Us Immigration Policy Essay Research Paper The

Free Articles

U.S. Immigration Policy Essay, Research Paper

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The Sun seems unrelenting as it beats down on the two households huddled together in a rickety stopgap boat. The balks have been drifting in the unfastened sea for what seems to them like old ages. Their nutrient and H2O supplies have run out and the littlest 1s shouting out of hungriness. But the support traveling. Because they know that one time their pess touch the land of chance their supplications will be answered. Finally, their raft makes it to the knee-deep Waterss and they are merely a few short stairss off from dry land and freedom. Equally rapidly as the moving ridge of alleviation and felicity hastes over the balks, so does it vanish. The Coast Guard is at that place and stating them that they will be shipped back. So close to freedom.

Other households know what its like to hold freedom snatched off. After old ages of working six yearss a hebdomad for miniscule rewards, run uping frocks or picking veggies, they have had freedom and the chance of a better life taken off after being rounded up by Immigration Naturalization Services and deported back to Guatemala, Honduras, or Mexico.

These are merely two illustrations of the farces that occur daily in the land of chance and freedom the Unites States of America. The United States was built by immigrants, many seeking a new life in a new land. Before 1882, anyone could travel to the United States. As the population grew, nevertheless, the Federal authorities decided to command in-migration. But they have done this in a really inconsistent mode, allowing some people in from one state more than others from another state. The current U.S. in-migration policy is immoral, unethical and inconsistent in its traffics with immigrants.

Early in-migration Torahs aimed to continue the racial, spiritual, and cultural composing of the United States, which was so mostly European ( Wilbanks, 1993, p.1 ) . The first in-migration Torahs were aimed at nonwhites. In 1882, for illustration, the Chinese Exclusion Act suspended in-migration from China for 60 old ages. In add-on, in 1907, President Roosevelt, negotiated an informal gentleman s understanding with Japan, under which the United States promised to integrate its California schools in exchange for the promise from the Nipponese authorities to halt the in-migration of its citizens ( Anderson, 1998, p.2 ) .

Soon, nevertheless, Americans were kicking about European immigrants every bit good, particularly those of eastern and southern Europe. As a effect, Congress passed a new jurisprudence in 1921 based on quotas ; merely a certain figure of persons with a given background or heritage could travel to the United States. And merely 30 per centum of those could be from eastern or southern Europe ( Anderson, 1998, p.2 ) . Again in 1952, we see the same sort of favoritism when President Truman signed the McCarran-Walter Act. Under this jurisprudence, political orientation became a standard for admittance. Political beliefs were questioned as the authorities sought to weed out people with even a marginally communist background ( Wilbanks, 1993, p.4 ) .

In the last half of the century new Torahs emerged seeking to get rid of quotas that discriminated against nationalities, replacing it alternatively with an overall bound of immigrants allowed into the state. These new policies, nevertheless, non merely did non stop favoritism and unethical intervention against immigrants but besides touched off a serious illegal in-migration job. The latest and most extended of these Torahs came with the 1996 Immigration Act which doubled the U.S.-Mexico boundary line control force to 10,000 agents over five old ages and adds fencings to the most to a great extent trafficked countries of the U.S.-Mexico boundary line.

The contention over in-migration emerges between advocators of the unfastened door policy and those who support limitations on in-migration. Those Americans who support limitations on the figure of immigrants allowed into the United States yearly feel that our state is running out of room ( Carr, 199, p.2 ) . They besides feel that we are being overrun by immigrants who intent on run outing our resources. On the other manus, those who support an open-door policy, experience that the unethical intervention of immigrants must halt.

These open-door protagonists argue that the 700,000 immigrants allowed into the state yearly is non plenty. This overall bound should be lifted and replaced with an open-door policy, which would let any figure of people in without inquiry. These protagonists besides feel that transporting balks back even if they are inches off from dry U.S. dirt is immoral. And worse yet, behaving households who came here illicitly but worked in the Fieldss or did legion other occupations that most U.S. citizens do non desire to get down with is unethical.

