Law in Contemporary Society

View   r7  >  r6  >  r5  >  r4  >  r3  >  r2  ...
KevinSSecondEssay 7 - 14 Jun 2016 - Main.KevinS
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Changed:
<
<

The Argument Against DAPA?

>
>

The Argument Against DAPA?

 -- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016
Line: 8 to 8
  However, even these relatively modest changes to the Executive's discretionary agency policies were vehemently opposed. Anti-immigration rhetoric abounded almost immediately after the announcement, and it continues to be employed in the Republican primary campaigns. Given the strong backlash against easing the U.S.'s immigration procedures and the divisiveness of just the issue itself, I will give serious consideration to the objections raised against the two most recent immigration actions raised above.
Changed:
<
<

Why is being here without permission so bad?

>
>

Why is so bad to be here without permission?

 
Changed:
<
<
In my initial draft, I suggested xenophobia and economic costs as two arguments raised against immigration relief. Upon revisiting these two, I submit that I don't have sufficient information on the economic argument to make any significant conclusion. With regards to xenophobia as an argument, the obvious objection is that, while it may be an explanation of anti-immigrant sentiment, it simply fails as a justification in and of itself. I now consider the utilitarian and equity arguments: extending relief to immigrants already unlawfully in the U.S. encourages rule breaking and is unfair to those who are waiting in line.
>
>
In my initial draft, I suggested xenophobia and economic costs as two arguments raised against immigration relief. Upon revisiting these two, I submit that I don't have sufficient information on the economic argument to make any significant conclusion. With regards to xenophobia as an argument, the obvious objection is that, while it may be an explanation of anti-immigrant sentiment, it simply fails as a justification in and of itself. I now consider the utilitarian and equity arguments: extending relief to immigrants already unlawfully in the U.S. encourages rule breaking and is unfair to those who are waiting in line.
 
Changed:
<
<

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

>
>

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

 First, let me dispel the notion that the DAPA program encourages rule-breaking. Like DACA, it is a retroactive and purely remedial relief with a cutoff date; you must have been already present in the U.S. on January 1, 2010 in order to qualify. This nullifies the ridiculous fear that immigrants are going to swarm to the U.S. and make babies here.
Changed:
<
<
That aside, this deterrent argument smacks awfully similar to theories of criminal punishment. This juxtaposition of immigration and criminal violations is an important one, since I'm sure many think of deportation as a punishment for unlawful presence (heck, even the name "Homeland Security"; associates undocumented immigrants with terrorists). But what is really being punished here? Criminal punishments are supposed to deter the activity, foster public safety, or reinforce public standards of morality. These justifications of punishment don't seem readily applicable to undocumented immigrants. At least in the DAPA context, deterrence has already been dispelled, and there are also strict requirements against parents with criminal records, which nullifies any public safety concerns. The justification that might hold any water would be the argument from morality: it's just "wrong" to be here without permission. This segues neatly into the second argument I wanted to discuss.
>
>
That aside, this deterrent argument smacks awfully similar to theories of criminal punishment. This juxtaposition of immigration and criminal violations is an important one, since I'm sure many think of deportation as a punishment for unlawful presence (heck, even the name "Homeland Security" associates undocumented immigrants with terrorists). But what is really being punished here? Criminal punishments are supposed to deter the activity, foster public safety, or reinforce public standards of morality. These justifications of punishment don't seem readily applicable to undocumented immigrants. At least in the DAPA context, deterrence has already been dispelled, and there are also strict requirements against parents with criminal records, which nullifies any public safety concerns. The justification that might hold any water would be the argument from morality: it's just "wrong" to be here without permission. This segues neatly into the second argument I wanted to discuss.
 
Changed:
<
<

"This is OUR country."

>
>

"This is OUR country."

