The Analysis
The research being conducted, and sources found thus far, has given us an ample view of how the U.S government has handled immigration policies since the drastic fall of the twin towers. History before the 9/11 attacks, showcased the U.S as a friendly ally to the many immigrants migrating into the country. The U.S called them the backbone of the nation (www.ICE.gov, “The History of ICE”). However, we do know that there were periods of anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S especially in the nineties. The fear of immigrants among politicians slowly dissolved itself after politicians learned they were a new demographic group to leach on.
However, when the attacks occurred, they took the legislation in a new direction using fear to drastically shape the laws of migration affecting the lives of many migrants.
However, when the attacks occurred, they took the legislation in a new direction using fear to drastically shape the laws of migration affecting the lives of many migrants.
Was Trump solely to blame? |
Most of the articles use the Trump administration as the scapegoat of all the immigration problems occurring in the country (Watson and Neely, “Immigrant deportations during the Trump administration”; “Installing fear”). Articles claim this because of the many anti-migration laws that have negatively impacted migrants ever since his administration took office. Laws like the Migrant Protection Protocol, which prohibited refugees from entering the U.S when applying for asylum, the Zero Tolerance Program, the policy that intended to criminally prosecute any illegal alien crossing the U.S leading to the separation of families, and the executive order 13780 which prohibited refugees applying for asylum from Muslim oriented countries (Perez, Claudio J.; Executive Order (EO)13780: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorism). However, one article claims that Trump was not solely responsible (Perez, Claudio J). This author believes there has been a gradual hostile approach to each policy since the attacks, rather than one culprit. He describes it as the stacking of building blocks, emphasizing how each administration has contributed to the hostility of laws placed.
However, something did not make sense when making this claim. If each administration indeed contributed to the hostility, how come there were friendly immigration policies during the Obama administration. There cannot be a gradual increase in hostility if there is an outlier, which the Obama administration was. President Obama promised immigrants a brighter future through the executive orders he would sign into place. While the administration signed orders such as DACA, a program that allowed illegal immigrants to have work authorizations if they met the requirements, they also created a chaotic environment inside their immigration detention centers and deported more immigrants than the Trump administration (Consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA); Hauslohner). Yes, Obama did harm the immigrant community during his presidency, but he also protected some of them as seen with DACA. |
As the analysis of each source continued, there was a pattern among each article. It seemed to be that each administration had the discretion as to how much they wanted to enforce immigration. Important decision-making policies, that would be legally allowed through the Executive Orders presidents would place. According to American Bar Association, there is no section in the Constitution that clearly recognized an executive order, but Section 1of Article II in the Constitution does hint at it when it says, “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The fact that there is not an official definition of an Executive Order in the Constitution signifies that a president is able to write and revoke as many orders as he would like as long as it is deemed constitutional by the legal checks of power. But what influences a president into creating executive orders?
Being able to identify why this seemed to be the case would help clarify why these changes occur so abruptly after a president’s term. In an article it was discovered that having the control to shape migration policies was a power granted to the president through the constitution (Liptak). This power was enhanced after the 9/11 attacks when President George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act creating the Homeland Security Department. It was a sign for politicians that immigration could easily be maneuvered in whichever direction a president desired. And if a president could control such policies, then they would appeal to their supporters and receive the praise needed to get reelected. In other words, the motivation behind executive orders is fueled by what the acting president’s voters want. However, this may not always be the case as proven through the Obama administration where they helped and harmed the immigrant community. Edward G. Carmines & Matthew Fowler argue in The Temptation of Executive Authority: How Increased Polarization and the Decline in Legislative Capacity Have Contributed to the Expansion of Presidential Power that in increase in “polarized politics has led to political stalemate and policy gridlock in Congress which, in turn, have contributed to a change in the balance between the executive and legislative branches of government; specifically, executive power has increased at the expense of a diminished legislature”. An increase in power for a president signifies that again, the executive branch is able to create and revoke as executive orders when pleased. Executive orders could be overturn by Congress if they decide to create legislation, helping the immigration cause but like the mentioned article above stated, there is an increase in polarization that simply prevents congress from having bipartisan legislation. Which leads on, into our next section. |
The power of the executive branch |
LEgislation is urgently needed
Immigrants don’t have enough legislation to protect them from ongoing changes in migration laws (Perez, Claudio J). If an administration has antagonistic views on immigrants, then they could make it harder for them to migrate through different ways. The administration will prevent refugees from coming in, even if it is through the legal way. (Executive Order (EO)13780: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorism; “The right way” 37:20-38:30 ). There is simply not enough legislation that can stop the mood changes of an administration. The changes of policies across each administration can be compared to a child throwing tantrums. A family in a life-threatening situation who travels to America to seek refuge, should not be uncertain whether or not they will be allowed to enter based on an aging child whose mindset changes constantly. So yes, immigration legislation needs to be permanent as legal experts have recommended (Perez, Claudio J). The difficulty in that, as observed, is the fact that the constitution does not mention immigrants in a detailed manner (Implied Power of Congress over immigration: Overview). Because of this, lawmakers will continue the debate until a bipartisan agreement occurs while a sitting president will decide the fate of immigrants every four years.
MEasuring Ethics
The link to the right is a video of Edwin explaining the main component of our project which is determining if the policy changes occurring were ethical or unethical across the 3 presidencies.
|
|