Immigration Policy in the United States

Factors Shaping Immigrants’ Experience

Moving from their native countries, immigrants hope that their new found home will offer them the comfort they long for. Whether their dreams come true or remain just a mirage is influenced by a number of factors. Major factors that shape their experience are beyond their control as these are dictated by situations they find in whichever country they move into. Public policy is a major factor that influences and determines what kind of a life that immigrants are likely to face. The public policy incorporates all policies made by the state and other nonstate organs. It is, for example, the public policy associated with providing work permits for noncitizen members that determine how long an immigrant remains unemployed. Other public policy issues that affect immigrants are those associated with where immigrants are supposed to put up as the residence. In most cases (especially in the United States and the United Kingdom), immigrants find themselves putting up in low-quality houses (Wheeler 44).

More often than not, these immigrants are finding themselves living in the same neighborhood with those of their ethnic groups. Apart from labor and choice of neighborhood issues, public policy also determines the immigrants’ long-term residence and political issues. How much time an immigrant lives as such before attaining citizenship status is determined by public policy. In some countries, it takes more than 5 years for an immigrant to become a citizen while in others it takes as less as six months. In addition to these issues, policies formulated by state organs verify political rights of immigrants. In most cases, immigrants do not have voting rights until they have become full citizens. What the public policies mean is that immigrants do not have much of a say. It is the host government to decide what kind of life one is to lead until such a time when one acquires full citizenship (47). Immigrants do have voting rights and this means that they cannot define their own destiny; they have it defined for them.

Apart from public policy, there is yet another factor that largely influences immigrants’ experience. This is the culture of the host country. Culture may simply refer to all that people do in order to achieve self-fulfillment. This ranges from the food people eat, religion, language, etiquette and so on. Of most importance here is religion and language. They are lucky those who move into another region and find people speaking in their own language and practicing the same religion. However, this is rarely the case. For example, most immigrants to America and Europe are of African, Chinese and Hispanic origins. Both in America and Europe, English is the most dominant language and so any newcomer has to learn this language. Finding work thus becomes a difficult task for those who cannot speak this language. School going children are essentially worst hit be language problems. At school, these children find it almost impossible to keep pace with other children. At first, they report poor academic grades and their self-esteem gets badly affected. By the time they learn foreign languages, immigrant children may have to repeat a number of classes.

Religion plays an important role in human beings life and so without it, life becomes almost unbearable. While migrating, people always hope that wherever they are going into, they will be allowed to worship freely. Today, there is freedom of worship in most countries. Christian nations tolerate other religions like Islam and Hinduism. However, some Islam states are not very accommodative. A Christian migrating to Saudi Arabia may find it hard to find a church from where they can worship. Some Christians migrating to Islam countries are thus either forced by circumstances to convert or do without religion. A Muslim, on the other hand, may easily find mosques in liberal societies like America and so he or she needs not worry about accessing a place of worship (Wakin 79).

Economic status of a host country also plays a significant role in shaping immigrants’ experience (Balkan 18). The most common scenario that immigrants face is that of first settling in ghettos where access to basic human need like clean water, shelter, and education is a challenge. Where immigrants move in groups, they find themselves being lumped together. Literature is replete with evidence showing that up to 15 families may be made to put up in a single house where they are all supposed to share amenities in a ratio that is astonishing. In these kinds of cases, usual family set ups are abandoned. Parents forget the idea of having their own rooms but all family members have to share in common rooms. When people live in this kind of overcrowded and poverty stricken areas some other ills are likely to emerge. One of these ills is the crime. Gangs start springing up and security becomes a matter of concern. As the struggle for survival moves a notch higher, murders become a common occurrence and people start worrying about their lives and forget about their pathetic living conditions (21).

It must be noted that public policy is a major factor that shapes immigrants experience. Many other subfactors are tied to public policy. For instance, it is public policy play a crucial role in determining how fast immigrants get integrated into their new environment. Moreover, other factors that are tied and influence by the public policy include but not limited to: labor relations, political rights, and long-term residency. Apart from public policy, there are yet other factors that play relevant roles in lives of immigrants. These factors include the immigrants’ culture and culture of the host population. Economic factors also play an important role.

Immigration in the United States

American history has many bloody and controversial pages, and one of them is the battle for the land. Representatives of different social groups had different approaches towards the land because all of them believed that the land belonged to them and wanted to use it in accordance with their desires (Foner Voices of Freedom 282). It is true because many of the conflicts between European settlers in America and American Indians were based on the issues associated with land. It is true as the natives had it, but the Europeans also wanted to possess the land. Despite the fact that the settlers purchased the land from the natives, the natives did not understand the content of the contract, which led to difference of the views regarding the issue.

