If we consider the background history of the united States, it would be hard to distinguish one America from another since we all are one way a country made up of immigrants and those who are also citizens. Thanksgiving is as much a holiday for all people, but one especially for those first Immigrants, the settlers. Then, the other settlers that came particularly, from Ireland, Italy, France and Germany. Afterwards they came from as far as Russia and even China.
And still the immigrants continue to mom to this nation, seeking if not political asylum or economic stability that is lacking from where they are from to realize here a lifestyle that Is healthier then the poverty that was In their country neighborhoods or towns. They come from closer and closer in proximity, sometimes if necessary illegally. As it concerns the present day, the majority of immigrants has reached a level some would call an epidemic that needs a resolution since it Is perceived as a detriment to the way of life to citizens of this country.
This coincides with the view of Rudolf O. De la Gar, author of the article, Neither Walls Nor Open Borders: A New Approach to Immigration Reform”, who relates “The government’s failure to realistically confront immigration has a political and policy crisis” (Gar 65) and others. I propose these are a few reasons why the Immigrants that are already here should be allowed to stay In the U. S. A but no more should be allowed in. Illegal migration has been a concern of the U. S. Overspent because of the perceived and actual impact it has had on the social and economic “well-being’ of citizens of the nation. One of major concerns towards developing Immigration reform s suggested In the reading of De la Gar Is that what Is central to resolving problems that exists stems from how the problem has been perceived as policy in different ways historically and applied in ways in actually as laws. For example, in the Yale Law Journal by Marmot K. Mendelssohn “Constructing America: Matchmaking In U.
S. Immigration Courts”, the author argues that our perceptions of allowing Illegal immigrants to stay in this country stems from how the law has been interpreted by the courts who processed those illegal immigrants for deportation as far in the past s far as the first comprehensive act in 1917. And before that, much of It was a matter of “provisions Intended to prohibit Immigration and to authorize the deportation of convicts, lunatics, imbeciles, professional beggars, anarchists, polygamists… And in “the sass’s” there was the prohibition of immigration Chinese workers (Mendelssohn 1018- 19), all based on legislation that was not applied in practice appropriately. The restrictions that Imposed were considered In other ways in “the first decade of the twentieth century. ” Policymakers sought to consider the encores of the time such as tension about racial mixing and negative feelings from the population towards other belief systems such as Catholicism and Judaism a response towards growing nationalistic sentiments (Mendelssohn 1019).
In each of following decades the quota of Immigrants allowed into the country was measured by the Judgment and personal beliefs of the policymakers and the concerns of the 1 OFF amount of people who showed their value as a beneficial addition to the country, particularly to the general U. S. Society. Interestingly enough if such a legislation meant to be concerned about immigrants who came into the country legal, an important question to consider and answer is the following: If there is a concern of who comes in then how does this answer the problem of illegal immigration and in practical way to present day policy.
If illegal immigration is a present problem, then we should not allow immigrants in because we do not understand the inherent problems in the system as it is in our present day. The grounds of the quota system as it has been related have been based mainly on the views of policy makers and its reflection on policy. There has been too much individual interpretation in answering the concerns of those immigrants who allowed in the legislative level and it is as much the case, when resolving issues of those who are going to be deported, the particular cases of illegal immigration.
This Judgment is supported by Walter A. Ewing in the Journal article, “The Many Facets of Effective Immigration Reform” how the immigration system we know is a product of improperly enforced of many decades and as a negative consequence this has had a negative effect on the economy since the lack of proper administration have disrupted a process that has allowed a very significant amount of illegal immigrants to enter the U.
S. (12 million unauthorized immigrants), funding an “enforcement-only approach” that doesn’t consider the practicality of the quota system and the value of immigration that considers “family-based immigration”, which seeks to support the reunification of families and sees them as an integrated, economic resource for this country (110-11). This is then a real concern of the general public.
They are worried about immigrants taking Jobs when there is a growing level f Joblessness or when the quota system offers legal immigration to foreigners yet does not answer the problems of that come their criminality, their effect on sufficient housing and how there are many of them take advantage of social services meant to serve legal residents and mainly citizens. This is illustrated with the present media perception of illegal immigration, the Mexican immigrant. As related by Adulterate Acquire, Jar. N “Immigration on the Public Mind Immigration Reform in the Obama Administration”, the author elaborates how much the presence of more immigrants is dewed implicitly and explicitly via the media and supported by the public, bringing about actual conflict in places close to the border as California to the “social behavior” and civil rulings as far as “Hazelnut, Pennsylvania” where people’s perceptions have influenced policy to the degree that immigrants and other Latino persuasions are wondering about how these negative evaluations are influencing policy makers.
