The Argument Against DAPA?

Why is so bad to be here without permission?

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

"This is OUR country."

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

Concluding Remarks

The Argument Against DAPA?

"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

Concluding Remarks

Immigration and Presence

Why is being here without permission so bad?

Immigration vs. Criminal Violations

What does this say about our values as a society?

The Special Case for Undocumented Parents

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.

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.

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."

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KevinS
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

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.