They decided to take their case even further and took it to the United States Supreme Court, hoping to overturn the previous cases that were held at the state level. “We feel that we have a strong case. Arkansas Times is being discriminated against and the state isn’t treating it the same as they are other magazines and newspapers from Arkansas,” the attorney for Arkansas Times told the press before walking into the final hearing. “It’s a discriminatory tax and violates the first amendment.” The United States Supreme Court reversed the order from the Arkansas Supreme Court, finding in favor of the magazine. The court felt that the government was discriminating against Arkansas Times based upon their content, which goes against the First Amendment.
As Landgrave and Nowrasteh (2017) illustrate, “Incarceration rates by race and ethnicity paint a more nuanced picture.” (pg. 2). The rhetorical strategy of imagery works in this specific example because it paints a problem with many different perspectives and meanings. In other words, the legalization of DREAMers should be considered because the beneficiaries are less crime-prone than either DREAMers or natives. Landgrave and Nowrasteh (2017) implement imagery into their argument in order to persuade their audience by letting them visualize the amazing and safe future with new members of our country being less crime-prone and previous legal citizens.
Thus, I add that my economical reframing eliminates negative emotions and inspires change since it is not linked to a specific group of people. Another major improvement was the implementation of more respected sources. Initially, I planned to include a quote from Breitbart to prove that some Americans have a stereotype of Latinos. However, now that my thesis changed to discuss the more precise topic of violence from the Mexican cartel, I have decided to include sources that are for the most part
Sanders argument on a reform on immigration is great. It stands out and is strong no changes are needed to make his argument better. His position is unique and different from the previous president. The democratic party is definitely going to support him, since that is the main issue that the party wants to change. Democrats want to solve the controversial problem of immigrants that 's the priority.
According to Lake Macquarie Member of Parliament Greg Piper, there is a possibility of unjust sentencing that originates from the introduction of new sentencing laws, he said: “This could be somebody who, just for want of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and just defending themselves or defending a friend, has been found technically guilty of this assault that’s caused death and gets an eight year minimum sentence. Or if it’s some other kind of injury, up to two years minimum sentence. Now I don’t believe that’s going to make that person a better member of our society, as a matter of fact I think it’s probably going to be very detrimental to our society.” The president of New South Wales Bar Association, Phillip Boulten, stated that unfair and unjustly harsh sentences were
Their speeches did not contain repetition but I feel as though Mr. Trump could’ve used it a lot more than Hilary Clinton. If Mr. Trump would’ve continued to talk about why he wants immigrants out of the country I feel as though I would’ve helped his point even more. Hilary Clinton uses repetition in her speech when she talks about Donald Trump’s relationship with other foreign countries. These speeches both use parallel structure but the one that uses it the best is Donald Trump. I believe this because it helped him get his points across and he made his objective a little clearer.
For the purpose of upping government reach for controlling seditious groups or individuals depicted as undesirable, the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952 was birthed. This legislation removed Asian immigrant exclusions, allowed entry for skilled workers and family members of existing citizens and markedly affected Mexican immigration. On another hand, troubled with concerns over communist competition, Congress revised its stance on immigration through the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act with a more open
This controversial law was passed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the law in 2010(Serrano, Sept. 07, 2012). By having this law passed it has caused many people with any Hispanic background or even those who are not Hispanic at all, just have darker skin, to worry constantly about being stopped for no reason and asked for papers. Though, this may not seem like a big deal for people that are here legally, they should not have to feel that they cannot go anywhere without that constant burden.
Migration’s two main sectors are; immigration and emigration. Immigration is the inflow of people from outside countries. Emigration is the outflow of natives of the country to another place (Emigrate vs. Immigrate, 2013). A contemporary migration law that is currently trying to be carried out is the Muslin ban. The current president of the United States is trying to apply this inhumane regulation (US court refuses to reinstate Trump 's Muslim ban, 2017).It is normal that on a visitor’s arrival their passport and legal documents must be verified, but a relatively new addition to the scrutinization is that the government officials have the right to ask for the person’s social media information.
It is of great ease for those opposed to posit that the federal judiciary usurps the power of the executive if it sets precedent that narrows the authority that the Constitution grants the executive, but it is far more difficult for those opposed to accept the reality that the federal courts operate not to remove power from the executive, but rather to prevent it from infringing upon the rights of the people. For example, at present, various United States District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled upon the executive actions of the current presidential administration of Donald J. Trump with regard to immigration policies, with the Supreme Court following by granting writ of certiorari as well. Executive Order 13769, signed by President Donald J. Trump and infamously referred to as the “travel ban,” saw actions brought against it in federal courts in nearly fifty different times and on behalf of various parties, many of them states. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary restraining order on the executive action. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in another instance that the executive action violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,
Lopez won the U.S. V. Lopez case making it important because in terms of congressional power since it would go against the rights given in article 1 section 8 number 10 that says, “To define and punish…offences against the Law of Nations. Aside from that it would have an effect on interstate commerce, thing that congress regulates as mentioned in article 1 section 8 number 3. Since Lopez won, the laws for the state had to change causing the state to have its own rules and punishments from the ones for the whole U.S. The Lopez case is an implied power due to article 1 and has many cons. The case of Lopez is considered implied power because his case went against the power of congress.
Jason L. Riley is an American journalist, who works as a member of the editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Some of this work includes “Mistrusting Obama on ISIS—and Refugees”, “Liberals Don’t Want a Discussion About Race”, “The False Income-Inequality Narrative”, and a lot more articles. In “The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime”, Riley discusses how it is not true that immigrant are not criminals. He argues that” that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated”. I will use this article to argue against the claims that some people make against undocumented immigrants, on how every undocumented immigrant