- Offer additional resources for your colleague to consider and explain their significance.
- Identify any gaps or flaws in your colleague’s research.
Respond to George as if you’re having a conversation with him. A few sentences and a question.
My research concept seems to be changing from time to time. The more I read and peer review articles, the more I plunge in danger. The idea interrogates fluid immigration policies on enforcement and whether Congress has surrendered its obligation on enforcing federal immigration to state agencies. The Courts have shielded this wrong by hiding behind “Plenary powers” empowering the ‘executive’ to implement exclusionary policy on local policing agencies.
Exclusivity through plenary powers violates the rights of individuals without color, race or religion (Fourteenth Amendment read equal protection clause, read together with First Amendment). It does not surprise one, when a Judge in Phoenix, and after a plea of guilty has been entered, put an alarming footnote by warning the defendant, on the implications of immigration law. The defendant happened to be an African American. Would it have made any difference had the defendant been white? I wonder. This caution might not have elicited grace had mechanisms been put in place before the trial at least the judge must have been cautious. An inquest is therefore, required to interrogate such racist behavior in plain view of the public. Judicial impartiality is paramount. Scientific review can alter such negative correspondence. Must the courts of law affirm such profiling proclamations? Moreover, this was not a District Court where such aggrandizements could have merited congressional support.
I have read fantastic endorsements by scientists giving variables on the plausible treatment of noncitizens. The Obama beds, the Trump walls, Crimmigration and shadow immigration policies have left me puzzled. In Washington State, the introduction of local law enforcement agencies is highlighted. Research carried out in King County, Washington State, found local policing of non-immigrants (Beckett, K., & Evans. H. (2015). The duo found lengthy incarceration. State sanctioning of immigration is unlawful according to the U.S. Constitution. But plenary powers within the same constitution give the executive arm of the government to implement draconian policies that injure the very Constitution and backed by the Circuit Courts (Menjivar 2012). On the other note, “the existing scholarship has not adequately explored how immigration operates in the criminal sphere; namely how the rights, procedures, and systems traditionally associated with the criminal justice systems have themselves been affected by interaction with the civil system of immigration” (Eagly 2010: 1284).
Where do we draw the line?
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, M., (2016) provide hope for future policy considerations. They suggest that sometimes, policymakers look into alternatives or variables that can help shape or refine the final product (Supra). Suggestions include, “alternatives” or other ‘policy options,’ or ‘alternative courses of action” or “alternative strategies of intervention to solve or mitigate the problem?” The Home Office provided a list of variables to parliament seeking to implement Sexual Offenders Register. An option among five helped to the enact Sexual Offender Register Act 2003. (Home Office Consultative Paper 1997).
In conclusion, my concept is vast and confusing. It is a ripe area, but criminal justice development might help me narrow it to the specification required. The area is very hypersensitive to those in the know.
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, M., (2016). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis. The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (10th ed.). California. CA. Sage.
Beckett, K., & Evans, H., (2015). Crimmigration at the local level. Criminal Justice Process in the shadow of deportation. Law & Society Review, 49(1), 241-227.
(Note: Kindly ignore the other posting for it was unmistakably send before proof reading).