An article that peaked my interest was one in the Wall Street Journal this week that discussed a new plan that would permit young people who have originally come to the US as illegal immigrants to join the military and then eventually become permanent legal residents. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Representative Howard Buck McKeon spoke with his panel on Thursday about including this provision to his version of the National Defense Authorization Act .Also known as the NDAA, it is a federal law that stipulates the expenditures an budget of the United States Department of Defense. Each year the act incorporates new provisions through Congress. A committee aide has expressed that no finite promises or decisions will be made unless the provision will receive support. Within Congress there are groups who are staunch advocators and groups that are adamantly against this new provision. Opponents of the provision have already taken to organizing against its passage. Representative Mo Brooks is the process of completing a letter that will circulate among House members stating that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to take jobs within the American military. He has been quoted saying “There is always a risk when you rely on foreigners for your national security…..the risk is misplaced loyalty. It really comes down to who you prefer – American citizens or illegal aliens? And I prefer American citizens.” Since the
House members who head Latino districts find themselves in a tight spot, since the Senate passed an extreme immigration over haul 9 months ago. These representatives headed by Rep. Jeff Denham of California have been pushing to add the measure to last years military authorization bill since last June. Rep. Denham has been quoted saying “This is one opportunity for those that have gone to school here, that have graduated from high school, that are in our communities, to show their ultimate support for this great nation and are willing to sacrifice in support of our country.” After the provision brought about an argument on the floor with its opponents the provision was withdrawn from the floor but will be used as part of the broader immigration debate. This has been promised by chairman of the Judiciary Committee , Rep. Bob Goodlatte from Virginia. “There is no doubt that individuals brought to the United States as young children by their illegal immigrant parents are the most sympathetic group of people not lawfully present in the United States today, and that is particularly true of those who desire to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States,” Mr. Goodlatte said on the floor. Currently Rep. Denham is working on to persuade Mr. McKeon to add the provision to this year’s bill from the start so that it will not require floor votes for its passage. This new version of the defense authorization bill will be introduced by Mr. McKeon in May.
What are your opinions?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579479932176206484
Our guest speaker on Wednesday was a self-identified Undocumented Immigrant and as we noted in class, he rather passionately blamed the GOP for blocking various measures to create immigration reform on a national scale. For example, a recently proposed bill was defeated in the House of Representatives that would allow illegal immigrants that came to this country under the age of 15 to gain citizenship through military service. Personally I find this to be an excellent solution that increases our national security, allows for amnesty in a method that benefits all parties and generally is supported by most of America, therefore I can completely understand the frustration of our guest. The Republicans’ main priority is to shrink spending and reduce the size of the government, thus any immigration reform that requires taxpayer dollars is immediately met with hesitation or straight up denial. I don’t feel this method of governing to be effective and Congress’ 12% approval rating demonstrates this. The reality of the situation is illegal immigration will not go away on its own. Constructing a fence along our Mexican border does not prevent people from overstaying their visas, however allowing citizenship through honorable military service is more than fair I believe. As a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian but not really, type of person, I value issues based on what I think, not on the mantra or rhetoric of our main two parties. Some common complaints against our undocumented immigrants include that they take our jobs and don’t contribute to our economy. However citizenship through education or military service clearly demonstrate a desire to succeed, assimilate, and thrive as an American. It benefits neither party to stalemate the issue.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/04/05/gop-immigration-supporters-see-military-service-as-path-to-citizenship/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/04/house-conservatives-block-modest-gop-immigration-proposal/
In class we recently
discussed how different immigration laws and regulations have been passed depending on the agendas of different presidential administration. We mentioned
that sometimes immigration is not even truly part of the presidential agenda,as is the case with the Obama administration, because immigration has nothing to offer the nation (economically). For instance, with the Bush era immigrants were focused on and it was easier to obtain green cards because the
agricultural sector needed more labor workers (and immigrants could be more easily taken advantage of). In the U.S News’ article “Business Groups Not Backing Down on Immigration Reform”, Lauren Fox states that a new report actually demonstrates a new demand for immigrants since it is assumed that they will willingly fill in low-paying jobs. That is, there are many businesses that depend on low-skilled workers because they are willing to work for less. Furthermore, the study demonstrated the urgency of the issue by showing that there has also been a decrease in the number of Americans willing to work low-paying jobs. In fact, in the news we have recently been hearing all the demands for a raise in minimum wage. (A couple of days ago Connecticut even became the first state to raise the minimum wage.) Thus, businesses have spoken out to demonstrate that they are nothing giving up on an immigration reform because they would be the group most benefitted by the arrival of immigrants.
It seems that this issue comes up a lot in class, and I wanted to provide additional sources of information on how exactly quotas for detention beds are connected to deportation. Follow this link to see a list of recent media sources, as well as a compilation of articles.
Photo Credit: David Maung
“Broken Lives of Immigrants Deported from US to Mexico” is a short, seven-minute film documentary by Franz Strasser that captures the predicament of US deportees in Tijuana, Mexico. We discussed in class the difficulties deportees face as they return to their home countries, as they often either came to or were born in the United States at a young age. This documentary captures numerous first person accounts of deportees that both illustrate the aforementioned points and also illuminate specific experiences and challenges they face.
