Stephen Young, Immigration

Immigration has been a serious issue in American politics since the passing of the first immigration laws in the later 18 th century. American attitudes toward foreign migration range from an all-inclusive invitation to experience the “American Dream” to the absolute closing of borders. Current Immigration policy is meant to tactfully and diplomatically come to a middle ground between the two extremes. Current immigration laws have explicitly expressed purposes that come together to ensure fair and balanced admission into the United States. These laws are mainly meant to encourage diversity among Americans, provide refuge for foreigners under political or religious persecution, reunite families, and provide workers for under-employed fields in the American economy. In an American Utopia, each of these goals would be achieved to the fullest without any corruption or division among citizens. Realistically, Immigration policy is often enforced in a way that is counterproductive and based on non-governmental missions. The goal of this paper is to illuminate the dichotomy between the theory and practice of American immigration policy as it is today. Despite any officially expressed notions or ideas of immigration policy, its enforcement is subject to abuse by government officials and representatives which defeats the purposes of current immigration policy. Diversity has always been a major concern in the United States. The nation was founded by British colonizers and populated by a large variety of peoples since the late 18 th century. The fact that most American people are of foreign descent makes immigration a serious issue. This fact also raises long debated questions. Many wonder why some Americans are so adamant about immigration restriction when they themselves are not truly natives of this land. Americans are in essence, immigrants who have become dominant by the removal of native peoples. This commonality between many colonized countries raises issues of morality in the debate for immigration. Motives behind increasingly strict restrictions and policy enforcement for certain countries are also questioned based on morality and integrity. In a 2006 paper on immigration, the United States Congressional Budget Office explicitly states the one goal of immigration policy is to “ensure diversity by providing admission to people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States”(9). This goal is seemingly just, but can be interpreted otherwise. This statement passively excludes countries with higher rates of migrants in the United States, such as Mexico with approximately 8,544,600 migrants, according to the 2000 U.S. Census(“Immigration Statistics”) Much of today’s immigration policy enforcement is aimed toward controlling the intake and management of Hispanic migrants. With increased deportation rates and border patrol, Mexican immigrants have more obstacles to their acceptance to the United States than ever before. The diversity goals in the Congressional Budget Office’s paper seem to be reminiscent of the 1921 Quota Law in which immigrant acceptance was restricted by nationality according to a foreign countries representation in previous census reports (13). Also similar to the Quota Law, the United States has numerical ceilings for immigrant admission based on category rather than country. These categories vary in priority, the highest ranking having no numerical ceiling and the lowest ranking having the lowest ceiling (20). Numerical ceilings control the population in a seemingly unbiased way with regard to race. An argument may be made that an indirect or institutionalized racial element may be at work in the prioritization of the numerical ceiling categories. For example, the number of skilled and unskilled workers/immigrants from Mexico is currently high in the United States, thus in restriction efforts, the category is limited to 58,464 immigrants for the year. Though not as exclusive as the Quota Law, the diversity expressed by the Congressional Budget Office refers to immigrants from countries other than those with current high immigrant population rates in America. Immigration laws are sometimes overtly used to discriminate against and immobilize Hispanic immigrants on their way to America. Politicians rouse fears of extinction in “native” citizens, leading to widespread disdain for the perceived extinction factor: a rising Hispanic immigrant population. This fear successfully limits opportunity for success in immigrant populations. American who feel endangered by the presence of immigrants help to perpetuate stereotypes and stigmas that ultimately have a large part in the public perception of Hispanic immigrants and how America must manage them. Politicians and rabble rousers knowingly take advantage of this with speech that plays on the American fear of being dominated by foreigners. An example of this sort of speech is can be seen at the website Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies. In a short article the author states, “Illegal immigrants, who often times reside more than one family to a home or apartment are also placing an increased burden on our schools and health services. . . The majority of our increase in school attendance… is due to mass, unchecked immigration” (T.R.I.P.). The site uses aggressive rhetoric, exaggerated figures, and false claims to instill a fear of immigrant’s socio-economic burden into its readers. The site attributes thefts and murders to illegal immigrants as if crime only occurs in immigrant populations. Such a one sided argument is weakened by its stereotypes and unreliable figures. In any case, the fact is that this literature influences American citizens to fight a threat that is made to seem more intimidating and damaging than it actually is. Government official and employees sometimes abuse their power to exploit the plight of Hispanic immigrants in America. Many heinous abuses of power have been reported at companies that hire migrants and at the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Diana Vellos documents a specific situation of sexual coercion by border patrol agents in her 1997 article entitled Immigrant Latina Domestic Workers and Sexual Harassment. In the case of the United States v. Davila, two illegal immigrants were coerced into performing sexual favors as a “price for their liberty” (409). The two border patrol officers in this case were tried and found guilty of sexual abuse and of using their authority to violate the two women’s rights. Vellos states that the main reason why this case went to trial is because of the two women’s support system. One of them was engaged to a private in the military, who filed the charges (413). This case is rare. There are instances of sexual abuse by border patrol officers and employers that are not reported because the migrants and undocumented workers fear deportation. Immigration policy is meant to allow foreigners to assimilate into American culture so that the United States might experience a more diverse and population, employ workers for labor-deficient occupations, and provide a place of refuge for the persecuted people around the world. Through abuse of authority, false data, and negative media, America is using its immigration policy in its current state to take on the aggressive role in the persecution of immigrants. Caldera, Selena., et. al. “Immigration Policy in the United States.” Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office (Feb. 2006) Unites States Census Bureau. April. 24 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, Systems Support Division.Sep.15 2008. <.http://www.census.gov/main/www/ cen2000.html> Vellos, Diana. “Immigrant Latina Domestic Workers and Sexual Harassment.” American University Journal of Gender and the Law 5 (Spring, 1997) 407-432