The impact of Europeans and American natives having different thoughts about what meant to buy and own land led to conflicts. More to say, the presence of diseases, slavery, and warfare affected the ownership of Native American land as Europeans were constantly increasing in number. Therefore, the purpose of the paper is to illustrate the migration and land in detail by enumerating on how Native Americans, settlers, women, and men looked at land differently. It is perceived that there are those who observed that land was a hardship, and there are those who wanted to protect their sacred spaces (Foner Give Me Liberty 34). Essentially, it is clear that the purpose of the paper is based on the primary documents, namely “Appeal of the Cherokee Nation”.

Land, the Native Americans, Settlers, Women, and Men

Settlers perceived that the Native Americans were socially and genetically inferior and felt that suppressing and removing them from their lands was justified. It was not any easy task as the Native Americans had struggled to preserve their communities and food source in the face of mass migration and disruption. Unfortunately, by the end of the 19th century, the prosperous native cultures were deteriorating, and settlers had dominated the west side. In the “Appeal of the Cherokee Nation”, it entails that “the Native Americans saw land as a sum of its users and shared resources whereas Europeans perceived that land was private” (Foner Voices of Freedom 200). The implication here is that the American Natives owned what they made with their hands, but the Europeans did not accumulate goods but shared tools and other possessions. Mostly, it could be pointed out that land rights were complicated because the natives believed that one could own a land on which his property stood.

In the 19th century, women were looked at as autonomous beings that made the settlers view them differently. As a result, settlers introduced women to sewing as part of their assimilation and men to farming. Both men and women of Native Americans were taught to moral standards for the intention of training Native Americans to accept the entity of individual ownership and to restructure their society. Foner writes, “Women believed that they owned land because they farmed on it” (Voices of Freedom 203). Therefore, women can be looked at as essential individuals because they had an enormous impact in America, especially on the issue of land.

The implication here is that the 19th century was a complicated time because each party perceived that they were right. The American history entails that people could claim an exclusive right over a particular territory for hunting rights, but different individuals could use the same river for fishing rights. Essentially, the Native people did not claim the land, but rather the things that were on the land seasonally (Foner Give Me Liberty 44-47).  Evidently, it meant that the Native Americans, women and men, wanted to protect their sacred spaces on the land. On the other hand, the settlers looked at the land as a hardship, hence the reason they wanted to own it and use if for their needs.

Settlers had different perceptions about land as compared to the natives as they perceived land as a commodity, and ownership was determined by formal means. Settlers purchased land from the Native Americans, and they termed the deal as a full transfer of rights. Men who bought the land had the right to sell it to any individual and use it for any purpose. On the other hand, the Natives did not understand the term of the contract and hence the outcome of conflicts. As Foner writes, “The conflicts came out because settlers who were purchasing the land did not know the rightful owner of the land” (Voices of Freedom 200). The reason was also that the Native Americans were hunters, and hence, being denied to farm and hunt their land generated many conflicts.

Moreover, the settlers never took the natives’ land in a forceful manner, but instead they encouraged them to convert to Christianity and live in permanent settlements. The conflicts were witnessed when the settlers decided to settle on the land that the natives used to hunting for their food and where they were to farm. The fact that settlers wanted the citizens to break their ancestral lands and become farmers was against their traditions, as doing what was asked of them would be a negative entity to their communities. Foner states, “The result of the settlers needs led to the inclusion of the government” (Voices of Freedom 201). The government took upon themselves to assimilate the natives, which further increased the conflict. Essentially, the insinuation is that the issue of land generated many challenges for settlers, the American natives, women, and men as well.

The outcome of migration in the 19th century is that the Native Americans became the victim of the land struggles. It is true as they were dominated, manipulated, and mistreated by the population of the settlers who tried to remove them off their land. The Native Americans could be perceived as being naïve of what was going on because they held the land communally as it belonged to the entire tribe and protected by the community. Furthermore, plants and animals on the land were perceived to be holding spiritual and religious meaning, and hence, the reason they did not want to give up on the land (Foner Give Me Liberty 12-25).  As a result, the Native Americans approached the whites who came to their land with suspicion; however, they still accepted them and did not oppose them from coming.