 
Changed:
<
<
The "line-cutting" argument has a stronger appeal, as it presents the issue in a schema we can all relate to. More importantly, given that the Visa bulletin has just become current for family petitions filed in 1995, it seems unfair to the petitioners who have been waiting for over 20 years to extend relief to those who just enter without inspection. Notwithstanding its applicability, this analogy is fundamentally misleading. The strongest opposition against immigration "line-cutting" isn't from the people in line; it's coming from the people on the other side of the gate. A better analogy might be that of a disgruntled property owner trying to exercise his right to exclude non-owners. In this light, the anti-immigration sentiment is seen for what it is: a misplaced entitlement that this country is "theirs."
>
>
The "line-cutting" argument has a stronger appeal, as it presents the issue in a schema we can all relate to. More importantly, given that the Visa bulletin has just become current for family petitions filed in 1995, it seems unfair to the petitioners who have been waiting for over 20 years to extend relief to those who just enter without inspection. Despite this appeal, this analogy is fundamentally misleading. The strongest opposition against immigration "line-cutting" isn't from the people in line; it's coming from the people on the other side of the gate. A better analogy might be that of a disgruntled property owner trying to exercise his right to exclude non-owners. In this light, the anti-immigration sentiment is seen for what it is: a misplaced entitlement that this country is "theirs."
 
Changed:
<
<

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

>
>

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

 
Changed:
<
<
Notwithstanding the flaws in the arguments, there may be some valid government interests in opposing the Executive Actions. The government might have an interest in maintaining an orderly procedure for processing immigration applications, and, giving credit to Texas’s argument in the U.S. v. Texas, I admit that a new source of immigration applications would encumber an already strained system.
>
>
Notwithstanding the flaws in the arguments, there may be some valid government interests in opposing the Executive Actions. The government might have an interest in maintaining an orderly procedure for processing immigration applications, and, giving credit to Texas's argument in U.S. v. Texas, I admit that a new source of immigration applications would encumber an already strained system.
 But the critical question is whether these interests justify separating a parent from their child? Sure, we might not like line-cutting but would we go so far as to kick out someone who joined in line to be with their kid? If the child is a U.S. citizen, is there not a government interest in his or her well-being? As I discussed in my first draft, the difference between an "alien"and a "citizen" may be as small as time and papers. Should that difference be allowed to separate an already established family in this country? These may be rhetorical questions in this context, but they are legitimate inquiries that an anti-immigration proponent should resolve before denouncing the DAPA program.
Changed:
<
<

Concluding Remarks

>
>

Concluding Remarks

 The anti-DAPA concerns I've analyzed here are fundamentally misplaced. There is a misunderstanding as to deterrence effects and public safety (which manifests in statements that all immigrants are drug dealers and rapists). This may have been in part due to the categorization of immigration under the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps the creation of a "Department of Immigration"or even returning immigration issues to the Department of Justice's authority may be warranted. At least then we can avoid playing "Which of these things is not like the others"with the DHS functions.

KevinSSecondEssay 6 - 13 Jun 2016 - Main.KevinS
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Changed:
<
<

Immigration and Presence

>
>

The Argument Against DAPA?

 -- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016
Changed:
<
<
America is a nation of immigrants. Obvious argument by European colonization aside, a significant percentage - nearly 25% - of the American population is either first or second generation immigrants. Besides demographics, the impact of immigrants on our society is undeniable. European immigrants in the mid-1800's provided crucial factory labor, Chinese immigrants greatly contributed to the transcontinental railroad, and Hispanic immigrants provide much of the nation's agricultural labor today.
>
>
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced his Executive Actions on Immigration, which among other propositions set forth two critical changes to the present immigration system. First, the Executive Actions focused the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement priorities on removing aliens who posed risks to national security and public safety. Second, they created a new retroactive and affirmative relief for undocumented parents of lawfully present children (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). For many, these actions were a much-needed step in the right direction. The former recognized that the category of "undocumented immigrants" was not a monolith of just "people who shouldn't be here," and the second reflected a humanitarian effort to keep children with their parents.
 