Rosario Vásquez, a US border patrol of the San Diego sector, describes an interesting practice in the process of deportation. He mentions how they often repatriate deportees at places different from where they originally crossed, a practice that prevents re-entry by effectively separating the deportee from smuggling organizations and their reentry points. While this practice separates the deportee from the organizations, it has various negative consequences, as repatriating immigrants at different places may increase their feelings of alienation as well as the difficulties they may have readjusting. This creates a situation that is compounded by the fact many have not returned or revisited their home country and have no family there to aid their resettlement. A deportee identified as Jose who came to the United States at the age of three describes the cultural and social challenges he experiences as he speaks broken Spanish and doesn’t know anyone there.
The documentary also mentions an area between the US-Mexico border and the outskirts of Tijuana named “El Bordo”, a dried riverbed where many deportees live in makeshift homes that range from tents to tunnel-like holes. The deportees are often blamed by local authorities for the rise in local crime. The secretary of public security of Tijuana, Alejandro Lares Valladares, captures this sentiment as he describes how the deportees engage in a “vicious cycle” of drug abuse and robbery. Activists such as Ernesto Hernandez Ruiz argue against this stigma, arguing that the local authorities either do not understand or do not want to understand the predicament of the deportees, who cross over with little to no belongings, remaining undocumented in their home country and becoming exposed to risks of gang violence, drug addiction. The CNN article “Stuck Between Two Countries” by Rosalina Nieves captures the conditions at El Border in greater detail, emphasizing how the police in Tijuana assume these deportees are criminals and drug abusers, harassing them for no reason.
Strasser’s documentary mentions that the Mexican government does help some of the deportees that are returning citizens, providing them with health insurance, an opportunity to contact relatives, a meal, and sometimes travel tickets to other parts of Mexico. However, those deported without relations or documentation struggle to restart their lives as they are met with stigmas and difficulties of readjusting, as illustrated by the documentary’s first person accounts and El Bordo. The only perspective that the documentary seems to be missing are deportees who successfully readjust after deportation. The lack of this perspective, intentional or unintentional, undoubtedly illuminates the rarity of that phenomenon, and serves to reaffirm the myriad challenges that deportees are faced with after the return to their country.
Article Links:
Documentary by Franz Strasser — http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26533046
Article by Rosalina Nieves — http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/u-s-mexico-border-purgatory/
The new Alabama law requiring school officials to determine by birth certificates or sworn affidavits the legal status of incoming students is unfair and a violation of the American right for a basic education. The fact that a law like this can be upheld in court is a scary notion and is a strong example of the prevalence of racism in America today. As the article states, this law not only contradicts the federal law formed in Plyler vs. Doe, but it defies the basic human rights established in the Civil Rights Movement. The children hurt by these new laws are not responsible for their illegal status and the law only serves to impede their chance at professional and economic success. Moreover, the lack of education can only lead to less economic production from the immigrants, which only hurts the general American public.
That being said, it does bring up the question up of where do we draw the line of opportunity when it comes to undocumented children. If these children are truly innocent, and we are looking to help the American public, then why not pass the Dream Act? The dream act would only help improve the economy and strengthen our military forces. Despite these benefits, the Dream Act did not pass in congress, which sends a strong message about the consequences of illegal immigration and the American identity.
Are those children truly innocent? Well technically of course as they had no choice in determining their path as young children. That being said, one must consider that guilt is often transcendental. For example, if a father commits a crime and is sent to jail, and is therefore unable to provide for his child, then the child pays the consequences of his father’s action. This child will most likely grow to have fewer opportunities and have more financial and emotional troubles. Isn’t this child innocent? If so, is it the government’s responsibility to provide all the money the father doesn’t? It is practically impossible to provide for all those who have opportunities takes away from them and is in fact the nature of capitalism and American law. It is in this sense that the father’s guilt is transcended to the child, which suffers punishment from the father’s crimes.
The same idea can also apply to the undocumented children. Although they are innocent technically, the parent’s criminal consequences are transcended onto them. So is it fair to deny these children all rights because of their parents’ actions?
It is important to keep in mind that although the government can’t completely refund the opportunities taken away from parent’s actions, it does offer certain programs to assist the children and their families (ex. FAFSA, TAP, Social Security, Medicaid etc.). Similarly, undocumented children should be given certain opportunities/programs. The most basic of these opportunities should be the right for basic schooling. In fact, I believe access to knowledge is a basic human right. It is for this reason that I believe the new Alabama law is a moral violation.
How severe is the crime of illegal immigration that the children should be stripped of their human right for knowledge?
