Home Security Reforming Immigration Reform Homeland Security

Home Security Reforming Immigration Reform

Homeland Security Reforming Immigration Reform

In current years illegal immigration has turned out to be a topic that has brought up some significant political issues in the United States. A lot of the debate on illegal immigration emphases on a feasible route to United States citizenship. It would need to be pointed out that there are so many more persistent subjects which should be spoken about in regards to the illegal immigration discussion. Some are arguing that illegal immigrants that are without health insurance are costing American tax payers billions of dollars annually. Some even believe that most are wearing out their welcome and staying way past their due time. This paper talks about a reforming the immigration reform in order to bring more restriction and organization.

Reforming Immigration Reform

Problem Definition

In what could arguably have been the shot heard around the world during the 2012 election year, President Obama in June issued an executive order suspending deportations of low-priority undocumented immigrants under the age of 30 (Office of the Press Secretary, 2012). The order targeted young Hispanics who had been brought to the United States by their parents years ago, the so-called 'Dreamers.' During the rest of the campaign, Obama spent considerable time courting the minority vote based on the assumption that his position on immigration reform would be more appealing to Hispanic voters than his opponent's (Boyer, 2012). His gamble seems to have paid off.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is at the heart of the debate over immigration reform, since federal policies that control paths to citizenship, border security, and deportations of illegal immigrants are mediated by DHS agencies. These agencies include Customs & Border Protection, Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS), the Coast Guard, and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) (DHS, 2012).

A recently released report from the Migration Policy Institute highlighted the effects of a de facto "enforcement first" immigration policy that has emerged in the federal government (Meissner, Kerwin, Chishti, and Bergeron, 2013). The primary components of this policy are border security, visa controls, data collection, workplace purges, detention, deportation, and establishing close ties with the criminal justice system. The authors of this report argue that the primary policy question facing the public, given the massive expansion of the immigration enforcement machinery over the past decade, is whether these resources are being well spent. The reason for this concern is the discovery that the money being spent on immigration enforcement amounts to more than the federal government spends on all other law enforcement activities combined.

Given the massive spending on immigration enforcement and the questionable efficacy of this informal policy to address immigration problems (Editors, 2013), especially with the on-going budget crisis, it seems important to shift immigration policy away from enforcement in favor of a viable path to citizenship and the establishment of a work visa program.

Research Process and Literature Discussion

Several different types of sources will be examined for suggestions on how to create a viable path to citizenship for different types of immigrants and establish a work visa program. These sources will include legislative bills, academic studies, and opinion pieces published in periodicals. For example, former Florida governor Jeb Bush published an opinion piece on illegal immigration in the Wall Street Journal recently (Bush and Clint, 2013).

Since public support is essential to this process, the relevant survey data will also be examined to see if there is any support for the policies that have been suggested in the past. For example, a recent survey by the Associated Press revealed that public opinion has shifted considerably in the past four years to favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants (AP-GfK, 2013).

Several recent large studies have been recently published that address the problem of illegal immigration. In addition to the report mentioned above by the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center released a report last year that examined immigration trends from Mexico (Passel, Cohn, and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012). Insights into the immediate needs of immigrants should be found in these types of resources.

History shows that a briefing for the immigration quota system was called the Immigration Act of 1924, and this policy was set in place in order to put some restrictions on the amount of immigrants that were allowed to come into the country. During that time there was about 2% of the number of people from that nations who were already living in the United States. From the years between the 1930s and 1980s, yearly admissions started to rise. During the years of world Wars I and II, the United States had permitted some temporary workers to avoid labor deficiencies that had been caused by Americans that were serving in the military.

One of these programs was called the 'bracero' program, which was established during the years of 1942 and 1964. Throughout this time, some 5.5 million Mexicans had been brought over to legally work on U.S. farms (Freeman, 2012). In the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 quotas were founded on national origins had been done away. In its place, both yearly shares had been based on the area of source and family programs that did not have many restrictions were also adopted. The latter contained of U.S. residents that had been petitioning the U.S. government to allow their family members to become residents. These kinds of migrants signify the biggest subsection of total refugees.

Sometime during 1952, the border control had been expanded, permitting the agents to board and search transportation for illegal immigrants anyplace in the United States. Now, for the first time, illegal entrants that had been traveling inside the nation were subject to seizure (Loue, 2009) This had something to do with another huge rise in anxieties as the INS started recording some 900,000 in 1954 (Martin, 2007). There were other responses to illegal immigration that had been initiated in 1954 when the INS was brought on the scene called "Operation Wetback." (Davila, 2012) at this time, some 2,000 federal agents, were put in place to start getting rid of the immigrants, from the Southwest in an operation that would last less than one year (Loue, 2009). Siegel, Jacobs, & Von Brook (1989) all debated that the enforcement activities of the operation, "Led as a military operation, 'Operation Wetback' came up from California east to Texas, and utilized all sorts of means to make sure that they were not allowing and migrants to come into the U.S. unsupervised. They did everything from spotter planes to finding illegal aliens, military jeeps in order to seize the Mexicans and then have them all transported by planes to airlift them back to Mexico" (p. 77).

