Immigration in the U.S
For a long time, immigration has been a social issue in the U.S. This outcome has been a consequence of the international movement of non-US nationals to settle permanently in the country. “As such, the country prides itself on having the most significant number of the immigrant population compared to other nations” (“U.N.” 2). However, in recent times, the issue has culminated in political debates touching on both economic and social impacts. With the rise of undocumented immigrants, there have been calls to change the policies on immigration. According to proponents of immigration, the current systems are outdated and not adapted to address today’s employment or security needs. Furthermore, the system has been touted to be ineffective since it takes too long to finalize documentation processes, and most families end up being separated due to deportation. Therefore, although other issues on social injustices exist in the U.S., nevertheless, immigration takes center-stage because it stems from a historical perspective, intertwined with political and economic connotations that influence the day-to-day outcomes in America.
Background on Immigration
Immigration in the U.S. can be traced back to the 16th century. “The majority of the groups during this period immigrated to seek better economic opportunities and religious freedom, although most white Europeans ended up being indentured servants” (Diner 166). Another immigrant group was the black slaves from West Africa. This group was forced into indentured servitude in 1619. By 1790, there were approximately 700,000 African slaves from the original number of 20. “Seemingly, in the 19th century, the nation received a further 5 million immigrants from Germany who moved into the U.S. to purchase farms” (Diner 166). Consequently, the influx of immigrants in the U.S. culminated in anti-immigrant sentiments. “These sentiments were spearheaded by native-born Americans, particularly Anglo-Saxon people” (Diner 167). Notably, the immigrants were seen as rivals for job opportunities, an outcome that resulted in their discrimination. As such, legislation restricting immigration started being proposed. At the frontline of some of these legislations was the anti-Catholic American Party led by Millard Fillmore (1800-1874). In the long-run, the quota system was ended in 1965, granting European immigrants more privileges than other immigrants.
Perspectives on Immigration
There are various views held on immigration. Some of these perspectives can be drawn from the American citizens and the immigrants themselves. “For the American public, immigration sits at the edge of the peripheral visions” (Suro 2). This view manifest since the majority considers that there are more pressing concerns to address away from immigration. However, when the issue is tabled down, the population is divided over immigrants’ impacts and best practices to manage the issue. For instance, in cases involving undocumented immigrants, public opinion reveals that citizens are anxious and ambivalent. The distress was as a consequence brought about the rising unemployment cases.
Amongst the immigrants, the issue is an emotional and controversial affair. Some of the policies in place invoke strong feelings that have clouded the set legislations’ real intentions. “As such, it is common to see immigrants who are afraid of government officials” (Suro2). This outcome, in turn, translates to the fear of the justice system- a reason why most undocumented immigrants fail to adhere to the set guidelines to acquire proper documentation. Additionally, immigrants avoid paying traffic tickets and going to courts since agents from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement are always on the look. Therefore, immigrants view the issue us unjust, unfair, selective, and oppressive.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Various cases have touched on immigration in the U.S. Notable example of some of these landmark supreme cases include the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind 261 US 204 (1923), and Takao Ozawa v. the United States, 260 US. 178, (1922). “In the former case, the Supreme Court maintained that Thind was ineligible for naturalized citizenship despite identifying himself as an Aryan” (Smith 4). According to Thind, coming from an Indian background, he was eligible for citizenship since the act on naturalization of 1906 allowed individuals belonging to white and African origin citizenship. However, the court rejected the argument, maintaining that although Indians shared a common ancestry with Europeans, they failed to meet the “common sense.”
In Takao Ozawa v. the United States, the Judiciary found the complainant unqualified for U.S. citizenship by naturalization. Consequently, he was born in Japan but resided in the U.S. for 20 years. In his argument, Ozawa quoted the Naturalization Act of 1906, insisting that he was a “free white person,” thus eligible for citizenship. “However, in the ruling, the then Justice George Sutherland postulated that the term “white person” only applied to people who qualify as Caucasians” (Smith 7). As such, people of Japanese origin fail to meet the threshold of being Caucasians within the meaning of the law.
News Outlets and the Issue of Immigration
For decades, media outlets have had a hand in influencing policies on immigration. This outcome has further increased in recent times, owing to the evolution of the media industry. “Arguably, American news outlets have created a narrative that has conditioned the public to link immigration with adverse outcomes” (Fryberg et al. 98). Some of these outcomes include illegality, government failures, crisis, and controversy. Seemingly, new proponents of immigration, on the other hand, have managed to mobilize section of the public into opposing policies. Such an outcome has been possible through the exaggeration of the narratives concerning immigration presented by traditional media outlets. The aggregate impact of such action is to continue with the stalemate around the issue. “It is inherently challenging to address and more likely to reappear on most public agendas” (Fryberg et al. 103). A good example can be quoted from the immigration debates of 2006 and 2007 when the media mobilized the public to block the legislative actions. Therefore, news outlets have hindered the progress on the issue of immigration.
Political Actors’ Responses on Immigration
Political responses can be quoted from both the Obama and Trump administrations. “Firstly, Obama’s administration seemed “soft” on immigrants as it provided provisional authorized respite to various undocumented people” (Felter et al. 13). For instance, in 2012, it commenced a program dubbed as DACA. The program gave two-year work permits and expulsion deferments to migrants who came to the U.S. as children. The program later spread to parents, although there were some criticisms. According to advocacy groups, Obama deported about 3 million immigrants during his reign, a number which exceeded his immediate predecessors-Bush and Clinton.
Alternatively, the Trump administration seems keen to address the issue of refugees. “The most famous tactic being the construction of Mexican wall to gain full operational control of the US-Mexico border” (Felter et al. 15). Further, the administration ended the “catch and release” practices in the border. These practices consequently allowed undocumented immigrants captured at the border to get into the U.S. as they wait for court hearings. Also, Trump went ahead and barred citizens from Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Iran from entering the U.S., citing incidences of terrorism. Finally, the administration slashed the yearly cap for immigrants to make it hard for immigrants to seek asylum.
Recommendations and Conclusions
Immigration presents a social problem not only in the U.S. but also globally. Thus, to address the situation, there is a need to implement long-lasting solutions backed by concrete and sensible legislation. Notable examples of some of the solutions may entail boosting legal migration, reducing disease fears, and recognizing immigrants’ vulnerability. Firstly, opportunities for regular and accessible legal pathways should be availed. This outcome will give people hope of regular migration. Secondly, because migrants are often stigmatized as disease carriers, improving public health accessibility will considerably shift change in this narrative. Some of the ways to achieve this approach include separating health services from migration issues and delivering health services in a more culturally sensitive approach. Lastly, there is a need to recognize migrants’ vulnerability and protect them.