US Immigration Policy and Reforms Analysis

US Immigration Policy and Reforms Analysis The topic of illegal immigration has been an issue for debate with lawmakers, the President, member of congress and America as a whole for the past several years. In very general terms, illegal immigrants are people, primarily from Mexico and Central America who illegally cross over the border into the United States. These men and women of all ages are not fleeing their homeland because of repression, harsh dictatorships, genocide, civil wars or religious persecution; however, they are crossing over the American border primarily for economic reasons. These individuals are coming to the United States in seek of a better lifestyle. They want to make more money to help support their families both here in America and back in their home country. They are fleeing oppression, chronic unemployment, poverty, and little or no opportunities in their homelands. As unfortunate it is, the law stands between their desire to live and work in the United States. Strict policy is needed to prevent these immigrants from coming into the United States illegally. Otherwise the consequence will be massive illegal settlements in this U.S. Since the early 1800s, immigration has been both a crucial component of Americas growth and a periodic source of conflict. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt said, â€Å"we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.† He went on to say, â€Å"This is predicated on the person becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isnt an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag! We have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people,† (Little, 2006). Its been seen over the past decade that the national debate over illegal immigration has grown. This displays a widespread belief that previous immigration control laws have failed and are continuing to. For example, despite a 1986 federal law that created penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers or illegal immigrants knowingly, businesses continued to do so. President George W. Bushs new strategy had taken form. Instead of his earlier emphasis on finding a way for U.S. businesses to continue employing illegal immigrants on a temporary basis, he now spoke of preventing such undocumented workers or illegal immigrants from ever entering the United States to begin with. â€Å"Weve got a comprehensive strategy that says were going to enforce this border. Were going to prevent people from coming here in the first place,† (Furlong and Kraft 2007, 121). President Bushs new strategy came as Congress prepared to consider legislation that addressed border security and immigration. Unfortunately because the Presidents standing in public opinion polls was so low and conservatives in his own party wanted a different approach, he had few choices but to change his policys direction. Democrats have accused the President of delaying action on immigration reform for far too long. Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said, â€Å"It is time for President Bush to resist those on the right who rely on fear tactics to prevent our broken system from being fixed†. â€Å"True immigration reform† would have to be more comprehensive and more realistic than the Presidents proposals, he added, â€Å"strengthening our security while bringing an underground economy above ground,† (Furlong and Kraft 2007, 121). In 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the United States rose dramatically to well over ten million people and was growing rapidly, at an estimate of a half a million people each year. According to Fred Elbel of the Department of Homeland Security, as of November 10, 2007 there was an estimated 34,094,840 illegal aliens in the United States. Since January 1, 2007, 3,134,840 illegal aliens have made their way over the border and into the United States, (Elbel, 2007). The western and southern part of America has seen the biggest influx of immigrants. Among a vast spectrum of other concerns, policy makers focus on the high cost to the states that are providing education and medical care for undocumented workers and their families. Some worry that a high rate of illegal immigrants suggests that the United States borders are without the needed security that is essential to prevent entry from potential terrorists. However, some, particularly business owners, are inclined to minimize the problem. They believe that the health of the U.S. economy is dependent on immigrant workers and they argue that the economy would suffer without the contribution of illegal immigrants. Some disagree and argue that the economic benefits from illegal immigrants working in America only helps their home economy. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that ten percent of restaurant workers in the U.S., twenty-five percent of domestic help in private households, and nearly sixty percent of agricultural workers are in the country illegally. Also statistics show that fifty-six percent of illegal immigrants in the United States come north primarily from Mexico to supply thousands of U.S. employers and farmers with low-skilled workers. A completely hypothetical way of viewing illegal immigration is to think of the United States like a homeowner who went for a long walk and left their garage door open. Inside the garage is a new car, a wallet, a cellular phone, and a suitcase full of money. Another man, destitute of money and with little or no hope of positive opportunity, walks past the garage and notices that its door is open and unattended. He