The Rental Housing Tribunal’s order or ruling, which is deemed to be a magistrate’s court judgment, are ineffective. Provincial Tribunals cannot enforce their orders and the solution is for the Ministers and department heads of Housing... more
The Rental Housing Tribunal’s order or ruling, which is deemed to be a magistrate’s court judgment, are ineffective. Provincial Tribunals cannot enforce their orders and the solution is for the Ministers and department heads of Housing and Justice to acknowledge the serious collapse of the Tribunals’ orders. There must be an undertaking to effect the necessary changes in the relevant legislations, including the Procedural Regulations of the Rental Housing Act.
Failure to do ensure the effectiveness of the Tribunals’ orders will further humiliate members of the Tribunals and its support staff and the public will have no confidence at all in the Tribunals. Parties seeking relief from the Tribunals will be prejudiced by the delay due to implementation problems regarding rulings and compliance of other orders, resulting in financial loss and frustrations.
Immigration enforcement and policy making has increasingly devolved to the local level in the United States. American sheriffs present a unique opportunity to evaluate decisions made about immigration policies in the local context. In... more
Immigration enforcement and policy making has increasingly devolved to the local level in the United States. American sheriffs present a unique opportunity to evaluate decisions made about immigration policies in the local context. In dealing with immigration concerns in their counties, sheriffs act both within the confines of federal and state mandates and as local policymakers. However, little research comprehensively assesses the role sheriffs play in immigration policy making. Using data from an original, national survey of more than five hundred elected sheriffs in the United States, we provide a broad account of sheriffs’ roles in immigration enforcement and policy making. Our research demonstrates that sheriffs’ ideology and personal characteristics shape their personal attitudes about immigrants. In turn, these attitudes play a key role in influencing local enforcement decisions. Sheriffs’ immigration attitudes relate strongest to checks of the immigration status of witnesses and victims and those stopped for traffic violations or arrested for non-violent crimes. Our results demonstrate the important role of the sheriff in understanding local variation in immigration policy and the connection between the personal preferences of representatives and policy making that can emerge across policy environments and levels of government.
