Immigration and Nationality Act - Research Paper Example

 Outline Introduction Theories That Explain the Design and Impact of the Policy: -The Marxist theory -The National identity Theory Historical Antecedents to the policy at tribal, federal, and state levels Complexities Presented by the policy Recommendations for Improving the Outcomes of the Policy Introduction Immigration is a social phenomenon. Far from just being the movement of individuals from one place to another, immigration’s full meaning can be drawn from understanding the structure of the world into separate autonomous states (Westphalian system). It entails the relocation of an individual from the area of influence of one state to that of another and the final changing of membership within the respective political society. In actual sense, international migration is a political with the respective policies involving not only the entry and exit of individuals across a nation’s borders, but also regulations controlling the acquiring, preservation, loss, or volitional relinquishment of membership in societal, fiscal, cultural, and political ways. Policies regarding migration vary greatly with time and according to states. As recorded in the biblical analogy, states conventionally banned the departure of a fiscally viable population and adopted forceful means to enforce this policy. Examples include the burdening of slavery in France to hinder Huguenots from leaving to the protestant nations and the shoot-to-kill border policy in Germany. In addition, states have behaved callously in deporting religious, social, and ethnic entities they deemed unnecessary and unable to be changed. All these aspects took place at the same time in most parts of the world showing that there is no general chronological trend of uniformity (Zolberg, 2006, p.12). A related difference can also be traced on the entry side. States have invaded others to kidnap important populations, took part in the importation of slaves and triggered immigration by availing sponsored transport, lands, defense and effortless citizenry, or by offering job promises, but they have also banned settlement and behaved heartlessly to stop it. Merits and shortcomings resulting from entry and exit are normally explained with respect to broad criteria, including cultural and socioeconomic and their political inclination. Consequently, immigration policies always result to compound-kind of varying rules and practices. States also display great differences on the methods of attaining and losing membership that encompass not just recognized citizenry, but also other rights that touch on the political, social and cultural aspect. Lately, the migration policies have been influenced by changes in both world capitalism and in the international state system. Because the both worldwide population and state systems are limited, migration policies are exceptionally interactive such that a single emigration necessitates immigration elsewhere. On the other hand, the probability of immigrating determines whether emigration will occur or not (Zolberg, 2006, p.13). Theories That Explain the Design and Impact of the Policy Immigration policy can be partitioned into two parts: Immigration control policy, which refer to the regulations, and procedures that guide the assortment and entry of alien citizens, and immigrant policy that refers to the circumstances that resident immigrants are subjected to such as job and residential conditions, education and welfare support. Immigration control policy refers to the admittance and assortment of permanent immigrants, momentary migrant employees, and refugees besides efforts to limit unacceptable immigration. Immigration being an interdisciplinary area can be best elucidated using several theories. These theories are from the political science, international relations, sociology, and psychology. The Marxist theory It asserts that immigration policies are determined by fiscal factors and the stratified political set up. According to this theory, capitalists allow workers to get into their nations to cut down on earnings and thus raise their own gains. The migrants form a reserved industrial part of labor and migration forms both international division of labor and a mechanism used by capitalists to promote labor. The Marxist theory has several components. First, it asserts that immigration of labor is capitalistic in structure and purpose. Therefore, capitalists have encouraged migration in countries of imbalanced development and as a result, labor migration is expected to be on the rise in the long run. Secondly, adjustments in unemployment and the economic sequence affect immigration in the short run. During recession times, state authorities may stop or turn around immigration in a bid to avert these economic crises from becoming capitalistic. Third, the concerns of diverse parts of the capitalist class vary depending on whether they fall into monopoly capital or to capital endowed into firms with low gain rates. Whereas the former values control of immigration, the latter accept immigrants and exploit them fully or even let immigrants in during moments of unemployment. Finally, most Marxist scholars concentrate on the role played by capitalists in encouraging and restricting immigration, with no great responsibilities allocated to the unions. However, some of them are opposed to the union’s propensity to be against migrant employees since such opposition weakens the working class. According to this theory, the society is categorized into two parts: the proletariats and the capitalists. Someone’s class is determined by how they interact with production. Immigration is the consequence of the subjection of an employee to a means of production that is determined by capital and of the unequal development, which divides sectors, regions, and nations. Changing work force needs of a developed capitalist nation does not simply result to immigration, but rather immigration is the organizational trend of the latest monopolistic capitalism. Consequently, whereas temporary employment condition is quickly manifested in changing immigration systems, perpetual growth in immigration labor is the long-term tendency. Immigration helps the ruling category of capitalists in several ways. First, it supplies them with a reservoir of labor that they use to reduce working-class earnings. Secondly, immigration enables capitalists to access labor for enlarging their means of capital amassing. Third, immigration counters the trend of gains to decline. Fourth, immigration averts certain variations in the economic dealings. Fifth, immigration combats organizational inflation. Sixth, immigration leads to a division in the working class. The capitalists meet this last objective by promoting racism via their control of both media and the educational structure. The fight between the English and Irish working classes enables the capitalist class to retain its power. Seventh, racism results to formation of classes in the capitalist system. Racism achieves this by grouping individuals, placing them into different categories, and according them structural positions with respect to the means of production. Moreover, immigrant labor gets into the society at the lowest level of socioeconomic rank, thus elevating the native employees to taller heights and hence minimizing the degree of class disagreements. For instance, foreign workers occupy a greater portion of certain manual tasks, they have elevated a majority of local workers to non-manual positions where they may not be part of unions, elect left-wing parties or be classified with the proletariat. The National identity Theory This approach asserts that the exceptional history of each country, its perspectives of citizenry and nationhood, including motions concerning