Debate over Immigration in America - Coursework Example

Immigration in America Program: Supervisor: August 12, Immigration in America Introduction The issue of immigration into American has existed for a while with its debate currently revolving around the need to have comprehensive immigration reforms. Key concerns include expected roles of the federal government over more than11 million illegal immigrants in the country, possible strategies for tightening security at the borders, strategies for ensuring that companies do not hire illegal immigrants, and strategies for improving the current legal immigration system. This paper seeks to discuss the current debate over immigration in America and relationship between the debate and the six areas covered in this course. The areas are federalism, congress, the presidency, and the executive branch, the judiciary, political parties and campaigns, and special interest groups and public opinions. Current Debate over Immigration in America The current debate over immigration in America began under President Bush’s regime but the adopted system failed. President Obama promised to address the issue during his first tenure in office but his efforts equally failed. In his second term, President Obama has prioritized immigration and Republicans willingness to support immigration reforms has boosted the efforts. In order to address the issue, a group of eight senators comprising of four Democrats and four Republicans have drafted a motion that will seek to initiate immigration reforms in the US. To discuss the debate, relating it with areas covered in this course is critical (Bullock & Rozell, 2012). Relationship between the Debate and the Six Areas Federalism State invention on immigration has gradually increased since the 2012 elections. Prior to this period, states and local governments had taken responsibilities pertaining immigration due to lack of enforcement from the federal government. Immigration federalism has, however, been identified as a key approach to providing new dimensions for inventive policies to be created and adopted, with federal actions on immigration mainly involving four areas. The first area has seen various states and local authorities enter into agreements with the federal government that increase the authority of these states on immigration issues. Under these agreements, states have been mandated with arresting and detaining individuals who violate immigration laws as well as collecting evidence for such cases (Geer, Schiller, & Segal, 2014). Additionally, the federal government has sent its authority to various states to assess the extent to which immigrants may be eligible for federal benefits programs. Local and state agents further aid the federal government in apprehending illegal immigrants and handing them to federal immigration officials. Lastly, the federal government has enacted laws that affect non-citizens. These include policies regulating in-state tuition to immigrants and stopping employers from hiring workers without necessary documents. The integration of different government levels therefore shows initiatives, under federalism, to efforts on the debate (Geer, Schiller, & Segal, 2014). Congress The Congress has passed several legislations on the immigration debate, which have either benefited or punished millions. Currently, the Congress’s stand on immigration seems to hinder the federal government’s effort to seek comprehensive reforms on the issue. Congress’ Republican members opposed Speaker Boehner’s proposal to introduce guidelines for legislation citing divisive infighting as their main reason (Grigorenko, 2013). The house’s speaker argued that there was little ground to hope for President Obama to implement measures that would be passed by the Congress. While Congress’ Republicans demand for more fiscal allocation to enforcement of current legislation on immigration before looking to address broader issues, there is evidence to criticize this approach. Implementing comprehensive immigration reforms that will adequately address the flaws of the current system requires putting immigration legislation in line with the country’s economic needs and interests. In this sense, the Congress should seek to maximize on the opportunities provided by immigration. The presidency and the executive branch The presidency and the executive branch participate in policymaking and implementation and these establishes relationship with the debate. The current immigration crisis in the US has prompted President Obama to contemplate using executive action to provide relief for immigrants closely related to US citizens. Under this action, the executive will seek to document more than 5 million immigrants as a step to arrest the current crisis. According to Jenna (2012), President Obama’s use of executive action would involve either enforcement reforms or affirmative relief. Under enforcement reforms, the government could opt not to deport illegal immigrants who do not have a criminal account but rather provide temporary relief for such individuals as mentioned earlier. Under affirmative relief, however, the government could target to provide relief from deportation for immigrants who need urgent federal intervention such as the children. There is fear, however, that this unilateral exercise of authority could intensify wrangles between the executive and the Congress. Allocating resources to immigrants would need much consideration among the executive members since the impoundment control act restricts the executive to use only funds allocated by the Congress as stipulated by the legislative. This action could further cause disagreements between The President and The Judiciary over his use of executive privileges. The judiciary Immigration crisis in