run. Although the referendum might initially cause the use of funds to skyrocket, the long-term advantages are clear. The money that would have been used in the courts would have been way more in the long run than the price of a referendum in the short term.

Recommendations

Despite the advantages of all of the policy options stated above, what I recommend the two governments to do is to have a sit-down and try to find a middle ground on their immigration policies and if that fails, they should call for a referendum. The two governments should try to avoid a referendum at all costs as it will increase the burden on the taxpayers. If that does not work, they should then resort to having a referendum.

The reason that I believe that this is the best course of action that the two governments can take is because it tries to ensure that the final cost on the taxpayer is as low as possible. The moment that that does not work, they now conduct the referendum. This approach has the best of the two worlds. The leaders get a chance to solve the problem and if they cannot, the public is given a chance to. If the problem reaches the referendum part, the people will give their opinion on the immigration matter and whatever they decide will be passed on as law.

REFERENCES

Arbona, Consuelo et al. "Acculturative Stress among Documented and Undocumented Latino Immigrants in the United States." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32.3 (2010): 362-384. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Web.

Card, David. "Immigration and Inequality." American Economic Review. Vol. 99. N.p., 2009. 1-21. American Economic Review. Web.

Dick, Hilary Parsons. "Making Immigrants Illegal in Small-Town USA." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21.SUPPL. 1 (2011): n. page. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. Web.