| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Immigration and Presence |
>
> | The Argument Against DAPA? |
| | -- 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. |
>
> | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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? |
|
<
< | ("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 |
|
<
< | (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) |
>
> | 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. |
| | |
|
>
> | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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 |
| | |
|
>
> | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
| |
|