Even more, they tried to cooperate with the new government and did not want to launch the conflicts over the land. After they were fooled by the government and realized that they could lose more of their territories and remain mistreated by the officials, they appealed to the community and whites to point out the injustice. The Native Americans appealed to the settlers that they wished to remain on the land of our fathers. The rationale offered by the natives was that they had a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation (Foner Give Me Liberty 77-85). Then, they spoke about being fooled by the government and losing their rightful land. Thus, it shows that the Native Americans viewed American land as their home, and they had a right to do so.

Settlers compensated the Native Americans to toil for them, which was the reason they had wanted to reside serenely with them. The settlers also wanted to trade with them, but they were aware that a combat would arise. The above paragraphs bring about that the Native Americans and the settlers had a diverse outlook about land. Indeed, it was a momentous dispute based on the point of view that their dissimilarity on land has never wholly been settled to date. It is true, as their diversity was not solved for a number of years. Settlers assumed that possessing land was an indication of prosperity and political supremacy.

The Native Americans perceived that no one could own land, but believed that any person could use the land. The natives assumed that any individual could farm on the land, but the perspective of buying and owning the land was never in their thoughts. Therefore, it can be concluded that their way of living is what kept the natives in unity. The natives understood nature, and hence, they permitted it to prosper. On the other hand, the settlers wanted to buy their land and own the land, which was contrary to the Natives’ believes. The outcome of the differences led to conflicts among the immigrants and the natives. It can be perceived that the settlers had never seen huge junks of land with no owner, and hence, they opted to own them to benefit their desires.

From my perspective, I can say that land in America has generated both positive and negative impacts on women and men, the Native Americans and settlers. It is true because now both parties are learned, and their collaboration is what has made the United States of America a leading country in agriculture. Therefore, although the American Natives tried to maintain peaceful and healthy relations with the government, they were determined to fight for their land and did not want to be fooled anymore or to lose their territories. The Natives tried to fight the government with its tools. The rationale was that they regarded themselves as equal citizens of the USA who wanted to have the same rights and respect as whites.

The United States of America is home to more than 42 million immigrants (Zhong and Batalova). People cross the border of the country for a variety of reasons, including the search for employment, education, better life, asylum, and protection, among others. Despite the country’s ability to house so many newcomers, the number of illegal immigrants is worrying. According to Renwick and Lee, there are about 11 million unregistered immigrants in the country. With the increasing security threats to the lives of Americans, particularly terrorism threat, the issue of illegal immigrants is becoming a thorn in the flesh of America. However, this threat must be balanced with the concurrent increase in labor demands. Therefore, the immigration policy on this category of persons is currently a hot debate in the country. This paper explores the current policy on undocumented immigrants as espoused by the Obama regime, as well as the responses to this policy from both state and non-state actors.

Immigration Policy Background

Currently, America has an organized immigration policy framework in the form of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that permits an influx of a maximum of 675,000 immigrants into the country (American Immigration Council). The policy is informed by several principles, including the reunification of families, admission of individuals with skills that are deemed valuable to the economy, protection of persons who have fled from their countries for various reasons, and the promotion of diversity. This framework provides for a structured immigration plan for absorbing a large number of non-nationals who come into the country on an annual basis. The system is organized as it documents the number of refugees who are allowed in each category.

Krogstad and Passel in their article on illegal immigrants point out the fact that their numbers have stabilized over the years. Between 1990 and around 2007, the number of illegal immigrants in the country has increased from 3.5 to around 12.2 million. During the 2008/9 global recession, the numbers dropped to about 11 million and have been stable since then. Another important thing to note was that the Mexicans account for close to half of the unauthorized immigrants, but their numbers have been declining over time. The proximity of the border, as well as its size, is probably attributable to a large number of illegal immigrants. Lastly, Krogstad and Passel note that this category of immigrants makes up over five percent of the labor force in the United States, rendering it an important class of residents and hence worth investigation.

The issue of border security versus labor demands in the United States has been at the forefront of political debate in the last couple of years. On the one hand, a part of the political class, mostly the Republicans, supports a stricter approach to dealing with illegal immigrants, and they argue that this class of persons is a security threat to the lives of American citizens and their property. The Democrats, on the other hand, show a bit more tolerance for undocumented immigrants as exhibited by the actions of their leader who is the president. His policies toward immigration have caused much uproar in the political arena by drawing criticism and applause from players in equal measure. When Obama clinched power, one of the promises he made was that he would comprehensively deal with the immigration issue in his first term. However, he did not. Instead, during his second term, slightly over two million illegal immigrants have been deported (Renwick and Lee).