These policies demonstrate that this state has a hypocritical value system. On one manus we value our heritage and the fact that we are all posterities of immigrants get the better ofing tremendous obstructions to come to the land of the free. We value the ideal that Emma Lazarus penned on the Statue of Liberty when she wrote Send these, the homeless, the tempesttost to me, /lift my lamp beside the aureate door! Now the consensus and un-American attitude has become shut the door behind you. We value our heritage so much that about every coevals has drawn up some barriers to in-migration. Now we value maintaining out the same people as our ascendants one time were, looking for a better life and freedom. As glib Buchanan wrote in 1996 in a column against in-migration, When did we vote to free America of her dominant European civilization? He supplies the reply to his ain inquiry: Never ( Wilbanks, 1993, p.4 ) .

In a recent article in the Miami New Times, Defede ( 1999 ) writes that the immorality of America s in-migration policy exists non in its intervention of Cubans, but in its intervention of the remainder of the universe when compares with Cubans ( Defede, 1999, p.13 ) . Defede feels that the United States is inconsistent with its in-migration policy and is particularly indulgent towards Cubans. Harmonizing to Defede, it is immoral to repatriate a Cuban refugee caught in the breaker, so close to dry land and freedom. But he says the job exists because the U.S. allows Cubans who reach dry land to remain in the U.S. and grants them residency 366 yearss after they arrived. That is the enticement that brings the Cubans and the promise that they risk their lives for. Extinguish this and the illegal in-migration from Cuba would decelerate to a drip, harmonizing to Defede.

The U.S. policy towards Haiti, nevertheless, couldn T be any more contradictory. Harmonizing to an column written in America ( 1992 ) , a U.S. District Judge tried to hold U.S & gt ; attempts to transport back some two-thirds of the 15,000 Haitians who had left their places after the military putsch that overthrew the authorities of Jean Bertrand-Aristide. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the prohibition and the Coast Guard began taking more than 10,000 Haitian refugees being detained at the U.S & gt ; Naval base in Guantanamo Bay. This led to a hungriness work stoppage by the so 82 ye

ar-old human-centered Katherine Dunham. Besides, harmonizing to the article, an call erupted from U.S. Catholic bishops who said it was morally irresponsible and morally questionable ( America, 1992, p.1 ) . The article besides quotes the Catholic Archbishop Edward A. McCarthy who said, It is merely natural that the refugees experience should engender tenable intuitions that the intervention received by Haitians is the consequence of institutional racism. Merely 55 out of 9,000 Haitians are granted political refuge, while there is no publically recorded instance of any one of some 10,000 preponderantly white Cuban boat people being denied admittance ( America, 1992, p.1 ) .

Another writer argues that the U.S. in-migration policy takes off our freedom to move as do-gooders ( Wilbanks, 1993, p.1 ) . Wilbanks goes on to state that national authoritiess make determinations about refugee admittance on the footing of national opportunism and that humanism takes a back place. Wilbanks feels that the U.S. should see refugees from a spiritual point of position alternatively of a pure national involvement position. In this manner, Wilbanks feels, citizens will non see refugees as aliens or objects for having but alternatively as people made in God s image with whom to come in into a relationship ( Wilbanks, 1993, p.4 ) .

In a recent article by Carr ( 1999 ) , she examines the recent in-migration Torahs as being unethical. As an in-migration attorney she deals with immigrants seeking refuge or contending to non be deported. One instance Carr gives as an illustration is of a immature adult male who was guilty of the offense of working in the United States without permission. He was making work that most Americans won Ts do in order to back up his American married woman and kid. Carr had to interrupt the intelligence of his exile back to Mexico to him. In another instance, a female parent was deported off from her six-month old babe. There wasn T clip to set up for the babe to go with her so she was sent back to Mexico entirely. In her despair to acquire back to her babe, she died in the heat of the New Mexico desert ( Carr, 1999, p.1. )

This is the sort of unethical intervention of immigrants by the U.S. that Carr speaks out against. One of the new Torahs that Carr is opposed to is the demand that a petitioning comparative provide a warrant to back up the new immigrant even if the suppliant is a adult female with immature kids who herself depends on the immigrant hubby for his support ( Carr, 1999, p.2 ) . Carr does non understand why such Torahs were passed when several surveies concluded that new immigrants contribute more to the economic system overall than they take out. In add-on, immigrants do non perpetrate proportionally more offenses than American citizens do. Carr contends that immigrants bring energy and expertness to a wearied society ( Carr, 1999, p.2 ) .