Changed:
<
<
Despite of (or perhaps because of) the contributions from these immigrant groups, public sentiment responded negatively against mass immigration of these groups, sometimes with legislation. Since the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875, the U.S. has sought to regulate its borders against excessive immigration. While the U.S. has occasionally eased entry during the post-war period, the vast majority of American immigration history is one of exclusion.

On November 20, 2015, this history was challenged by President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration, which would recalibrate immigration priorities to maintain family unity by deferring action for parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. This proposition has been met with heavy criticism and sheer judicial stubbornness, embodied by United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of the President's prosecutorial discretion in immigration. In light of the immigration executive actions being before the Supreme Court after being ruled unconstitutional in the Fifth Circuit, the overall goals and values behind immigration policies warrant a closer inspection.

>
>
However, even these relatively modest changes to the Executive's discretionary agency policies were vehemently opposed. Anti-immigration rhetoric abounded almost immediately after the announcement, and it continues to be employed in the Republican primary campaigns. Given the strong backlash against easing the U.S.'s immigration procedures and the divisiveness of just the issue itself, I will give serious consideration to the objections raised against the two most recent immigration actions raised above.
 

Why is being here without permission so bad?

Changed:
<
<
("unlawful presence") (line cutting) (lack of sanctity/respect) (property right to exclude) (impermissible presence)
>
>
In my initial draft, I suggested xenophobia and economic costs as two arguments raised against immigration relief. Upon revisiting these two, I submit that I don't have sufficient information on the economic argument to make any significant conclusion. With regards to xenophobia as an argument, the obvious objection is that, while it may be an explanation of anti-immigrant sentiment, it simply fails as a justification in and of itself. I now consider the utilitarian and equity arguments: extending relief to immigrants already unlawfully in the U.S. encourages rule breaking and is unfair to those who are waiting in line.
 

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

Deleted:
<
<
(stigma) (public danger) (DHS association)

What does this say about our values as a society?

(fear) (authority)
 
Changed:
<
<

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

(other values and interests) (family) (futility of enforcement)
>
>
First, let me dispel the notion that the DAPA program encourages rule-breaking. Like DACA, it is a retroactive and purely remedial relief with a cutoff date; you must have been already present in the U.S. on January 1, 2010 in order to qualify. This nullifies the ridiculous fear that immigrants are going to swarm to the U.S. and make babies here.
 
Added:
>
>
That aside, this deterrent argument smacks awfully similar to theories of criminal punishment. This juxtaposition of immigration and criminal violations is an important one, since I'm sure many think of deportation as a punishment for unlawful presence (heck, even the name "Homeland Security"; associates undocumented immigrants with terrorists). But what is really being punished here? Criminal punishments are supposed to deter the activity, foster public safety, or reinforce public standards of morality. These justifications of punishment don't seem readily applicable to undocumented immigrants. At least in the DAPA context, deterrence has already been dispelled, and there are also strict requirements against parents with criminal records, which nullifies any public safety concerns. The justification that might hold any water would be the argument from morality: it's just "wrong" to be here without permission. This segues neatly into the second argument I wanted to discuss.
 
Changed:
<
<
Bar violent criminals and national security, I don't find a convincing justification for the removal of undocumented immigrants - parents specifically for DAPA - on immigration status alone. To the contrary, any forced deportation should be incumbent on the State's production of evidence, rather than a simple recitation of "entry without inspection."
>
>

"This is OUR country."

The "line-cutting" argument has a stronger appeal, as it presents the issue in a schema we can all relate to. More importantly, given that the Visa bulletin has just become current for family petitions filed in 1995, it seems unfair to the petitioners who have been waiting for over 20 years to extend relief to those who just enter without inspection. Notwithstanding its applicability, this analogy is fundamentally misleading. The strongest opposition against immigration "line-cutting" isn't from the people in line; it's coming from the people on the other side of the gate. A better analogy might be that of a disgruntled property owner trying to exercise his right to exclude non-owners. In this light, the anti-immigration sentiment is seen for what it is: a misplaced entitlement that this country is "theirs."