Loue, (2009) assessed the effectiveness of numerous migration policies that comprised of g policies geared at border control and observing the hiring practices of employers. Putting the focus on U.S. states that border with Mexico, were a top priority and they watched these areas like a hawk. These enforcement utilized things such as a vector auto regression econometric model to evaluate how border enforcement impacts and is influenced by ages (Freeman, 2012).

They came to the conclusion that current laws are incorrectly enforced and also made the suggestion that the not having good effectiveness of the recent rules could possibly reflect political demands from businesses to continue to allow illegal migration of workers in order to alleviate pressures from the job market. (Davila, 2012) made the assumption that the relative talents that the immigrants were bringing into the country was actually declining compared to pre-war waves of immigrants. Borjas (1994) makes the argument that recent migration waves have contributed in welfare services more powerfully than preceding waves, and that this is probable to have had an opposing economic influence. He made the suggestion that changes towards an immigration policy that favors highly skilled migrants is the answer to the problem, ever since skilled workers have higher earnings and are less probable to need public assistance services.

Freeman (2012) also gave an evaluation that involved the long-term effects of restrictions to the supply and demand of undocumented immigrants that are living in the U.S. economy. They utilize a model that is considered to be some dynamic applied general equilibrium design called USAGE-M. Fewer migrants that are documented (29% reduction), irrespective of supply or demand shocks, decrease the extent of the economy in the year of 2019 by 2.5%, a $200 billion decrease in U.S. GDP. Founded on a welfare standard, the authors favor the utilization of demand side rules geared at fining and taxing employers that employ undocumented migrants to control undocumented migration; versus monitoring migration with supply side rules for instance border control (Orchowski, 2009).

The reasons for this conclusion derives from the idea that the gathering of fines and taxes by the U.S. .government transfer revenue to the legal residents in that comes in the form of tax breaks or higher public spending; whereas supply side policies for instance border control do not make any financial improvements that could be transported to legal residents of the U.S.

By the time the 1970s were over, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was catching almost 1 million immigrants every year (Martin, 2007). Experts were making the point that capturing all of these illegal aliens were casing some great concern and that some action needed to be taken fast. Some of this called for taking stronger actions at the border by not letting hardly any enter the U.S. They also wanted sanctions against employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants, and counterfeit-proof identification cards. Yet, on the other side of the issue some experts were arguing for pardon of the unrecognized migrants or a temporary workers service or Visa program.

Brought on the scene in 1982, a lot of the Immigration Reform and Control Act were supposed to aid the United States in getting control over its concerns with illegal immigration (Freeman, 2012). The issue with the bill was that Senator Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli were having some difficulty trying to get enough support for the bill in both the senate and also both of the House of Representatives. Reforming U.S. immigration policies turned out to be an intimidating task and trying to apply all of SCIRP's recommendations could have possibly been very overenthusiastic of the U.S. Congress (Loue, 2009).

In 1982, when Simpson introduced the bill, that is when Attorney General William French Smith started opposing anything that has something to do with the amnesty provision debating the issue that that it would cost the states too much money. Smith advised Congress to award pardon to qualified immigrants simply after 10 years of permanent local status and that only foreigners in the U.S. previously of 1976 would get pardon (set against the January 1, 1978 deadline in IRCA) (Martin, 2007). There were also worries with the bill's proposed employer authorizations.

Most of the fines were $2,000 per alien for a proprietor's first offense and $3,000 per alien for each following offense (Freeman, 2012). This caused some strong antagonism to the permissions on the House floor which had then forced Mazzoli to get rid of the old IRCA and resubmit it to the new Congress during the year of 1984 (Pagan, 2011). However, there would be hard times and much more issues that would continue throughout the 98th Congress' arguments on IRCA as adversaries, for instance Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), elevated oppositions to the pardon service on the foundations that it would inspire more unlawful aliens to try to enter the U.S. (Davila, 2012). Simpson, more worried in regards to the illegal population previously in the United States, contradicted:

Are subculture is very scared of other human beings in the United States, who, as said by the material established at hearings in the subcommittee, for fear of being found out, not wanting to report crimes contrary to their property, their family, or their person, or do not pursue medical assistance except it is to give birth to a U.S. citizen, and who will not protest about misuse in the workplace. That cannot be good for this nation and one way or another, certainly, it reduces us in known and unidentified ways. (Gimpel & Edwards Jr., 1999, p. 156)

Soon after Helms' revision was knocked down, there was another one introduced which would permit states to refute public schooling and other welfares to unlawful foreigners (this subject would rise in California's Proposition 187). Senator Helms pleaded Congress to let the states to make the decision on whether or not they (the states) are wanting to assign their capitals to unlawful foreigners or have them reserved for their own legal residents and citizens. Even though Sen. Helms' exertion was once more overcome his thoughts were picking up some strong support. (Orchowski, 2009).