has a family who needs food and he himself has been unemployed for several months. He decides to enter the garage. No one noticed him enter. He found the new car, the wallet, the cellular phone and the suitcase full of money. Without hesitation, he takes the wallet and the suitcase and quickly disappears and enjoys what he took without permission. To make himself feel better, he tells himself that he only went into the garage and took what he did because he needed to feed his family and because he was down on his luck. He did not hurt anyone in the process and he figures that the homeowner can always file a claim with his insurance company to get back what was taken. When the homeowner returns from his walk, he notices that he has been robbed and files a report with the local police department. The police in turn tell him that there is nothing they can do since there were no witnesses. The police suggest that the homeowner lock up his garage the next time he goes for a long walk to prevent another illegal entry and robbery. Some would argue that the man who left his garage door open is at fault, others would say it was the intruder who stole the property, and some would say its both their faults. Was the one man a thief for entering the garage without permission and the homeowner careless for leaving the garage door open and unattended? Traditional law states that the intruder is a thief and common sense says that the homeowner was careless in failing to protect his assets from potential intruders. Did the homeowner deserve to be robbed because he left his garage door open? Some would say yes because he was careless. On the other hand the robber who walked away with the homeowners valuables committed a crime. If he was caught, tried and convicted, he could face fines and possibly some time in jail. Some people would look at from the perspective that the robber did what he did to feed his family and pay for his basic necessities. He only stole to help his family survive. He views it as something honorable because he provided for his family. In this hypothetical scenario, the fact that the homeowner left his garage door open and easily accessible to thieves does not give them permission for someone to trespass into his property and steal his valuables solely because they were just there. Regardless of the thiefs reasoning for taking someone elses private property, stealing is stealing no matter how it is rationalized. Similarly, illegal immigration may solve financial challenges faced by the growing millions of illegal aliens who are in the United States to work and improve their lives. Yet, no matter how a person looks at it, illegal entry is still just that, â€Å"illegal.† Jobs are taken from those who are rightfully entitles to them. It is not legal, moral, or ethically right to enter the country illegally and benefit from opportunities that were primarily designed for legal residents and citizens. The reasons why millions of people enter the United States illegally does not make it correct to break the law and disregard the sovereignty of the United States. Breaking the law is not justifiable because illegal immigrants want to take advantage of jobs, provide for their family, escape poverty, receive medical care, public education, and much more. As harsh as it is, illegal immigrants are not entitled to the freedom which were primarily designed for those who are in the country by birthright or legal residency status. The belief that it is socially acceptable to break the law as long as a persons reasoning is with good intentions is flawed. A person cannot take advantage of someones benefits because they need to. Immigrating to America legally, whether or not it is easy, is praiseworthy. Breaking they law and crossing the border illegally is not. The punishment should fit the crime. A person should not leave their garage door open if they value what they own and would-be intruders should learn that just because they garage door is open, it does not give them the right to walk in and take what they need. It is seen very often that desperate people do not care much about right and wrong or the law for that matter. Desperation often causes people to rationalize and justify all types of illegal activities. Illegal entry into the United States to work has been allowed to become a complex issue but this is not an unsolvable problem. The United States would be off to a good start if the government imposed hefty fines on employers who knowingly and unknowingly hire illegal immigrants or undocumented workers for labor. The loophole in the current law conveniently allows employers to look the other way and claim that they are not able to verify the authenticity of documents that their workers provide. Millions of people steal social security numbers from American citizens and get away with it. They in turn enjoy many of the same things honest people work for. While illegal immigrants only make up about five percent of the United States work force, they are quickly being noticed in non-traditional areas immigrant to settle. Areas like these are in the midwest and the south. Undocumented workers and illegal immigrants are willing to work for very low wages by American standards. This has caused political turmoil in these new areas where immigration had little or no presence before. â€Å"Immigration is now a national phenomenon is a way that was less true a decade ago,† (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 341). Mark Krikorian, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies said, â€Å"In places like Georgia and Alabama, which had little experience with immigration before, people are experiencing it firsthand.