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

 
Added:
>
>
Notwithstanding the flaws in the arguments, there may be some valid government interests in opposing the Executive Actions. The government might have an interest in maintaining an orderly procedure for processing immigration applications, and, giving credit to Texas’s argument in the U.S. v. Texas, I admit that a new source of immigration applications would encumber an already strained system.
 
Changed:
<
<
>
>
But the critical question is whether these interests justify separating a parent from their child? Sure, we might not like line-cutting but would we go so far as to kick out someone who joined in line to be with their kid? If the child is a U.S. citizen, is there not a government interest in his or her well-being? As I discussed in my first draft, the difference between an "alien"and a "citizen" may be as small as time and papers. Should that difference be allowed to separate an already established family in this country? These may be rhetorical questions in this context, but they are legitimate inquiries that an anti-immigration proponent should resolve before denouncing the DAPA program.
 
Changed:
<
<
The key to improvement is focus. This is too large in topic, too blowsy in expression, ending in a proposition which (even if it were correct statesmanship and good social policy) is completely unachievable as law. You immensely exaggerate the importance of the recent immigration enforcement realignment, which is an adjustment in policy by an executive branch unable to unlock long-pending and plainly necessary legislative change. The heat of response is unrelated either to the legal or social effect of the activity, but you do not analyze carefully enough to explain that to the reader.
>
>

Concluding Remarks

The anti-DAPA concerns I've analyzed here are fundamentally misplaced. There is a misunderstanding as to deterrence effects and public safety (which manifests in statements that all immigrants are drug dealers and rapists). This may have been in part due to the categorization of immigration under the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps the creation of a "Department of Immigration"or even returning immigration issues to the Department of Justice's authority may be warranted. At least then we can avoid playing "Which of these things is not like the others"with the DHS functions.
 
Deleted:
<
<
Get to the heart of the one matter on which you have an idea that you can build an essay draft tightly around. If it's really why the only good immigration law is one that no conceivable Congress will pass, then you should at least deal seriously with the objections, which you don't have time, space or the inclination to do here.
 
Deleted:
<
<
 



KevinSSecondEssay 5 - 13 Jun 2016 - Main.KevinS
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Changed:
<
<

What is immigration about?

>
>

Immigration and Presence

 -- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016

America is a nation of immigrants. Obvious argument by European colonization aside, a significant percentage - nearly 25% - of the American population is either first or second generation immigrants. Besides demographics, the impact of immigrants on our society is undeniable. European immigrants in the mid-1800's provided crucial factory labor, Chinese immigrants greatly contributed to the transcontinental railroad, and Hispanic immigrants provide much of the nation's agricultural labor today.

Deleted:
<
<
These are such partial fragments of the reality that they constitute mere stereotypes.

  Despite of (or perhaps because of) the contributions from these immigrant groups, public sentiment responded negatively against mass immigration of these groups, sometimes with legislation. Since the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875, the U.S. has sought to regulate its borders against excessive immigration. While the U.S. has occasionally eased entry during the post-war period, the vast majority of American immigration history is one of exclusion.

On November 20, 2015, this history was challenged by President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration, which would recalibrate immigration priorities to maintain family unity by deferring action for parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. This proposition has been met with heavy criticism and sheer judicial stubbornness, embodied by United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of the President's prosecutorial discretion in immigration. In light of the immigration executive actions being before the Supreme Court after being ruled unconstitutional in the Fifth Circuit, the overall goals and values behind immigration policies warrant a closer inspection.

Changed:
<
<

Immigration as Exclusion

The immigration reforms doesn't actually target immigrants (who are lawfully present in the United States intending to naturalize), but rather undocumented immigrants who may potentially be removed at any time. In terms of national origin and race, many of these undocumented immigrants share the same with U.S. citizens. In terms of language, many also speak English sufficiently well to contribute to society.