Official and Unofficial Actors and Interest Groups

The legislature has been at the forefront of seeking a solution to this debate. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a wide-ranging policy reform that seeks to address the current demand for labor, the legalization of the undocumented individuals who are already in the country, as well as the strengthening of border controls (Renwick and Lee). The bill has already passed the Senate, but the House of Representatives has not taken a vote on it yet. As an alternative to a comprehensive law, the Congress is considering a piecemeal approach to immigration reform. Lawmakers have proposed three different laws, including the Immigration Innovation Act that seeks to double the number of non-permanent visas for high-skilled employees from 65,000 to 115,000 (Renwick and Lee). The Startup Act is another law that proposes the establishment of an entrepreneurs’ visa for immigrants and STEM visa for individuals educated in the United States and those who are highly qualified in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM). The Secure Our Borders First Act is another bill that proposes strict penalties for high-ranking Department of Homeland Security officers who fail to control the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, among other tough border control measures.

Following what seems like the reluctance of the legislature to pass a comprehensive law on undocumented immigrants, the president has resorted to executive action (Birkland 87). In 2012, President Obama announced that his government would effectively discontinue the deportation of the class of immigrants who came to the United States before attaining the age of 16 and were not above the age of 30, and who had resided in the country for the period of uninterrupted five years with no criminal history. This executive order is referred to as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The order was applied to about 1.7 million individuals and it offered them renewable work permits and a chance to apply for a two-year deportation extension (Zhong and Batalova). Toward the end of 2014, the president made another executive action public, known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). According to this policy, parents of American citizens would be permitted to apply legally for work permits deferring their deportation for up to three years. This policy would affect as many as five million individuals. The order also did away with the Secure Communities Program that allowed the exchange of fingerprints between local police and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The above executive orders have elicited much reaction from crucial players in the immigration policy-making arena. Acting for 26 states, a conservative advocacy group known as the American Center for Law and Justice sued the state, claiming that the executive action made by the president was illegal. The group was successful in its action as an injunction was issued barring the implementation of the executive order by a federal judge in Texas. The administration, however, appealed this decision to delay the implementation of the DACA.

State and local immigration policies have also perceived the president’s executive orders in varied ways. Some states have been highly receptive to the order and enacted immigrant-friendly policies. For example, in California, undocumented immigrants can apply for a driver’ license, sit on juries, monitor polls, and even establish their legal practice (Renwick and Lee). They are only not permitted to vote. However, some states like Arizona have been hostile to this class of persons. The famous SB 1070 law made it mandatory for all immigrants to carry their identification documents and allowed the authorities to detain them on reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. The law also contains a provision that has been christened as the ‘papers, please,’ which allows a law enforcing officer to ask persons, who they feel are in the country illegally, for proof of citizenship. Civil liberties groups have been against this provision, stating that it creates an environment for racial profiling. Three of the four major controversial provisions of the SB 1070 law have since been struck down by the Supreme Court. 

Our Benefits

01 English-Speaking Writers

02 24/7 Support

03 Free Essay Samples

04 Plagiarism-Free Papers

05 VIP Services

06 Affiliate Program

07 Free Revision

08 Confidentiality Guaranteed

Potential Consequences

One of the major impacts of the illegal immigrants’ policy debate is on the presidential elections that will take place in November 2016. President Obama was widely supported by the minorities owing to his promise to loosen the grip on the control of illegal immigrants. The presidential candidate who adopts a similar approach is likely to win this key vote. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat nominee, is likely to win this key vote because Trump declared from the onset that he would be tough on illegal immigrants. The legislative wing of the country is also likely to take charge of the policies made in this sector. The piecemeal approach that may result in the enactment of the three laws discussed above is likely to be the most preferred approach to dealing with the immigration issue as opposed to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Furthermore, given that over five million workers will probably be affected by the DAPA, the Supreme Court is likely to give a favorable ruling to the federal government.

Conclusion

This paper has extensively discussed the illegal immigration issue in the United States. The debate is a hot topic, and the key players are trying to push for policies that are favorable to them. The Obama regime seems to be beneficial to the minorities who are somehow tied to the country by announcing the DAPA and DACA, which are favorable to immigrants. The legislature, on the other hand, has been indecisive and failed to pass a comprehensive law to deal with illegal immigrants. A piecemeal approach to the enactment of undocumented immigration policies is the most likely route. The DAPA and DACA executive actions have elicited further debate in states, and some interest groups have gone to court to seek reprieve. The illegal immigration debate is likely to be a key determinant of the voting patterns during the November presidential polls. It will be interesting to see how the incoming administration will deal with this issue.