† The beginning of any policy study involves a description of the problem. Obviously the problem is illegal immigration and unfortunately only a select few legislators are taking measures to fix the problem. The former Mayor of New York City and presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has a firm stance of illegal immigration. He stated that â€Å"real immigration reform must put security first because border security and homeland security are inseparable in the Terrorists War on Us. The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect our citizens by controlling Americas borders, while ending illegal immigration and identifying every non-citizen in our nation. We must restore integrity, accountability, and the rule of law to our immigration system to regain the faith of the American people,† (Giuliani, 2007). The Governor of New Mexico and also Presidential candidate, Bill Richardson, has similar feelings about immigration reform as Giuliani. â€Å"As a Hispanic-American, and Governor of a border state, I know that our nation can no longer afford to ignore the issue of illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants have broken the law to enter our country, but they are here – and most of them work hard, pay taxes, support families, and contribute to the communities they live in. Entire sectors of our economy rely on these laborers -construction, restaurants, and agricultural, for example. We cant just ignore this issue any longer. Splitting up families, building walls, and making impractical proclamations is not the answer. America needs to solve the problem, not tear itself apart over it,† (Richardson, 2007). He believes in recognizing the reality of the immigration problem and addressing it head-on. He has a plan to solve it by taking four realistic steps. First, secure the border. Second, increase legal immigration. Third, prevent employers from hiring illegal workers. Lastly, provide a path to legislation for most of the eleven million illegal immigrants already here. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., of Wisconsin, created the Real ID bill. This requires proof of citizenship or legal status in the United States in order to get a drivers license. This bill was signed into law in May 2005 and will take effect in May 2008. â€Å"We will never have homeland security if we dont have border security,† (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 341). Sensenbrenners reform means blocking states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, imposing new restrictions on asylum seekers, and finishing a border fence near San Diego, California. The debate of immigration has divided the Republican Party. The Republican controlled House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437 in December 2005. This is a measure that contained procedures for securing the borders, harsher penalties for people assisting illegal migration into the United States and provisions for deporting illegal aliens that are already here, (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 343). The proposed legislation does not provide for a guest worker program or any form of amnesty for illegal workers. â€Å"The borders are out of control,† says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing ten thousand border officers. He said that the patrol catches no more than a third of illegal aliens crossing the border. â€Å"We have a situation where business is controlling our immigration policy rather than sound decisions that take into account all the factors, including homeland security,† (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 344). The government has almost stopped enforcing sanctions approved in 1986 on employers who hire illegal immigrants. According to Mary Dougherty, an immigration statistician at the Department of Homeland Security, in 2003 the agency levied only $9,300.00 in fines against employers. Time also reported in 2004 that the number of fines imposed on employers dropped ninety-nine percent during the 1990s from 1,063 in 1992 to 13 in 2002, (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 345). While there are many ideas and strongly differing views on what to do about illegal immigration, the government must recognize that any program that rewards illegal aliens who have broken the laws of the United States with citizenship is undeserved and unwarranted amnesty. Illegal immigration must be treated much like a broken water pipe. When a water pipe breaks, the very first thing that must be done is have the water shut off and then the mess is cleaned up. This is common sense that most in the government seem to be missing. This requires two different set of actions. First, slowing down and eventually preventing all illegal border-crossings and then making it harder for existing illegal immigrants to live in the US while simultaneously encouraging many to go home as well as deporting others. Doctors at The Heritage Foundation are quoted as saying, Immigration reform should be a matter of national priority. To be successful, reforms must include a comprehensive package of measures to reduce illegal entry into the United States as well as to reduce the current population of unlawfully present persons. The cornerstone of any such initiative must be a fair and practical program for repatriating foreign persons who are illegally present in the United States, (Carafano, Meese III, Spalding, 2005). For the sake of national security, the rule of law, and responsible