In fact, in some cases, the difference between an immigrant and a U.S. citizen can be as little as 5 years and some forms. How can time and paper possibly be valid justifications for the forced removal of a person from the entire life he or she had been cultivating? Why is the U.S., as a nation, so intent on withholding "lawful presence" from these immigrants, when the pivotal difference is ultimately a legal construct? These questions strike at the heart and psychology of immigration, and a satisfying answer cannot likely be reached without extensive research and studies. Nonetheless, a brief look into common arguments made by immigration opponents could at least prove interesting, provocative at best.

Xenophobia

The most irrational, yet perhaps most compelling, of the arguments is simply that people are wary of foreigners. Throughout American history, there has been several notable instances of anti-immigration sentiments, often targeted at a specific group. In the 1850s, there was strong opposition by the "Know Nothings" to Catholic immigration, often in the form of "Irish Need Not Apply" signs. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act and notable references in Brown v. Board indicated a public impression of the Chinese as especially resistant to American assimilation. In 1954, the same fear was directed towards Mexicans in Operation Wetback.

The stubborn thing about xenophobia is its stubbornness to arguments by reason, its inherent resistance to appeals on fact. A example would be my father's personal views against immigrants. The irony of the situation is that he himself is still an immigrant, not a U.S. citizen, which one would think leave him at least somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the undocumented immigrant. Yet despite the arguments I've put forth, he continues to express irritation with unassimilated immigrants, especially the behaviors of other recently immigrated Chinese. I love my dad but I've given up on trying to have him realize the irony of his beliefs. While he may or may not be typical, if a native Chinese citizen is unwilling to accept other Chinese immigrants just because of their unorthodox behaviors, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to convince the rest of the country of how irrational xenophobia is.

Economic Disruption

The argument that immigrants will "take our jobs" has persisted since the anti-Catholic Irish movement in the mid-1850s. Present statistics and articles interpreting said statistics have argued both the veracity and fallacy of this argument. Those seeking to aggravate the masses can point to the greater drop in labor force in native-born workers than in foreign-born workers, which may seem like more native-born workers are out of the labor market due to foreign workers. Others can emphasize the fact that the unemployment rates for both native-born and foreign-born workers are generally synced up, separated by a fraction of a point.

While the hard statistical evidence may be interpreted or employed by either side, the economic argument has notably been used by the U.S. district judge in the U.S. v. Texas to justify the injunction of the Deferred Action for Parents of American (DAPA) program. Texas, in establish a "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent" injury, cited the additional costs it would incur if compelled to issue driver's licenses to the new program recipients. This type of argument is typical, in type if not substance, of those used by anti-immigration supporters when using economic damages to justify the rejection of new immigrants: a single-sided economic cost conclusion, reached without consideration of the positive economic benefits. This reasoning is evident in the Fifth Circuit's affirmation of the injunction where the Court of Appeals found that the license issuance costs are relevant but the benefits of increased tax revenue, increased vehicle-registration fees, and decreased reliance on public health care are too far removed. While we may not be expert statisticians to interpret the implications of the labor data, we should at least be able to expect our judiciary to consider all relevant economic factors if it is going to pursue an economic analysis at all.

Immigration as Empathy

An important direction President Obama's Executive Action tries to steer the immigration conversation is towards the immigrant as an individual. The current standard for relief from removal proceedings is "exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship" to a U.S. citizen or Permanent Resident parent or spouse, a standard that is rarely met besides cases of severely physically or mentally handicapped relatives. In many cases, the "Notice to Appear" will simply state that the government alleges the alien entered without inspection at an unknown date from an unknown location, and that would be justification for removal.

>
>

Why is being here without permission so bad?