its national distinctiveness and social rifts within it determines the creation of its immigration laws. In contrast to other approaches, the national identity theory underestimates the significance of other conditional or outward factors. It also incorporates the historical research approach that normally narrows down towards the history of one or two nations. The wide historical studies do recognize the impact of temporary fiscal, demographic, and military considerations. It elaborates the timing of immigration laws based on social rifts and disputes over national uniqueness. For example, Japanese immigration laws are determined by the debate over national distinctiveness within Japan. In addition, the unity in Germany resulted to war against foreigners and to pushing for restraints on immigration. This theory explains differences in immigration and citizenry laws between nations of destination on the foundations of their different understandings with respect to national distinctiveness or different characteristics. This approach enables one to comprehend immigration policies in a number of perspectives. First, it explores the norms and cultural concepts that help provide a structure of judgment regarding what is politically important. State laws are not created in a void, but are influenced to some extent by both chronological events and conventional mentalities of the society (Meyers, 2000, p.12). It also explains why some nations prefer permanent immigration while others are comfortable with short-term labor migration. Thirdly, majority of societal conflicts that are of racial, religious and cultural nature determine the patterns of thinking of the disagreeing parties regarding what constitutes immigration as it may lead to a change in both demographic and political and political equilibrium between them. For instance, most Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Canadian Francophones and Anglophones attribute great significance to the way in which immigration may bring an effect to their nations’ demography. Historical Antecedents to the policy at tribal, federal, and state levels The latest endorsing of the Arizona SB1070 and the successive responses to the law have brought vital attention to the dangers of state level immigration enactment and the critical need for a thorough restructure in federal immigration (Lacayo, 2010, p.1). Such an antecedent of the policy is that regarding a section of the federal immigration and nationality act. Having been approved as from 1996, the section mandates the Federal Government to sign treaties with agencies that are locally based and are in charge of enforcing law. Although the initial objective was to aid in the arrest and elimination of harmful unlawful unregistered immigrants from the United States, the program has been in a limbo for quite a long period up to the September 11 assault when it attracted the attention of both policy makers and the political authority. Although the initial aim of the program was to bring to book intimidating criminals and intending terrorists, it has led to dangerous unfiltered authority to domestic law enacting, bound the immigrant society by leading to apprehension of unsuspecting and non-war like immigrants. It has also aggravated local racial and tribal targeting of the Hispanics. Increased domestic racial and tribal categorizing has contributed to a volatile insecure atmosphere for the entire Latino community. Research has revealed that a greater percentage of both United States citizens and other immigrants have been probed by police officers concerning their immigration status. The research also revealed that a bigger fraction of Hispanics who are native and cannot be send off from America are much bothered about deportation that may affect them or their close relatives and friends. Despite have received reports on recommendations to adjust the federal law program, the Obama leadership continues to retain and enlarge the whole program. This program is not only downplaying social cohesion, but is also negatively affecting the Latino society. Complexities Presented by the policy First, there is misuse of the law’s mandate. Research by the federal leadership itself reveals that out of the numerous apprehensions under this program, at least 50% were not foreign threatening criminals that could jeopardize the lives of the citizens. Rather than aiming to arrest terrorists who could be of harm to the nation, studies have shown that the program has seen the arrest many immigrants who had petty offenses like driving without proper rear light or fishing without a license. Further evidence reveals that Latinos are increasingly being apprehended for committing these minor offenses (Lacayo Para 8). Secondly, scrutinizing reports have revealed reduced federal oversight on the issue. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been found to have shortcomings in the supervision and management of the program. For example, there have been reported great differences and inconsistencies with regard to check-ins, investigation, feedback, and assessment of involved agencies and leaders by ICE, with certain agencies indicating no interaction with the ICE authority. A number of ICE officers who were not supervisors were found assessing agency participants and some field inspections before 2008. Moreover, there is the problem of incompetent leaders and supervisors. The program grants deputized officers the mandate to probe to ascertain the immigration condition and the ability to finalize criminal foreign processing and get ready immigration arrests. While deputized officials are accorded some training, it is not thorough enough to deal with the wholesomeness of the intricate immigration policy. In addition, the training does not incorporate any language proficiency requirement. Generally, the deputized officers are not well prepared for the task and cannot therefore deliver effectively. Recommendations for Improving the Outcomes of the Policy The congress government ought to devise a new way forward to direct the national immigration policy into the future. This new way forward should entail first, creation of new avenues to allow millions of undocumented individuals in the Unite States, come up, learn English, give background data, and assume the privileges and roles of citizenry. Secondly, there should be better enforcement laws that respect the constitution apart from enhancing both communal and national security. Thirdly, there should be creation of lawful avenues to restore families back together. Thirdly, there ought to be mechanisms in place that will reduce visa backlogs. Moreover, future required employees should be allowed to come in with imperative rights and cushioning that ensures the United States labor force remains secure. References Lacayo, A.E. (2010). National Council of La Raza. The Impact of section 287(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the Latino community. Issue Brief (21). Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/287gReportFinal.pdf. Meyers, E. (2000). Theories of International Immigration Policy - A comparative analysis. International Migration Review, Volume 34, No. 4. Retrieved on December 8, 2010 from http://www.cpcs.umb.edu/~uriarte/Courses/Practicum%2007-08/Resources/Immigrant%20Integration%20in%20Western%20Countries/Theories%20of%20International%20Immigration%20Policy.pdf. Zolberg, A.R. (2006). A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. NY: Harvard University Press. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://books.google.com/books?id=xHDs4niCLRIC&pg=PA13&dq=theories+for+understanding+the+design+and+impact+of+immigration+and+nationality+policy&hl=en&ei=ytv9TK_rCMX5sga98bj9BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false. Read More