Bill A2597A-2013, otherwise known as the ‘Dream Act’ lost in the New York State Senate on Monday March 17th 2014. The bill was voted upon and was narrowly defeated with 30 votes in favor and 29 against, with the minimum being 32 needed to pass it. The law would have set aside 25 million dollars in a ‘Dream Fund’ annually providing financial aid to college students of illegal status. Currently New York is one of 14 states to allow illegal immigrants to attend in-state universities, given they pay the tuition of course. Proponents argued this law was an effort to lessen the stress on these aspiring students so that they can one day succeed in this country, despite the circumstances of their birth. However the opposition was that these 25 million dollars would be going to law breakers when it could potentially be used either to repair the school system itself, or offer more scholarships for American citizens. I understand both sides of the argument however I tend to favor the fiscally conservative model. Until a budget is balanced, this fund would increase the debt that New York State possesses by using tax money to cover people who aren’t recognized as legal residents. Besides, granting access to education for illegal immigrants is a fantastic step in immigration reform, however after attending college, the lack of citizenship cripples most of the opportunities they go to college to experience in the first place. It is much more important to allow a path for amnesty and citizenship on a federal level such as the federal version of the Dream Act. Immigration should be a non partisan issue but spending money will always be hotly debated. My reasoning is if a law is created to benefit illegal immigrants seeking college education, the government has a responsibility to tackle the issue head on. These people came here to succeed and are in a limbo of quasi-recognized status, and they deserve at least a method to assimilate if they show the desire to succeed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/nyregion/after-dream-acts-narrow-defeat-focus-is-on-timing-of-the-vote.html
An recent, interesting article by Michael D. Shear from the Times related to our discussion last week on the large amount of deportations during the Obama administration, as well as our readings. The push for making the deportations of illegal immigrants more “humane” has been brought into the mainstream as individuals like Senator Robert Menendez, a leading Latino voice of Congress, pressure Obama to “do something drastic”. This is demonstrative of the importance of political representation and its ability to bring to light such important issues. It is also interesting to note arguments of the opposing side, that cite unemployment as a reason to continue deportation. Considering the complex network of influences and interests in deportation, do you think this increased pressure will affect the status quo?
The graphic I included above is a visual that nicely captures the relative clemency and sympathy of judges to immigrants in New York, which we discussed in class. This can be seen in the lower amount of people who are deported and greater amount who stay in New York, compared with the rest of the United States.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/us/obama-orders-review-of-deportations.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
As requested, I’ll try to give a brief overview of the Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC). And I’ll add some links at the bottom if any of you want to do further research.
Most prisons in America are privately owned. The more prisoners the prison has, the more the prison companies profit. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but a big one has to do with labor. Prison labor is extremely cheap, since most wage laws don’t apply to prisoners. And then the company can sell the products of the prisoners’ labor, without giving the prisoners themselves much of anything. As you can imagine, this creates an incredible amount of profit.
Despite being “the land of the free”, the US has the highest number of prisoners in the entire world. While many countries focus on rehabilitation and education in prison, the US focuses on retribution and punishment. A retributive model is in the best interest of the PIC since it puts more prisoners in the system and keeps them in for longer. The PIC ensures that the status quo doesn’t change through two main mechanisms.
First, it uses its amount of money and power to influence the justice system. Judges and politicians can receive “help” so long as they push for retributive policies. So both the PIC and the politicians win at the expense of the population.
Second, it convinces people that retribution is necessary and moral. While the majority of criminals are victims themselves, the PIC tells people that all criminals are monsters who deserve their fate. It also plays on people’s fear of what’s different by demonizing racial and sexual minorities. Sixty percent of those incarcerated are people of color. Drug laws are a good example of the discriminatory nature of the PIC. White people account for 69% of drug arrests and black people account for 29%. Despite this, black people are 20 times more likely to be incarcerated for drugs. And nearly half of the prison population is black.
I’m assuming that virtual slavery, corruption, and racism are enough to make you hate the PIC. But there are even more problems that it causes. Most notably, despite the PIC’s claims that harsh, retributive punishments are necessary to stop crime, it actually creates even more crime. Locking criminals up treats the symptoms the cause. Lack of education is a major cause of crime. Seventy percent of prisoners haven’t finished high school. Over 50% are illiterate. An obvious solution to decrease crime would be to increase funds for public education, so people don’t have to turn to crime. The problem is, the PIC has consumed so much wealth pushing for retributive policies, there is much less to invest in education. Moreover, many rehabilitative programs involve basic education. But since the PIC favors retribution, there are very few of these programs. So once criminals get out, they often have no other choice but to resort to crime again. Thus, creating an endless cycle of crime.
So why isn’t this a big issue? Because no one cares. The PIC convinces people that retributive policies are needed for protection. And it primarily targets people that the majority are already afraid of (namely African Americans). And politicians don’t anything because they benefit from the PIC. And due to the PIC’s tremendous influence, speaking out against it would be political suicide. So all we can do is sit around and talk about how much it sucks.
If you want to read some more on this
http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/overview/herzing_pic.html
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tio-hardiman/african-american-males-fa_b_2981163.html>
http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/prison.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/13/end-the-prison-industrial-complex-now/]
http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/51-3/articles/fulcher-patrice.pdf