("unlawful presence") (line cutting) (lack of sanctity/respect) (property right to exclude) (impermissible presence)

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

(stigma) (public danger) (DHS association)

What does this say about our values as a society?

(fear) (authority)

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

(other values and interests) (family) (futility of enforcement)
 
Deleted:
<
<
The new immigration executive action shifts the focus to preserving family unity and reserving prosecutorial resources to be used on high-priority or dangerous individuals. This is significantly different from the previous relief in that it recognizes the devastating effect of deportation on individuals who are the bread-winners and emotional support of their families. In a figure-ground swap, the presumption is now that undocumented parents may be allowed to remain with their families bar public safety concerns instead of the presumption that all undocumented immigrants are removable bar extenuating circumstances. This policy does not presume that undocumented immigrants are criminals who have committed the deplorable act of "entry without inspection", but instead it treats them as regular individuals who have families, livelihoods, and other interests in the country. One perspective reflects the xenophobia in the long history of U.S. immigration; the other recognizes its irrationality and seeks to overcome the drastic distinction made by a few years and a few forms.
 Bar violent criminals and national security, I don't find a convincing justification for the removal of undocumented immigrants - parents specifically for DAPA - on immigration status alone. To the contrary, any forced deportation should be incumbent on the State's production of evidence, rather than a simple recitation of "entry without inspection."

KevinSSecondEssay 4 - 09 Jun 2016 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Deleted:
<
<
 

What is immigration about?

-- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016

Line: 6 to 5
 -- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016
Changed:
<
<
America is a nation of immigrants. Obvious argument by European colonization aside, a significant percentage - nearly 25% - of the American population is either first or second generation immigrants. Besides demographics, the impact of immigrants on our society is undeniable. European immigrants in the mid-1800's provided crucial factory labor, Chinese immigrants greatly contributed to the transcontinental railroad, and Hispanic immigrants provide much of the nation's agricultural labor today. Despite of (or perhaps because of) the contributions from these immigrant groups, public sentiment responded negatively against mass immigration of these groups, sometimes with legislation. Since the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875, the U.S. has sought to regulate its borders against excessive immigration. While the U.S. has occasionally eased entry during the post-war period, the vast majority of American immigration history is one of exclusion.
>
>
America is a nation of immigrants. Obvious argument by European colonization aside, a significant percentage - nearly 25% - of the American population is either first or second generation immigrants. Besides demographics, the impact of immigrants on our society is undeniable. European immigrants in the mid-1800's provided crucial factory labor, Chinese immigrants greatly contributed to the transcontinental railroad, and Hispanic immigrants provide much of the nation's agricultural labor today.

These are such partial fragments of the reality that they constitute mere stereotypes.

Despite of (or perhaps because of) the contributions from these immigrant groups, public sentiment responded negatively against mass immigration of these groups, sometimes with legislation. Since the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875, the U.S. has sought to regulate its borders against excessive immigration. While the U.S. has occasionally eased entry during the post-war period, the vast majority of American immigration history is one of exclusion.

 On November 20, 2015, this history was challenged by President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration, which would recalibrate immigration priorities to maintain family unity by deferring action for parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. This proposition has been met with heavy criticism and sheer judicial stubbornness, embodied by United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of the President's prosecutorial discretion in immigration. In light of the immigration executive actions being before the Supreme Court after being ruled unconstitutional in the Fifth Circuit, the overall goals and values behind immigration policies warrant a closer inspection.
Line: 38 to 44
 Bar violent criminals and national security, I don't find a convincing justification for the removal of undocumented immigrants - parents specifically for DAPA - on immigration status alone. To the contrary, any forced deportation should be incumbent on the State's production of evidence, rather than a simple recitation of "entry without inspection."
Added:
>
>

The key to improvement is focus. This is too large in topic, too blowsy in expression, ending in a proposition which (even if it were correct statesmanship and good social policy) is completely unachievable as law. You immensely exaggerate the importance of the recent immigration enforcement realignment, which is an adjustment in policy by an executive branch unable to unlock long-pending and plainly necessary legislative change. The heat of response is unrelated either to the legal or social effect of the activity, but you do not analyze carefully enough to explain that to the reader.