the US has affected the judiciary because of the increased number of cases filed at the 59 immigrations courts across the country. Studies from Syracuse University show that by June 2014, there was a record accumulation of 375,503 imminent cases that had only 243 judges in charge (Kretsedemas, 2012). Waiting time for immigration cases has equally increased with the span averaging one and half years. The imminent influx of youth from Central America is expected to further increase the crisis and it is for this reason that the Justice Department has announced that it will send judges to the border in its bid to fasten the proceedings. According to its chairperson Mr. Goodlatte, the House Judiciary committee disapproves the approach taken by the Senate that passed a sweeping reform. On the contrary, the committee prefers taking issues one after the other and taking it through a deliberative course. Using this approach, Goodlatte’s committee has approved four small legislations including a divisive law that gave states the authority to create their own immigration policies. Currently, the committee is seeking to have a legislation that would give authorized status to children brought unlawfully to the country. Political parties and campaigns Campaigns and political parties have played a critical role in shaping the current debate over immigration. Political parties are utilizing this debate to woo voters ahead of the 2016 election campaign. However, parties have been criticized for politicizing the current immigration crisis by voting to terminate the Action for Childhood Arrivals program as well as deporting low-priority immigrants. The Republicans have strained their relation with Latino, APIA, and immigrant voters due to its strict stand on immigration reforms (Kretsedemas, 2012). Additionally, parties are looking to make inroads with the high number of immigrants as they seek their loyalty ahead of the 2016 elections. This involves offering English classes to conservative activists, health check-ups as well as assisting Spanish-speakers to get high school diplomas (Kretsedemas, 2012). Political analysts predict that in future, Hispanic voters will significantly sway American politics due to their ever-increasing numbers. Political parties have however found it difficult winning over the Hispanic voters who have always been split in party preference. There has equally been a change in the conventional belief that Republicans lose by voting for legislative reforms. This has been evidenced by the three Republican senators who voted for the sweeping bill and still went ahead to be re-elected this year. The three senators include Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins. Special interest groups and public opinion The current immigration debate provides evidence of a lack of link between special interest groups and public opinion and the nation’s immigration reform policy. In the past, this disconnect has been evidenced by protests over legislation to erect a fence along the US-Mexico border in order to prevent illegal border entry. Such protests have led critics into questioning whether legislators consider public opinion as an important element of any legislative reform. The general public opinion among most Americans is that the nation is a collection of immigrants who make one nationality and as such, the government should implement reforms that will help immigrants rather than deporting them. Among the special interest groups contributing to the current debate are employers’ association, labor unions and non-governmental organizations. Studies show that immigration barriers are significantly lower in areas where employers’ associations influence is high. Additionally, restrictions along the Mexico-US border decreases when demand for workers in the Border States increase (Bullock & Rozell, 2012). On the other hand, labor unions’ influence on immigration policies is less significant compared to that of employers’ associations. Labor unions have changed their approach to immigration by advocating for recruitment of immigrants rather than locking them out of the labor market. Equally, non-governmental organizations aligned to immigrants have lined up against ‘nativist’ organizations in recent times in a bid to fight for immigrants’ rights. Conclusion There has been varying opinions from various groups concerning the current debate over immigration. While there has been increase in immigration federalism, the Congress seems to frustrate efforts to provide comprehensive immigration reforms with Republicans opposing any such reforms. This has prompted President Obama to consider using executive powers to address the current crisis. On the other hand, The Judiciary has been putting efforts to address the high number of pending immigration cases. Conclusively, there is need for coordination among the branches of the government to offer comprehensive immigration reforms. References Bullock, C., & Rozell, M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of Southern politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Geer, J., Schiller, W., & Segal, A. (2014). Gateways to democracy: An introduction to American government. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Grigorenko, E. (2013). U.S. immigration and education: Cultural and policy issues across the lifespan. New York, NY: Springer Pub. Co. Jenna, J. (2013). House Judiciary Committee Chairman well versed in the Immigration Debate. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-judiciary-committee-chairman-is-well-versed-in-the-immigration-debate/2013/07/23/005f7182-eb Kretsedemas, P. (2012). The immigration crucible: Transforming race, nation, and the limits of the law. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Read More