The Immigration Problem - Term Paper Example

?April 4, Immigration The theory behind immigration law is to protect national security at all borders (points of entry) into the United States. The State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs has authorization to decide which individuals are allowed entrance into the United States. This is a privilege. Immigration law does not take priority over criminal law; however, in many instances the two tend to overlap each other. Immigrants facing criminal convictions should realize that depending on the nature of the crime committed that they can and will be deported to their country of birth. Immigration law is a complicated process and there are exceptions when enforcing these laws, especially when acts of a criminal nature are committed. Most immigrants are not aware of the potential risks involved, (especially those with a temporary or non-secure status) when they commit a criminal offense. Additionally, the terrorists’ acts of 911 have directly impacted immigration laws. When the United States national security is violated at point of entry by criminals who enter unnoticed it becomes a spiraling effect on its citizens. The numbers of immigrants that enter the United States borders (land, sea and air) every year are in the millions. It is virtually impossible to have a profile on every single individual. Some of these immigrants have criminal backgrounds and are on the run from their own country or they may possess no criminal record but have a high potential to become first time offenders in the United States. The citizens of the United States expect that immigration law will protect them on a national level from potential criminals at the point of entry. However, many criminals have become very adept at disguising themselves in order to enter the United States. Sadly, they are not found until something disastrous occurs. These individuals put a strain on the infrastructure and services within our local communities. The costs for retaining immigrant criminals and processing them through our system are exorbitant spiraling into the millions. While local governments and law enforcement agencies face the direct burdens of immigrant criminals the costs spills over at the state and federal levels as well. Based on the severity of the crime most individuals will be deported after serving their time. An example of how a criminal act can affect immigration law is the case of “Padilla versus Kentucky”, (October 13, 2009 – March 31, 2010) whereby Mr. Padilla who lived in the United States for over 40 years and was a lawful permanent resident, faced mandatory deportation after pleading guilty to drug distribution in the state of Kentucky. At his post conviction hearing he stated that his lawyer not only did not advise him that he could be deported but also told him that since he lived in America for such a long time there was no chance of him being deported. Well, there is no excuse for ignorance or misinformation in the court of law. There was a time when judges were very lax in deporting immigrants for criminal offenses but this was more than 90 years ago. Federal law now imposes strict guidelines for deportation of criminal offenses whether or not the individual has a status of lawful permanent resident. This case showed how immigration law and criminal law became intertwined. Mr. Padilla committed a criminal offense which was punishable under federal immigration laws. After the devastating attack of September 11, the immigration problem in the United States took a major turn. Terrorism was the new crime on the horizon. This was a downward turn in America’s economy. Military personnel had to be increased; diplomatic relations and initiatives with other countries had to be look at with scrutiny. The security at airports and several public places had to be increased. As a result changes in immigration and border patrol were directly affected. Nineteen of the terrorists apprehended from that major event were foreign citizens who entered the United States legally. The terrorists of the first criminal act on the World Trade Center in 1993 were from the Middle East, as were the perpetrators of the second and fatal attack. We must be careful not be prejudiced against all people from the Middle East, especially Muslims who contribute significantly to our economic growth and welfare. The fact of the matter is most of the terrorists are from the middle east or have political ties with the people from those lands (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran), just to name a few. In an effort to protect the United States the President implemented a new department of Homeland Security with strong, strategic measures to protect our borders. The ugly face of terrorism has changed the way our government deals with illegal immigrants from the Middle East. America has had to not only step up its security along its borders but also in the interior and overseas. The United States has had to develop “watch lists” for all foreigners that might be a suspect for terrorist acts or with terrorist affiliations. Many times a person on one of these lists will not be allowed to enter the United States even though they have not committed a crime. Immigrants from other parts of the world are not treated as harshly. It may be extremely hard to differentiate the good from the bad. The American public feels subjugated to harsh measures of security at airports due to the outbreak of terrorist’s acts since September 11. Immigrants from the Middle East experience closer scrutiny when they enter the United States more than individuals from other parts of the world. The act of terrorism has created a much higher scrutiny for nationals from the Middle East than from other countries. The United States government did not intend to have the people of this nation to develop a high degree of skepticism and prejudice towards people from Middle Eastern regions, but somehow as a result of implementing stronger public policy on who enter our borders this has developed. It should also be noted that the events of September 11 are mainly to blame. Everyone should be a suspect and all foreigners on temporary and permanent visas should be treated with the same strong background checks. There are many Middle Eastern countries that are allies of America and we need their help in the fight against terrorism. Many middle easterners have been discriminated against because they are of the Muslim faith. Again, it was not the intent of the United States to show prejudice and disfavor to someone on the basis of their religion, since this would be a violation of the constitutional rights of this country. As a matter of public policy our State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs has made it more difficult to obtain legal status in the United States. There are tighter security measures and background checks are very thorough and take longer before temporary or permanent status is allowed. There has also been a reduction in student visas and exchange student entries into the United States. Currently, the INS is overburdened with applications from foreign nationals to obtain visa status. Employers have implemented stronger rules for hiring and most employers will not hire someone unless they have adequate identification and prove they are allowed to work in the United States. The work ethic in America has been violated as a result of the problems over the last ten years with immigrants and the acts of terrorism. While in theory, immigration laws were set up to aid in the economic growth of the United States, the acts of terrorism has had a negative impact. It should be noted there are still many immigrants who contribute positively to this nation. Many of them come to the United States with their own monetary resources and a high standard of education. In an effort to secure our border patrol and increase national security we have also alienated the people of the Middle East and the Muslim faith. All immigrants regardless of nationality, religion or race should be treated with the same level of security measures implemented by immigration. There is a relationship between theory and practice of immigration laws but sometimes it does not follow the plan it was set out to do. Homeland security is overwhelmed with the huge numbers of immigrants that flood the ports of entry. However, our laws must be set in place even if it is uncomfortable and hindering to American citizens. Until a better solution can be found our public administration have to implement the law as they currently do. Work Cited Jose Padilla versus Kentucky. Supreme Court of the United States. No. 08-651. On Writ Of Certorai to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Under 8 U.S.C. 1227 (a) (2) (B)March 31, 2010. Print. Read More