Get to the heart of the one matter on which you have an idea that you can build an essay draft tightly around. If it's really why the only good immigration law is one that no conceivable Congress will pass, then you should at least deal seriously with the objections, which you don't have time, space or the inclination to do here.

 
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.

KevinSSecondEssay 3 - 13 Apr 2016 - Main.KevinS
Changed:
<
<
Revision 2 is unreadable
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"

What is immigration about?

-- By KevinS - 11 Apr 2016

America is a nation of immigrants. Obvious argument by European colonization aside, a significant percentage - nearly 25% - of the American population is either first or second generation immigrants. Besides demographics, the impact of immigrants on our society is undeniable. European immigrants in the mid-1800's provided crucial factory labor, Chinese immigrants greatly contributed to the transcontinental railroad, and Hispanic immigrants provide much of the nation's agricultural labor today. Despite of (or perhaps because of) the contributions from these immigrant groups, public sentiment responded negatively against mass immigration of these groups, sometimes with legislation. Since the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875, the U.S. has sought to regulate its borders against excessive immigration. While the U.S. has occasionally eased entry during the post-war period, the vast majority of American immigration history is one of exclusion.

On November 20, 2015, this history was challenged by President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration, which would recalibrate immigration priorities to maintain family unity by deferring action for parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. This proposition has been met with heavy criticism and sheer judicial stubbornness, embodied by United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of the President's prosecutorial discretion in immigration. In light of the immigration executive actions being before the Supreme Court after being ruled unconstitutional in the Fifth Circuit, the overall goals and values behind immigration policies warrant a closer inspection.

Immigration as Exclusion

The immigration reforms doesn't actually target immigrants (who are lawfully present in the United States intending to naturalize), but rather undocumented immigrants who may potentially be removed at any time. In terms of national origin and race, many of these undocumented immigrants share the same with U.S. citizens. In terms of language, many also speak English sufficiently well to contribute to society.

In fact, in some cases, the difference between an immigrant and a U.S. citizen can be as little as 5 years and some forms. How can time and paper possibly be valid justifications for the forced removal of a person from the entire life he or she had been cultivating? Why is the U.S., as a nation, so intent on withholding "lawful presence" from these immigrants, when the pivotal difference is ultimately a legal construct? These questions strike at the heart and psychology of immigration, and a satisfying answer cannot likely be reached without extensive research and studies. Nonetheless, a brief look into common arguments made by immigration opponents could at least prove interesting, provocative at best.

Xenophobia

The most irrational, yet perhaps most compelling, of the arguments is simply that people are wary of foreigners. Throughout American history, there has been several notable instances of anti-immigration sentiments, often targeted at a specific group. In the 1850s, there was strong opposition by the "Know Nothings" to Catholic immigration, often in the form of "Irish Need Not Apply" signs. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act and notable references in Brown v. Board indicated a public impression of the Chinese as especially resistant to American assimilation. In 1954, the same fear was directed towards Mexicans in Operation Wetback.

The stubborn thing about xenophobia is its stubbornness to arguments by reason, its inherent resistance to appeals on fact. A example would be my father's personal views against immigrants. The irony of the situation is that he himself is still an immigrant, not a U.S. citizen, which one would think leave him at least somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the undocumented immigrant. Yet despite the arguments I've put forth, he continues to express irritation with unassimilated immigrants, especially the behaviors of other recently immigrated Chinese. I love my dad but I've given up on trying to have him realize the irony of his beliefs. While he may or may not be typical, if a native Chinese citizen is unwilling to accept other Chinese immigrants just because of their unorthodox behaviors, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to convince the rest of the country of how irrational xenophobia is.