In this paper, Acquire, Jar. Proposes the types of reform that follows the line of thinking of “Policy Working Groups” who are helping President Obama and Vice-President Bidet’s immigration policy, offering alternative ways to manage citizenship for the undocumented, offering betters means of border enforcement that doesn’t migrants into criminals and as a means to better deal with those who employ immigrant workers (8-9).
Thus, these agendas should allow us to do what I argue for in a organized fashion: to deal what we have, which is a system with a policy that in practice makes too many exceptions, with a old fashion view that views benefit anyone in this country, not only both citizens and legal residing immigrants, UT those policymakers and legislators who wish to have a system that is efficient and cost-effective for the federal and particularly state government.
The problem with illegal immigration comes from allowing more immigrants in when we should work on the process and resolve the issues in the federal level but on those in the state and local level. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants, let us deal with them and limit immigration not only for Mexicans, but all those who seek entrance until we can change our perceptions of immigrants with policy in our everyday lives, whether they are Mexican or from any other country.
The question of the problem of the amount of immigrants entering the country is easy to understand unless we can consider predictions for the future and make proper adjustments, considering how many we have here already. If the quota system isn’t effective to the degree we would like, nor border enforcement restricted effectively those who enter illegally and we have yet to systematically answer in practical ways the existing 12 million that are claimed as undocumented, it would be reasonable to deal with the problem conservatively.
Considering the data related by the reading, “Which American Dream Do You Mean? By David Stool, the author relates how “In 2007, 38 million or 12% of the U. S. Population was foreign-born” and further adds that to project what this will lead to in more than a decade from now is that they will make up a majority greater than 50% of children of the country, as Stool considers from the latest census (2009) (398).
This figure alone is an issue to me and any other immigrant who came to this country illegally because our resources as a country are not infinite. Further related in article is how to answer the problem of issues relative immigration such employing immigrants versus citizens and immigrants not paying taxes are interpreted differently among party lines as writer establishes to the advantage of each side against each other (Stool 399).
If illegal immigration is an issue, it is my claim that the grounds of the present immigration process must be re-considered, re-evaluated and re-formulated in response to the way it is actual working right now and that as it may seem disruptive to those immigrants living here who may still have families in their native countries who they wish to bring to live here one day, but the present problem must consider the needs f those living in this country as primary over the needs of any immigrant who has family outside of the country.
I declare once again this government whether guided as a majority of Republicans or Democrats must mutually deny anymore immigrants from coming into the country and do as De la Gar relates (66) to respect the present immigrants needs- but as I view only modifying the policy for only for those already present in the country for a certain duration, and second to restrict legislation only for citizens, legal residents and “guest workers. ” If policy must respect the times we live, we must consider the historical distance room the time that illegal immigration was resolved with deportation as a means of protection and as punishment for some.
In “Protection, Not Punishment”: Legislative and Judicial Formation of U. S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904, by Torn Hester, the author relates that it was by the interaction of an individual court case of Fond You Ting, that the question of whether it is a form of punishment or protection was even until the present day (11-12). This being granted we must likewise re-evaluate all of the history, as deportation legislation has evolved with the times- we now see hat deportation must be selectively considered as a protection and as a punishment for certain individuals.
In a common way, we must find a way to do this in consideration to those immigrants that exist here thus far, not because restricting immigration is a punishment but that it is meant to protect the lives not only of already existing immigrants, both those that are legal and illegal in the present but to answer the foreseeable reality that is within our future as a country: overpopulation. This is why I believe we should have a restriction and not deport nor discriminate hose immigrants already living in this country.
For me, the country needs to reformulate a policy that respects the times and considers how issues of immigration must be answered by considering the individual cases, the cases in local places and across the nation, and similarly, like the Fond You Ting case- the first case deportation in legal history and consider what happens when we can target the concerns and the rights of those immigrants who are already here and limit the entrance of those immigrants who wish to come in when the rights of those already here as residents ND citizens are at stake.