immigration policy, Congress and the President must move towards reducing the number of people who are illegally in the United States. Immigration reform must not encourage this problem. In particular, any new initiative must not grant permission, as a matter of policy, for illegal immigrants to remain legally in the country. Such a program would undermine the credibility of efforts not only to control Americas borders, but also to advance reasonable legal immigration reform. A better alternative would be for policymakers to create a comprehensive solution that brings better national security. Part of this solution should be a realistic and reasonable program to assist illegal immigrants in returning to their homelands before applying for legal reentry to the United States. What the United States needs is a comprehensive strategy that reverses decades of ignoring, indeed encouraging, the disregard of requirements for legally entering and lawfully residing in this country. A better strategy would be to get the cooperation of federal, state, and local governments and non-governmental organizations to all work together. Laws need to be enforced within the United States, including identity theft,, prosecuting benefits fraud, tax evasion, and immigration violations. Also, America should work with other nations to enforce laws, to educate their citizens, and to develop more desirable legal alternatives for undocumented workers. The government must help other nations to adopt sound governance and economic policies that will promote growth in their economies and negate the need for citizens to take low-paying jobs in the United States. It has been made very clear that America does not want to anger other countries with border security and that most people cannot tell the difference between illegal invasion to work and legal immigration. It should then be up to the individual states to develop internal methods to prevent abuse of tax-based resources. States should not provide any form of preferential treatment towards individuals who break federal laws, even if they work and pay taxes. This may be justifiable in their minds but the fact remains that they are still in the country illegally. The government needs to also help the private sector by teaching employers how to identify legal workers quickly and easily at a reasonable cost and in a manner that respects individuals rights and privacy but at the same time identify the illegal ones through a national identification system, similar to the one crated by Sensenbrenners, The Real ID Act. The government should also implement a central document verification agency to pre-screen all employment applications and issue approval forms and identification photos to prospective employees. While at the current rate the government will never have an efficient wall to block out illegal immigrants. It is up to the individual states to create internal security measures to prevent budgetary and financial abuses caused by the growing illegal population. President Bush and a bipartisan group of ten senators announced an agreement on May 17, 2007, on a comprehensive, compromise plan to tighten border security and address the future of Americas twelve million illegal immigrants. â€Å"The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders,† Bush said. â€Å"But equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity.† Senator Kennedy said, â€Å"The plan isnt perfect, but only a bipartisan bill will become law,† (Greenblatt, Katel, Marshall 2007, 357). The agreement would grant temporary legal status to almost all illegal immigrants, giving then the right to apply for residence visas and citizenship through a lengthy process. Illegal immigrants would have to wait for eight years before applying for permanent resident status, pay fines of up to $5,000.00 and, heads of households would be forced to leave the country and reenter legally. Are these signs of positive actions to be taken toward illegal immigrants? Over the next few years will America see a reduction in the number of illegal immigrants and an increase in the applications for legal immigrants? American surely hopes so. Only time will tell what actions will truly be taken by the American government in response to the increasing number of illegal immigrants crossing its borders. Bibliography Carafano, James Jay, Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding. 2005. â€Å"Alternatives to Amnesty: Proposals for Fair and Effective Immigration Reform.† The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/bg18588.cfm. (10 November 2007). Elbel, Fred. 2007. â€Å"How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.? Refernce..† The American Resistance. http://the americanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html. ( 10 November 2007). Furlong, Scott R. and Michael E. Kraft. 2007.Public Policy: Politics, Analysis and Alternatives. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall. Giuliani, Rudy. 2007. â€Å"12 Commitments To The American People.† JoinRudy2008. http://joinrudy2008.com/getinvolved/emailland.html (10 November 2007). Greenblatt, Alan, Peter Katel and Patrick Marshal. 2007. Issues For Debate: In American Public Policy. 8th Ed.. Washington D.C.. Congressional quarterly Inc.. Little, Dick. 2006. â€Å"Illegal immigrant problem growing.† Paradise Post.com. http://paradisepost.com/columns/ci_468119.html. (10 November 2007). Richardson, Bill. 2007. â€Å"Realistic Immigration Reform.† Richardson for President. http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/immigrationreform.html. (10 November 2007).