Economic Disruption

The argument that immigrants will "take our jobs" has persisted since the anti-Catholic Irish movement in the mid-1850s. Present statistics and articles interpreting said statistics have argued both the veracity and fallacy of this argument. Those seeking to aggravate the masses can point to the greater drop in labor force in native-born workers than in foreign-born workers, which may seem like more native-born workers are out of the labor market due to foreign workers. Others can emphasize the fact that the unemployment rates for both native-born and foreign-born workers are generally synced up, separated by a fraction of a point.

While the hard statistical evidence may be interpreted or employed by either side, the economic argument has notably been used by the U.S. district judge in the U.S. v. Texas to justify the injunction of the Deferred Action for Parents of American (DAPA) program. Texas, in establish a "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent" injury, cited the additional costs it would incur if compelled to issue driver's licenses to the new program recipients. This type of argument is typical, in type if not substance, of those used by anti-immigration supporters when using economic damages to justify the rejection of new immigrants: a single-sided economic cost conclusion, reached without consideration of the positive economic benefits. This reasoning is evident in the Fifth Circuit's affirmation of the injunction where the Court of Appeals found that the license issuance costs are relevant but the benefits of increased tax revenue, increased vehicle-registration fees, and decreased reliance on public health care are too far removed. While we may not be expert statisticians to interpret the implications of the labor data, we should at least be able to expect our judiciary to consider all relevant economic factors if it is going to pursue an economic analysis at all.

Immigration as Empathy

An important direction President Obama's Executive Action tries to steer the immigration conversation is towards the immigrant as an individual. The current standard for relief from removal proceedings is "exceptionally and extremely unusual hardship" to a U.S. citizen or Permanent Resident parent or spouse, a standard that is rarely met besides cases of severely physically or mentally handicapped relatives. In many cases, the "Notice to Appear" will simply state that the government alleges the alien entered without inspection at an unknown date from an unknown location, and that would be justification for removal.

The new immigration executive action shifts the focus to preserving family unity and reserving prosecutorial resources to be used on high-priority or dangerous individuals. This is significantly different from the previous relief in that it recognizes the devastating effect of deportation on individuals who are the bread-winners and emotional support of their families. In a figure-ground swap, the presumption is now that undocumented parents may be allowed to remain with their families bar public safety concerns instead of the presumption that all undocumented immigrants are removable bar extenuating circumstances. This policy does not presume that undocumented immigrants are criminals who have committed the deplorable act of "entry without inspection", but instead it treats them as regular individuals who have families, livelihoods, and other interests in the country. One perspective reflects the xenophobia in the long history of U.S. immigration; the other recognizes its irrationality and seeks to overcome the drastic distinction made by a few years and a few forms.

Bar violent criminals and national security, I don't find a convincing justification for the removal of undocumented immigrants - parents specifically for DAPA - on immigration status alone. To the contrary, any forced deportation should be incumbent on the State's production of evidence, rather than a simple recitation of "entry without inspection."


You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.


KevinSSecondEssay 2 - 12 Apr 2016 - Main.KevinS
Changed:
<
<
Revision 1 is unreadable
>
>
Revision 2 is unreadable

KevinSSecondEssay 1 - 12 Apr 2016 - Main.KevinS
Changed:
<
<
Revision 1 is unreadable
>
>
Revision 1 is unreadable

Revision 7r7 - 14 Jun 2016 - 01:38:08 - KevinS
Revision 6r6 - 13 Jun 2016 - 19:02:20 - KevinS
Revision 5r5 - 13 Jun 2016 - 09:12:24 - KevinS
Revision 4r4 - 09 Jun 2016 - 14:13:16 - EbenMoglen
Revision 3r3 - 13 Apr 2016 - 18:34:08 - KevinS
Revision 2r2 - 12 Apr 2016 - 18:41:29 - KevinS
Revision 1r1 - 12 Apr 2016 - 00:13:34 - KevinS
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM