The Immigration Debate from a Legal, Economic and Social View - Term Paper Example

 Mexican Immigration The immigration debate is complex with few, if any, ‘right’ answers of how to both be pragmatic regarding the costs associated with illegal immigrants and compassionate with regards to the human element involved. The issue lies squarely within the responsibility of the Federal government because individual states and local communities do not have the capability on their own. Many have, however, attempted to deny access to housing, schools, medical treatment and social programs to non-citizens. Some argue that U.S. laws apply to all within its borders, legally or not such as the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. The laws certainly apply to all when they are broken. The federal government, to no one’s surprise, has been no help. For example, the Bush administration has long supported some form of amnesty which has enraged those that are opposed to illegal aliens living, working or going to school in the U.S. On the other hand, the administration also endorses the PATRIOT Act which denies constitutionally guaranteed rights to all people and further punishes immigrants in the effort to win the ‘war on terror.’ The ‘right’ answer escapes the government and many others as well because of the issue’s many complexities. This discussion will examine the immigration debate from a legal, economic and social view. It will present the administration’s answer to the problem along with an opposing opinion. It will also speak to laws germane to the debate including a brief review of the PATRIOT Act, the Fifth Amendment regarding due process and the Fourteenth Amendment which relates to automatic citizenship by birth. While on a recent visit to Arizona, President Bush tried to explain his position on immigration. “Nobody should be given an automatic citizenship. That’s called amnesty.” Bush’s vision of a ‘path to citizenship’ has been characterized by some as too stringent a requirement for hard-working families who only desire to become citizens by some and pure amnesty, a free pass by others. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow explained illegal aliens allowed to stay under the president’s plan will pay fines and back-taxes, avoid criminal activities and maintain continuous employment. They must remain current with payments of current and future taxes and carry a tamper-proof identification. “And when all of that is done, you get to go to the back of the line, and you wait, what, 11 years or more for a chance to become a citizen, at the end of which you have to have a command of English, as well, to be able to become a citizen,” Snow said. “Now, with all those benchmarks, it is hard to square that with the idea of amnesty” (Hayworth, 2006). Illegal aliens will have to pay taxes, just like everyone else under the president’s plan, but would have the option to pay back taxes for just three of the last five years. Illegal immigrants will have to obey the law. They must maintain continued employment, a requirement to full citizenship status forces them to do what they came here to do in the first place, work. Having to learn English ultimately is of greater benefit to the immigrant. Immigrants must pay a monetary penalty for their crime, $2,000 payable in two installments (Rector, 2006). Those opposed to any type of ‘path to citizenship for the illegal aliens presently in the country argue that the added cost to the federal government will be more than $15 billion per year when the present illegal aliens become citizens and begin collecting welfare benefits. This large group of individuals can substantiate their opinion with facts. Traditionally, immigrants to the U.S. were less likely than those born in America to collect welfare. This historic arrangement has radically changed over the past three decades. Today, immigrant families are at least 50 percent more likely to receive federal benefits than those born in this country. Additionally, immigrants are more likely to adapt their lives to rely on the welfare system and studies have shown the longer immi­grants stay in the U.S., the more likely they are to be on welfare. To further aggravate the situation, when an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he can legally bring his parents who also have the right to become citi­zens. The estimated long-term cost of overall federal benefits could exceed $50 billion per year for the parents of the 10 million beneficiaries of amnesty. “In the long run, the bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years” (Rector, 2006). Approximately half of current illegal immigrants do not possess a high-school level education. Welfare use among this group and for low-skill immigrants granted amnesty is three times the rate for the U.S. born citizens. Over the past two decades, about 10 million people who do not possess a high-school diploma have entered the country and predictably end up on welfare. The federal government already manages the redistribution of a substantial proportion of its citizen’s income. In 2004, for example, more than $500 billion was transferred to the low income segment of the population from taxes levied from the top 25 percent. Legalized mass immigration will cause an imbalance in the proportion of uneducated people as an increasingly higher percentage of the population will earn lower wages and pay little, if any, federal taxes. “The overall costs such individuals will add to government programs throughout their lifetime (including welfare, social security, Medicare, education for children, transportation, and law enforcement) will greatly exceed taxes paid” (Rector, 2006).  Immigration to this country should provide a benefit, not be a burden to society. The heated rhetoric of the immigration debate has caused many to become fearful that their standard of life will dramatically decrease if the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants are permitted to stay in the country, so much so that there is a growing movement to disallow citizen status to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment addresses this issue. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (“Fourtheenth Amendment”, 2007). These words seemingly close the debate regarding the legal status of those born in the U.S. but the Amendment only reinforces the argument of those opposed to automatic citizenship. They argue that the Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to those born in the U.S. to illegal aliens, it has only been wrongly interpreted to imply this and only in the last few decades. Quoting Senator Jacob Howard who spoke on the meaning of the Amendment in 1866, “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons” (“Immigration Reform”, 2007). The PATRIOT Act, as many citizens and legal experts alike have argued, violates the fundamental rights of both citizens and non-citizens guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.  