Conservative icon Ronald Reagan once remarked that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This phrase has been cited to criticize government work for decades. Despite the constant reproach from the American people, very little has been to done to curb the inadequacy that seems to only grow worse with each new congressional session, especially in regards to immigration. Since the formation of the colonies that eventually became the United States of America, immigration has been a crucial part of the nation’s culture and success. Today, immigration has emerged as a major political issue, as there are currently an estimated 11 million immigrants living in America illegally …show more content…
Privatization of such a major piece of our government may seem like the waving of a white flag to some, but it is a solution that both sides of the political spectrum have supported in the past. Privatizing the system appeals to both parties, not just those who support libertarian policies and generally lean to the right of the political spectrum. President Clinton passed the “FAIR Act of 1988” which required all government agencies to declare whether their position as a government entity was crucial to their success, and he was also in favor of privatizing Social Security, as he could see the necessity for shifting to private organizations (Jacobson). Many leftist Democrats see Bill Clinton as a political role model, so his acceptance and support of privatizing certain governmental agencies proves that left- leaning politicians might not meet this idea with as much opposition as originally thought. Privatization also brings the benefit of competition, which would act as a safety net in avoiding an ineffective system like the one seen in the status quo. China has seen the advantages of privatization in the last decade. They have privatized sectors like public transportation, critical infrastructure, and telecommunications, and the country has even grown to become the largest privatizer in the world (Sharma). As China’s …show more content…
Many democrats support the idea that amnesty should be granted to every illegal immigrant, on the grounds that nobody can decide the country in which they are born. In the current race for president, the only alternative to offering amnesty is complete deportation of all illegal immigrants. This policy is supported only with belligerent ad hominem to the opposition and racist generalizations about said immigrants. Olu Shola, a woman who immigrated from Kenya, spoke about the current state of the system. She explained that “It is a shambles… and if you are really lucky you will only be caught up in it for one to two years” (Okolosie). Another informant reveals that over four million people are currently stuck in the system waiting to be granted citizenship (Center for Immigration Studies). Once the country switches to the private sector, the millions who are currently stuck in it will be given the opportunity to obtain a lawful citizenship under the new system. Democrats would generally support granting those who are stuck in the system amnesty. Blind amnesty, however, can cause an abundance of issues. Peter Skerry highlights the dangers of blind amnesty in his editorial posted to the online political journal, “Brookings.com”. He explains that offering amnesty only sends the wrong message and brings more illegal immigrants (Skerry). Under the new
In The Divide, author Matt Taibbi conveyed to the reader the daily experiences in which illegal immigrants must undergo in order to remain in the United States. Because local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) started rapidly increasing the number of deported immigrants, local businesses that depended on the immigrant workforce felt dramatic effects. Even though business production slowed, ICE continued deporting illegal immigrants. Additionally, Our justice system realized the injustice of 287(g). According to the American Immigration Council, all local law enforcement were given the power to arrest, interrogate, or deport illegal immigrants, much like ICE officers.
In November of 1990, Nancy Yanes’s life changed when she was finally immigrating to America. Nancy, an immigrant from Sayopango, El Salvador, arrived to the US only knowing a few of her family members, with no understanding of the language, and didn’t have any money to support herself on her own. Nancy left behind a life of poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods to reunite with her parents and younger brother. Nancy Yanes’ mother, Rosina Guerrero had to leave her children behind and come to America illegally. It took her 8-9 years to be able to get the legal document to bring her two children; Nancy and her sister, into the U.S. Rosina believed “a small sacrifice now would mean a huge benefit later.”
Although the anti-immigrant groups believe that the federal law overpowers any moral law, Rose continues to discreetly show her support with the pro-immigrant group. Rose critiques the “wall” as a method of preventing immigration that will ultimately fail just like the Great Wall of China and the Berlin wall which in the end “cannot contain the mass movements of people” (97). Rose is suggesting that the border fence will too be just another wall of admiration such as the Great Wall, that failed to serve its purpose rather evoked thousands of unnecessary deaths. She imposes the question amongst us whether the wall is worth the billions of dollars of cost to build and maintain. In addition, Rose again in later chapters raises the issue of NAFTA
744 seemed to have been destined to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. Nevertheless it seems to have repeated the fate of its predecessors, other legislative efforts to address the pressing issue of illegal immigration in the country. What stood in the way of the successful passage of the bill by the House? Why didn’t massive support of interest groups and general public of the immigration reform secure its adoption? Can we argue that technocracy and confrontation between issue networks of supporters of “path to citizenship” and strengthening border security stall the
Based her use of ethos, pathos, and logos, Wences does a better job in convincing her readers that immigration reforms should be backed. In Reyna Wences’s article “My Life in the Shadows,” she uses her article to persuade the reader to support immigration. Reyna shares her story of
One of the biggest controversies in the United States today is immigration. This is a huge topic in the country today because there is numerous people on both sides of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform that present great evidence about it. This reform is impacting millions of immigrants that are working and living in the Unites States today, but it also affects the people that are citizens of the United States. In this paper I am going to present arguments from both sides of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, then come to a conclusion on which side I choose to place my opinion. There are a lot of worthy things that this reform is going to accomplish for immigrants in the United States.
According to a study released last year by the Pew Hispanic Center, as of 2008, 11.9 million illegal immigrants lived in the United States, more than triple the 3.5 million who lived in the country in 1990 (Izumi). Immigration throughout the years has become a major issue in the U.S because of too many immigrants entering the country year after year. The U.S has come to a point whether they should deport the immigrants back to their country. Believe it or not, these immigrants are a big contribution to the U.S. If it wasn’t for them, the U.S economy wouldn’t be where it stands now.
Annotated Bibliography Beadle, Amanda Peterson. " Top 10 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform." ThinkProgress. © 2016 - Center for American Progress, 10 Dec. 2012.
“It [immigration policy] is inconsistent, ineffective, and does not promote the common good… We recognize that finding solutions to the plight of immigrants today will sometimes necessitate the overcoming of boundaries in the heart, not just on the land.” The reason why I choose this quote is it directly point out how useless immigration policy is. I agree that the policy is not only ignoring people who are needed but also blocking people away from getting aid or freedom.
history: from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 to the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, and now with the 1990 Immigration Act. Now, with the election of President Obama, who ran on a platform of immigration reform, there have been further changes in policy in order to create a new system more forgiving of undocumented immigrants. Specifically, President Obama has proposed two pieces of legislation: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (The Dream Act).The Dream Act has yet to be implemented in the policy process, as it is still a hotly contested item by policy makers in Congress, but DACA has acted as a temporary stand in for the full measure. An analysis of DACA’s effect on the immigration and naturalization process is important to gain a better understanding of what the full effect the DREAM act will have on the current institution. After it was apparent that the full DREAM act would be held in congressional limbo for the foreseeable future, President Obama issued an executive order putting DACA into effect, which instilled a two-year buffer period for young illegal immigrants (coined as DREAMERS) to apply for work visas, and begin the process of becoming a legal U.S.
The readings for this week emphasized the duality in treatment between those who are deemed to warrant protection and those who are perceived as threats, both of which are delineated along racial, ethnic and nationality boundaries. Chan & Chunn (2014) provide a comprehensive overview of the numerous ways in which “crimmigration” (p.17) has become one of the most prevalent features of immigration policies (p.17). The implementation of permanent resident cards, visas, and other immigration practices, as Chan & Chunn (2014) assert, implicitly (if not explicitly) link a person’s status and mobility, which undeniably has a differential impact on those perceived as problematic due to their race/ethnicity (p.5 & 7-8). Additionally, the discussion
I am honored and humbled for this great opportunity to address this joint meeting of the Congress of the United States. Honorable Speaker, Vice-President, and members of congress, I am truly privileged to stand here on behalf of my Hispanic, and immigrant brothers and sisters, who stand as an important pillar of this nation’s economy and prosperity. A year ago, I was living in one of the most dangerous countries of the world, devastated by the hands of poverty and delinquency, and torn with the materialized selfish thoughts and avarice of corrupt political leaders. A country where the struggle of survival is an everyday challenge. It was a year ago that I lived in a nation in which opportunities for socioeconomic progress are scarce, and were the idea of safety is forever perpetuated as a
The most agreeable point that detractors make is that the border has to be enforced. However, it is not possible to pretend that the detention and deportation of eleven million of immigrants is in any way a viable option. It is definitively evident that the future solution to the current immigration crisis lies on the creation of a bipartisan proposal that includes not only a solution that takes the eleven million on
According to pewresearch.org, illegal immigrants made up around 3.5% of the US population in the year of 2014, these illegals make up 5.1% of the US work force, and around 52% of them are Mexican. The primary reason illegal immigration is such a problem is that these citizens do not pay taxes and often send money back across the border to impoverished relatives. Immigrationforum.org calculates that we spend an average of 5.05 million USD per day on detaining illegal immigrants, with around 159 USD daily cost to taxpayers for every immigrant detained. In order to address our immigration issues, the US should make immigration easier, which will save millions of taxpayer dollars and allow these immigrants to bring their families across the border, this will allow them to become taxable members of the US work force as well as halting the departure of our currency across our borders. Ultimately however, all of this immigration reform will be utterly pointless if we do not have a solid domestic policy to support
Unfortunately, these expansions lead to a lack of policy coherence and coordination among agencies and departments and in many cases caused the duplication of federal programs, increased the number of policy system actors who have competing desires, stimulated lack of policy oversight, and in some cases shaped the lack of ability for the federal government to accomplish anything. Nowhere today has the federal governments expansion had an effect on policy agenda more than in the area of immigration. “Whether the policymaking system is efficient or not, one principle result of the necessity to form coalitions across a number of institutions is the tendency to produce small, incremental changes rather than major revamping of policies” (Peters 30). With America’s immigration policy, this is no exception. The immigration policy network actors are not only vast but their motivations are different as well.