During 1990, Congress was once again challenged with anxiety in regards to illegal immigration. Control Act's amnesty and the Immigration Reform of 2.7 million illegal immigrants did not have the result politicians had envisioned and some individuals have contended that the ratification programs really worsened the issue of illegal admissions to the United States (Freeman, 2012). Peggy (2009) make the argument that there is little proof that actually displays IRCA lessened illegal admissions, and although it may not have produced an upsurge in illegal immigration as some dreaded, it also unsuccessful to discourage upcoming illegal immigration. Martin (2007) differed rather, signifying that amnesty may have heartened upcoming migrations and Wright, (2007) added that the 1986 amnesty elevated the option of upcoming authorization programs. "Amnesty services shaped reasons for thousands of additional illegal immigrants to come directly into the United States in search of legal residence that would be permanent" (Espenshade, Baraka, & Huber, 1997, p. 770).

Therefore, another immigration command was prearranged, made up of nine members with a chairman chosen by the president of the U.S. President Clinton was the one that picked previous Congresswoman Barbara Jordan to chair to the new United States Commission on the issue of the Immigration Reform (CIR) (Orchowski, 2009).

New Reform: Visa Program

With issues like terrorism, overpopulation and money matters, it is imperious for any country to take a closer look at who is coming into the nation. With the new reform, a visa permits a central government to regulate how many distant visitors will be able to come into the country. This will help put a lid on things. This new Visa program will also monitor how long they will be permitted to stay and the doings they are permitted to contribute in, for instance tourism or work.

Up under this new reform, the visa application process will permit a nation's consular and immigration sections to confirm the identity of the immigrant way before they even cross the border. The immigrant's criminal and economic backgrounds are typically examined, in addition to whether or not he carries any infectious diseases (Peggy, 2009). If the consular section makes the decision that the immigrant does not pass the severe background test, it then gives them the right to reject entry before the immigrant can even leave their own soil.

Labor Certifications

Up under the new reform, in order to be even looked at for nonimmigrant visa under they will require an applicant's potential employer to get a labor certification or other type of approval that will need to come from the Department of Labor for the potential worker (visa applicant). Once all of this information has been received, if obligatory, the potential manager or agent can file the Form I-129, Request for Nonimmigrant Employee with USCIS (Loue, 2009).

Before even applying for a temporary worker visa at the Consulate abroad or U.S. Embassy all of the applicants will need to get some approved Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker from USCIS. Up under the new reform, this document will have to be succumbed by their potential company at USCIS's Temporary Workers webpage and it cannot be any sooner earlier than 6 months previous to the planned occupation start date. Employers up under this new reform will need to file the request the moment likely inside the 6-month age to permit passable time for dispensation. Should they need any petition processing to be done much quicker, they will need to talk to a person from the Premium Processing Service on USCIS website (Loue, 2009). Once all of this has been approved, the company will be sent Form I-797, Notice of Action.

The document called the I-797 is no longer required for the interview up under the new reform. On the other hand, to confirm petition support their will need to be some kind of I-129 request receipt number but this will need to be available.

Applying for a Visa

Up under the new reform, Temporary Worker applicants will have to meet exact necessities in order to be eligible to qualify for a Temporary Work (H, L, O, P, or Q) visa under immigration law (Wright, 2007). The consular officers are the ones that will be able to determine whether that person will even qualify for the visa. Up under the new reform, all of the applicants for temporary work visas will need to apply at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate with dominion over their place of permanent dwelling. Even though visa applicants can apply at any U.S. consular office overseas, it could possibly become much harder to qualify for the visa outside the nation of the permanent residence. Up under the new policy all of the visa applications will be subject to a much superior degree of review than in the past so it will be very significant to apply for a visa well in advance of their departure.

Also up under the new reform policy, as a part of the visa application process, an interview at the embassy consular may be required for some visa applicants that range from the age of 14 through 79, with some few exceptions. People that are age 13 and younger, and also around the age 80 and older, normally do not need to have some interview, except demanded by embassy or delegation. Up under the new immigration reform, in order to make an appointment for interview a person will need to deliver the receipt number that is published on the accepted Form I-129 request.

Up under the new policy, the waiting time to even get an interview appointment for applicants can be different, so having it all done much early will be the new rule to avoid any time of confusion later on. The new reform will strongly encourage early visa application. With the new immigration reform policy all Visa wait times for any type of the interview appointments and visa dispensation time data for every U.S. Embassy or Consulate all over the world is obtainable on the new policy website and not to mention on most other embassy websites. The reform will demand that immigrants learn how to schedule an appointment for an interview themselves, pay the application processing fee, look over embassy exact orders, and also so make sure that they are aware of any other procedures before applying to the program.