This includes the freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment); the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment); the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment); the right to a speedy, public and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser (Sixth Amendment), the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and freedom from punishment without conviction (13th Amendment). (Robinson, 2005). The Act, in its final version, allows for an individual to be detained for an indefinite time for violating a slight technicality of an immigration law. If the suspect for whatever reason cannot be immediately deported because, for example, they are legally in the country but had an insignificant flaw in their documentation, that individual can literally be lawfully detained for life. Some had been kept confined to solitary confinement though they had not been formerly charged with a crime. Illegal immigrants also can be detained without benefit of counsel. This treatment is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Though these detainees and immigrants were not U.S. citizens and not entitled to such constitutional protections, many wonder how the country will be perceived by those it hopes to convert to American style democracy if it doesn’t apply its own rules to all persons (Rector, 2006). A Washington Post editorial posed questions as to why the Justice Department had initially refused to provide this information to congressmen and why it continues to resist such requests. “The Department of Justice continues to resist legitimate requests for information regarding the 1,017 people it acknowledges having detained in its investigation of the September 11 attack” (Levy, 2001). The questions posed by the editorial were echoed by many citizens and politicians. These questions included the number in custody, their identity and the charges levied against them, the treatment they are receiving and to what extent their cases were progressing. The Justice Department neither voluntarily provided these answers nor explained its motive to withhold the information. The Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Underdown, that “immigrants who have committed crimes cannot be detained indefinitely, but must be deported within a reasonable period or released” (Levy, 2001). The Court went further in its ruling by saying “temporary and even illegal immigrants, not just U.S. citizens, are entitled to due process” (Levy, 2001). This multifaceted PATRIOT Act modified numerous laws including the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and Immigration and Nationality Act among many others (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2003). The Act gives support to and encourages enhanced sharing of information among various law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal levels. According to the Justice Department, this law assists law enforcement in their efforts to “connect the dots” from a wider scope of agencies when assembling evidence so as to “develop a complete picture” regarding possible threats from terrorists (US Department of Justice, 2005). The Act also allows for easier identification and enforcement of those suspected of money laundering and a greater ability to control the assets of organizations so as to interrupt the bankrolling of terrorists.  The Act also gives law enforcement more latitude when attempting to intercept transmissions of suspected terrorist’s discussions via the internet and telephone. Additionally, the Act increased border security funding and allows the Attorney General to disburse monetary rewards to those individuals and entities such as municipalities that have enjoined the fight against terrorism. This ‘fight against terrorism’ is an ambiguous term at best and some have argued could contribute to civic-backed acts of discrimination against illegal aliens. In the United States, overt discriminatory practices during all phases of the criminal justice system concerning ethnic minorities, especially those of African-American or Hispanic descent have been well-documented throughout the history of the country (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997). In more recent years, various U.S. criminal agencies have increased their efforts to control a new type of minority group, namely illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The U.S. passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which contains provisions that specifically target these groups by deterring employment opportunities for illegal immigrants and has provided a great deal of funding to the Immigration and Naturalization Service so it could increase efforts to diminish illegal immigration by stiffening border control tactics (McDonald, 1997). The recent increased implementation of law enforcement measures which are exclusively aimed at minorities and immigrants has occurred not only in the U.S. but in European nations as well. A study that conducted research in both the U.S. and Europe showed that interactions between police agencies and interactions with immigrants are becoming increasingly tense as evidenced by a proliferation of physical and verbal abuse, a growing mutual distrust and an escalating threat of violence. In the U.S., “Discrimination against minorities occurs indirectly as a result of poor legal representation, language problems, high incidences of specific offenses (such as drug-related and immigration violations) and low level of employment status” (Marshall, 1997) As compared to constituents of the socially dominant faction, ethnic minorities are much more liable to be detained, questioned, and searched by law enforcement officials. Once they have been arrested, minority members are also more likely to suffer police brutality and are more likely to be held in jail while waiting for their trial date instead of having an opportunity to post bond. When tried for a crime, they face a higher probability to be found guilty and are less apt to serve their sentences outside of prison such as serving community service. In addition, they are “more likely to be sentenced to longer prison terms, less likely to be granted parole, and when convicted of capital offenses, they are more likely to be executed, especially for capital offenses against dominants” (Sidaneus & Veniegas, 2000). With the growing sentiment opposing immigration by non-white individuals and families, the discriminatory practices are unlikely to subside any time soon. Immigrants built the country but are now an unwanted commodity. The federal government offers a type of amnesty to those already here but it and other governmental entities enacts laws that hamper the ‘path to citizenship and restrict freedoms that are clearly outlined in the Constitution. It has been suggested that the U.S. could consider adopting similar immigration regulations as in the U.K. where a person cannot immigrate without first securing employment. Everybody wins, many jobs are awaiting immigrants who need them as have been evidenced by the number of those illegal aliens now working in the U.S. The U.S. economy also wins because of the higher tax base created by the new citizens the immigrants. Works Cited Colb, Sherry F. “The New Face of Racial Profiling: How Terrorism Affects the Debate.” Find Law. (October 10, 2001). March 5, 2008 Electronic Privacy Information Center. “The USA PATRIOT Act.”  (2003). March 5, 2008 “Immigration Reform.” Word Press. March 5, 2008 < http://immref.com/spin/14th-amendment-citizenship/> Levy, Robert A. “The USA PATRIOT Act: We Deserve Better.” (October 9, 2001). The Cato Institute. March 5, 2008 Marshall, I. H. “Minorities, Migrants, and Crime: Diversity and Similarity across Europe and the United States” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (1997). McDonald, W. F. “Crime and illegal immigration.” National Institute of Justice Journal. Vol. 232. (1997). pp. 2-10. Rector, Robert. “The Wrong Course: The Senate’s Proposed Amnesty Will Cost a Fortune.” National Review Online. (May 25, 2006). March 5, 2008 Sampson, R.J. & Lauritsen, J.L. “Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States.” Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. M. Tonry (Ed.). Chicago, Chicago University Press. (1997). “United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.” Cornell Law School. May 21, 2007 US Department of Justice. “Waging the War on Terror.” (2005).  March 5, 2008 Read More