Mississippi Burning: Reaction paper

The 1988 film tells a fictionalization version of the  investigation into the real-life murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964. The film focuses on the two fictional FBI  investigators who go to Mississippi to investigate the murders. The FBI  agents are portrayed as heroes who descend into this injustice in the  hundreds, however in reality the real FBI agents and the justice  department reluctantly protected the Civil Rights workers and the  protestors reportedly witnessed the beatings without interfering. Mississippi Burning claims to highlight the injustice of  southern society in 1964. The FBI agents are given the job to  investigate the disappearance from a Mississippi town. It is made as a  point of fact that two of the men were white. The FBI agents, one a  former by-the-book Yankee determined never to violate the rights of the  interrogated, the other agent, is a local man who has been tainted by  the South. He is a streetwise complex character who believes that to  handle â€Å"Scum.† You must sink to â€Å"Gutter level.† At first glance the audience recognizes these characters  bringing out the old buddy-buddy film formula however, the film expands  this cinematic clichà © by becoming an ideological statement. Mississippi  Burning brings out the resistance of a Southern community to change  from an old way of thinking at a time when anti-liberal values of a  small town in America still seem right when the Supreme Court is  chipping away at the achievements of the 1960’s. The films message is  that all these battles have to be fought again and much harder than  before at any cost for the lives of the men who were unjustly killed. Order#31113448 Mississippi Burning Pg.2 The film like â€Å"Birth a Nation,† is stereotypical is historically  inaccurate. Black men in â€Å"Birth A Nation,† are portrayed as shiftless,  lazy, rapist, criminals whereas the black men in Mississippi Burning  are seen as only mute victims. Southerners are portrayed as red-necked,  ignorant, racists who are all members of the KLAN. The Klan is doing the church burnings, cross burnings, lynching  and murders of the three activists however, everyone does not want to  speak up because of fear of retribution from the KLAN and the mutual  bigotry that is rampant in town. The KLAN is a major terrorist force  that keeps the people in town quiet. The investigators become the  embodiment of the conflict, which is the essence of the film. A diner  scene where the investigators enters an obvious segregated diner  question a black kid who was brutally beaten up the KLAN. Another is  when the investigators visit the Deputy’s wife in the hospital where it  is found the KLAN beat her because she helped the FBI agents. The investigators end their personal differences to come together  as a force at the end of the film to resolve the central problem.  Anderson hires someone to get out important crucial information from  the Mayor of the town with threats of castration. The FBI agents create  a mock execution to frighten the criminals into revealing the truth by  chasing the deputy with a razor blade. The crime is resolved with all  the rednecks, the deputy and their co-conspirators sent to jail. The  FBI agents leave with a mutual understanding, which shows the strength  of the film. There isn’t a sense that racism has been abolished and  seems instead to be left with a sense of shifting despair and hope. -Works Sited- Mississippi Burning. Directed by Alan Parker, written by Chris Gerolmo, Crime Drama, 1988                                                                                                                                       

How to Become a Lawyer

A lot comes to the mind of an upcoming high school graduate, especially what that person wants to do for a living. My future career is that of a lawyer. Granted becoming a lawyer takes a lot of work and effort. Once I have attended undergrad and finish law school I then can become a lawyer. Becoming a lawyer has many advantages, I can either argue for the applicant or defendant. My future career, a lawyer, is without a doubt a long-term goal that I’ve dreamed of becoming since I was in 3rd grade. Benefits are really great and I help make society a better place to live in. It will be a chore, that’s why I’m trying to get the right mind set now before it’s too late. The growth potential for being a lawyer all depends on my education and how far I want to go. Many people get into general law and work with a firm for years without moving up, but if I work hard at building up a client base then living is easy. Continuing education is also a good move for this potential job opportunity, I can become qualified for a more wide-ranging field of practice. The Bureau of Labor Statistics converse that now, to add in education, most states and jurisdictions â€Å"require future lawyers to complete a juris doctor (J. D. ) degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. † First, of course I must graduate high school then I have to get a bachelor's degree, and I take the LSAT test. Afterwards I must go to 3-4 years of law school and finally, I must take the bar exam; it's usually 7-8 years after