|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
The Dehumanization of Immigration Politics: An Immigrant’s Perspective-- By EdsonSandoval - 23 Apr 2024 The dehumanization of immigration is a prevalent issue in our society as politics, strong individual beliefs, and the inability to understand diverse perspectives lead to a social stigma over immigrants and the future of immigration in the United States. The unbiased understanding of the immigrant’s perspective is necessary to overcome this stigma, as one must put their biases aside and see things from an unbiased perspective. As a person who continuously finds himself at the intersection of immigration, law, and politics, I seek to share my lived experiences to help others understand that everything isn’t as black and white as it may seem. I hope to play a contributory role in shifting this perspective, leading others to expand their understanding of immigration. Migrating to the United States at the young age of three, my worldview became shaped by my development in a country I grew to call my home. English quickly became a familiar language as I grew to understand it in the new environments I was placed in. As a young child, I never questioned my social differences as the childish blessing of ignorance granted me this benefit. At this point, I simply understood that I was equal to my peers and enjoyed spent my time learning English from the Rosetta Stone computer program. My understanding of the complications my legal status created presented themselves when I tried to obtain legal employment to support myself and my family. Limited by the inability to work, I sought any jobs I could. Working in swap-meets on the weekends, seeking entrepreneurial efforts, I made the most of the circumstances awarded to me and was able to succeed by doing so. The establishment of the DACA program provided me with essential benefits such as the ability to obtain legal work authorization and delay any potential deportation. When I turned 18, I registered for the selective service and continued to pay taxes. Yet, I did not qualify for federal loans to pay for my college education and instead relied on scholarships provided by the undergraduate institution I attended. I cannot vote, I cannot receive federal benefits, I cannot leave the United States without risking deportation. Yet, does this make me any less of a person? Does this mean I do not belong here? While policymakers and people with strict beliefs against immigration may claim that it does, I beg to differ. Why should a U.S. citizen who sits on his ass all day and contributes nothing to society be able to exploit the U.S. government for federal benefits while I have to work two jobs as a college student to stay afloat? I did not choose to come to the United States, yet I am punished for my simple existence in the country I grew up in. I have simply learned to make the most of my circumstances, fueled by the desire to maximize my potential as an aspiring attorney. Sympathy towards the person whom policymakers and voters make decisions over is often lost. It is extremely difficult to understand the fear of deportation from the country you grew up in if you never feared municipal agents or the risk that any blemish on your record would deny you the ability to obtain legal work authorization. Shifting the individualistic, stigma-driven perspective in policy arguments grants the opportunity to create increasingly-effective policy. Migrants are often used as political pawns to make a statement in accordance with the immigration policy those in power seek to implement. On December 25, 2022, Governor Abbott dropped off 50 migrants on Kamala Harris’s property in Washington, D.C. Leaving people outside in the freezing cold to make a political statement is shameful, a common occurrence in U.S. politics. Yet, Abbott’s actions may be perceived as understandable and even encouraged by people who employ a negative stance on immigration as others’ experiences with migrants are vastly different. Regardless, I firmly believe the principle remains the same as a benefit can be incurred by anyone who turns to an unbiased perspective in understanding complicated immigration reform. As a law student, my perspectives on immigration, law, and politics are conflicting. I seek to comprehend conflicting perspectives of immigration reform to understand other stances. From my perspective, I cannot fathom how policymakers could have ideals which negate basic human rights and the ability to push for social advancement. After all, the very foundation of the United States was based on the social advancement of immigrants and the ability to achieve success if you were willing to work for it. Yet, this is not how our current world works and I accept it. The long and complicated history of immigration in the United States provides for precedent we continue to take into consideration with developing immigration reform. Yet, I acknowledge that I am biased in my perspectives due to my individual upbringing. As an immigrant, I remain sympathetic to the journeys other migrants and refugee-seekers make as I understand the risk they put themselves in by entering a country which refuses to acknowledge their existence. Nonetheless, I make an effort to understand differing perspectives and where they stem from. The nationalist desire for self-preservation and retainment of benefits for U.S. citizens is understandable. I acknowledge that there are good arguments from an anti-immigration perspective as well. Admittedly, I am provided the immense benefit of being a beneficiary of the DACA program and my experience may differ from someone who migrates under more extreme circumstances. The difference here (and what I strive to push for) is for others to attempt to look at issues from an unbiased perspective and take more time to understand these differences, resulting in thoughtful and forward-looking discourse. We as a society have a lot to benefit from implementing such a practice.As your concluding paragraph begins by acknowledging, there is no "unbiased perspective." In a society offering the possibility of reinvention, and shaped in all of its essences by immigrants, that must be particularly true. Democracy doesn't require objectivity of us; it requires that we agree to govern ourselves on the basis of our equality. Together, in whatever version of together we can forge, we are the sovereign here. Yours is a powerfully-important but by no means unbiased point of view. Because a President of one party, unable to get simple justice for you and people like you legislatively, chose to use an executive leniency to accord you as much basic dignity and freedom to exist in society as no statute forbade, the other party has made it a point of power to contest in practice what they cannot quite bring themselves to say out loud: that they consider you unworthy of even these few basic freedoms to live life here. You are not supposed to be unbiased in that context. Advocacy of an "unbiased view" that doesn't exist doesn't make your essay stronger. But the state of DREAMers and other DACA beneficiaries doesn't need to be retold at length; you can use a couple of sentences and some well-chosen links. What would make the essay much stronger and more useful to you and its readers would be a stronger focus on your lawyering as you intend it. How does your experience affect, specifically, how you would like to practice? What steps can you take in law school to help you achieve that objective? 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:
|
|