Proposition 187, California s ill-famed ballot enterprise to deny schooling and medical attention to illegal immigrants, spawned a moving ridge of contention when passed in 1994. In Rosin s ( 1995 ) article she examines some of the un-American and immoral attitudes towards immigrants. Rosin ( 1995 ) quotes one Republican, Marge Roukema, as stating, These felons come here to feed on American citizens. Another Republican, Lamor Smith, sponsored a House measure, which in portion would set a cap of 330,000 family-sponsored immigrants. In add-on, it would cut down the entire figure of immigrants by 25 per centum from 800,000 to 600,000 by the terminal of the century ( Rosin, 1995, p.1 ) .

This un-American attitude, harmonizing to Rosin, is spurred by the belief that immigrants are welfare sponges. Republican Alan Simpson goes every bit far as to endanger exile for legal immigrants who make inordinate usage of public assistance in their first five old ages ( Rosin, 1995, p.2 ) . Harmonizing to the article, a recent Urban Institute survey shows that working-age non-refugee immigrants are less likely than indigens to be on public assistance.

Militants to guarantee a more ethical intervention of immigrants have suggested several schemes. For a more humanist attack to cut down the inflow of Cubans to our shores Defede ( 1999 ) suggests an terminal to the wet-feet policy. Defede besides suggests restricting runners who bring Cubans ashore by possibly utilizing the FBI or the Navy. As mentioned earlier, Defede feels the wet-feet policy is unethical and barbarous to those Cubans who risk their lives merely to be repatriated when caught before they could step on dry U.S. dirt. Defede suggests stoping repatriations wholly and says that if Castro threatens to unleash another inundation of refugees that we encircle the island with war vessels and cut off all oil cargos to his state ( Defede, 1999, p.13 ) .

In response to the Haitian refugees, militants have suggested that all boat people be granted safety for a clip. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk said that even Haitians who can non measure up for political refuge merit the shelter provided by the legal redress called Temporary Protected Status ( America, 1993, p.183 ) .

The United States Government and its citizens need to re-examine the in-migration policy. Leting 700,000 immigrants into the state a twelvemonth is non plenty. Alternatively we need an open-door policy. The overall bound gives the INS excessively much power to pick and take whom they feel should be let in. A 700,000-year immigrants cap besides encourages illegal in-migration. American s are ever stating, If those people want to acquire in allow them make it the legal manner. Well, given the agencies and resources most immigrants would most decidedly choose to come lawfully as opposed to mounting high barbed-wire fencings or drifting for yearss on a raft. The fact that we allow people to decease seeking to acquire to our dirt is an inhumane, immoral, and unethical as coercing Africans to this state and turning them into slaves. An open-door policy would besides stop the incompatibility of the current in-migration policy. Soon, we allow 1000s of Cubans to come in the U.S. and to stay as occupants while the bulk of Haitians are turned back.

We have an historic committedness to in-migration and we need to retrieve that immigrants maintain our state strong, economically competitory, and culturally rich. The inquiry of whether America s doors should be unfastened or closed will go on to be intensely debated in the tribunals, in Congress, and in communities where immigrants settle.

5cf

Anderson, George M. ( 1998 ) . Fortress North America: the new in-migration jurisprudence. America, 178, 3.

Carr, Ann ( 1999 ) . Behaving Resident Foreigners: No Compassion, No Sense. America, 180, 6, 18.

Defede, Jim ( 1999 ) . Life in the Echo Chamber. Miami New Times, 14, 13-15.

Rosin, Hanna ( 1995 ) . Strange Days. The New Republic, 213, 11.

Wilbanks, Dana W. ( 1993 ) . The moral argument between humanism and national involvement about U.S. refugee policy ; a theological position. Migration World Magazine, 21, 15.

Throwing people back is no good. ( 1992 ) . America, 166, 183.

Questions about the aureate door. ( 1993 ) . America, 168, 3.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

x

Hi!
I'm Katy

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out