high school. The costs all depends on the school that I pick. For going to public schools, I’d have to expect costs to be around $100,000 for tuition, housing, food, books, test fees, etc. Because of my dad being a retired Marine, most of this stuff will come free, that will help be less of a detriment to this situation. The lowest-level law school costs about $30,000 a year and prices are raising quickly too, so it'll only go up from there. This all is just stressful, and the work is 24/7. The pace all depends on how I feel about this work; in the end, it all feels good to have accomplished such a mission. Legal careers guide Sally Kane states for becoming a lawyer â€Å"is an enormous undertaking in terms of time commitment and financial investment. † Basically in the end, it’s all money well spent. It takes time though, therefore I should learn as much about the profession as possible to fill that time. I’ve never met a lawyer who wasn’t moral, honest, connected with their clients, or prepared for deadlines. One must be highly educated and have fast thinking skills. A persons mind must be set to be quick to analyze a situation and decide the best outcome to a situation in order to become a wonderful lawyer. These type of work values, can be really great to have for a great cost and time well spent. In addition to spending things, I’ll be able to spend a lot more with the salary I’m able to get $113,310 every year. A source, ONET OnLine, indicates that lawyers median wages are $54. 48 an hour, project growth from 2010-2020 will be an average of 10%-19%. The projected job openings from 2010-2020 are 212,000 and the employment rate for lawyers updated in 2010 are 728,000. The work environment for lawyers is either in the law library, in the office or in court. Court hours for most lawyers are typically regular business hours, with a one-hour lunch break. The study hall, law libraries etc. are all very helpful necessities. David R. Johnson, author of Serving Justice with Conversational Law simply states â€Å"The existence of libraries of legal materials required professionals to help lay clients read and understand increasingly complex rules and precedents. † One is usually working up to 11 hours a day, most times weekends as well. A majority works full time, to raise the hourly and annual wages these are the prices it takes to make big bucks. To conclude my reason to shoot for my dream career, the bonus is I have the opportunity to save people’s lives, and bring justice to people that deserve it. A lot comes in the mind of a high school graduate, especially what that person wants to do for a living. A lawyer is something I feel I am capable of doing. Whether it being extensive or lengthy working hours, I find it something I am capable of striving for. The long term reward isn’t just the rather large amount of pay, but the fact that I have accomplished what I always wanted to do and that I’m happy doing it.

The High Quality Education System - 1131 Words

The first immigrants to the land now have been a part of Canada was from Western Europe. Immigration to Canada has become more and more popular in modern life. The teaching style attracts thousands of Asian students. Students in Canada could enjoy social welfare and wonderful environment. Reasonable tuition fees for immigrants are also impelled thousands of international students become a real Canadian. There are more opportunities for post-graduate. A growing number of people immigrate to Canada because of the high-quality education system. The teaching style in Canada is different from Asian countries. First of all, current teaching methods focus on helping kids learn in a variety of ways that accommodate different learning styles and†¦show more content†¦Teachers will point out the weakness of the students and to bring solutions to resolve the problems. Thirdly, courses combine practice and theory together in secondary school. Doing actives and experiments help students to understand better. As a proverb says,† practice is the sole criterion for testing the truth.† Last but not least, Canada is a country, which has two languages and is considered a world leader in language training. Since teaching French and English, as a first and second language is a vital part of a Canadian education, students will be able to improve fluency and capacity for either language as their further studies. Highly educated immigrants choose between college and university programs, and may either enhance their present qualifications or enter a new and different field of study. (Adamuti-Trache and Sweet, 2010) The program combines college course and university course together, in the first two years students take an elementary course in college that is easier and able for every undergraduate to blend in campus life as soon as possible. As we all know there has a serious problem are about thirty percent of students who studies in the university are eliminated each year. That’s why most students choose to study in college first then transfer to a university. In addition, the price for Canadian to study is not high. Compare with students aboard, immigrants have lower tuition fees. Recently, a growing number of families decide to get the