U.S. Immigration: An Intellectual Rant

Immigration in the United States is not a new topic, but, due to the current presidency, it has become an increasingly talked about and controversial issue. Some individuals would be delighted to see the United States implement a nearly open border policy similar to that of the European Union; whereas, others appreciate tight border restrictions. A blog posted to theweek.com, “The complicated history of asylum in America — explained” explains just that: the history of immigration in the United States. It goes into detail explaining the specific changes of American immigration policy through time, referencing some of the major laws that brought those changes into effect. As a continuation of the article previously mentioned, the purpose of this paper is to analyze how immigration has changed and stayed the same throughout the history of the United States, as well as to bring light to the many issues relating to the current immigration policy.
As we all know, this country was formed on the backs of European immigrants. Some were granted land by the rulers of their mother countries, while others came by choice to escape religious persecution or poverty. Despite their reasoning for coming, all of the settlers came for a similar motive: to find a better life. This same motive is what still fuels the many immigrants we have today coming from the Southern border.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every human being has the “right to life, liberty, and security of person” (themeister.co.uk). Therefore, there should be no cap on the amount of asylum applications accepted. If an individual is facing grave danger in their home country, either by the government or in the name of general crime, that person should be entitled to seek safety in another country. And, as explained in an article published by The Week, “The complicated history of asylum in America — explained”, before the Page Act of 1875 and The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, that is the way it was. There were no restrictions on the number of refugees or asylum seekers allowed in the country, and it did not matter if the individuals were fleeing general violence or persecution by the government. After the laws were passed, however, immigration became much stricter. For example, during World War II, when the Holocaust was occurring in eastern Europe, “the U.S. granted visas to just 27,370 people from Germany and Austria, with more than 300,000 people left on a waiting list” (theweek.com). Later that same year, a passenger ship from Germany, carrying “937 mostly Jewish refugees” asked to land in Florida, but was turned down. The tragic reality is that “about a quarter of the ship’s passengers would later die in the Holocaust” (theweek.com). No government should have the power to deny safety to a refugee, not then and not now.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “six-in-ten Americans (62%) say immigrants strengthen the country ‘because of their hard work and talents,’ while about a quarter (28%) say immigrants burden the country by taking jobs, housing and health care” (pewresearch.org). As shown in this survey, almost two-thirds of Americans recognize the benefit of immigrants residing and working in the United States, while nearly one-third see them as negatively contributing to society. One of the most common arguments used by advocates of tight border control is that the immigrants are stealing American jobs. Although, technically this is a true statement if the immigrants are employed, it is also important to note that, the typical American would not accept the jobs that many Latin American and Mexican immigrants currently have. A large majority of the immigrant workers coming in from the Southern border hold positions as house keepers, construction workers, or work in poultry plants or on vegetable farms, and receive very little pay and often endure harsh work environments.

Besides being granted a work visa or paying a million dollars to start a business in the United States, and thus literally buying your residency, another common route for immigrants to be granted legal status in the United States is through being granted asylum. Asylum seekers differ from refugees, in that asylum seekers are already located in the United States when they apply for asylum, whereas refugees apply outside of the country. Currently, the percentage of asylum applications is on a steady decline. In 2018, 30 percent of the applications were approved, which is a significant change from 37 percent in 2017, and an even higher 43 percent in 2016 (migrationpolicy.org). A popular assumption relating to asylum is that anyone can apply for asylum; however, unfortunately, asylum is only granted to individuals who are facing persecution that is “provoked by [their] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” (medium.com). This excludes gang violence and general crime. An article by Idalia Long, titled “Stories from a sanctuary city courtroom” explains Long’s experience as a Spanish-English interpreter in a courtroom. The article includes a heart-wrenching account from a Guatemalan woman seeking asylum. The woman was forced to flee her home country after her sister was brutally murdered by men dressed in all black. She explained how she and her sister were working in a kitchen on a plantation, when multiple men wearing black hoods ambushed them. The woman was able to run away, but her sister went missing. A week later, her mangled body was found chopped in pieces. The woman, scared that the men would later return for her, fled to Mexico and later to the United States. However, despite the immediate danger she faced in her home country, she was denied asylum status, since she was not being persecuted for racial or religious reasons. Unfortunately, this woman’s story is not one of a kind. There are currently thousands of people facing this kind of fear and brutality in their home countries, but they are either not allowed to enter the United States or are forced to leave.
According to an article by Anjali Enjeti, titled “The latest transit ban bars migrants seeking asylum,” the Supreme Court’s order in Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, has placed a temporary asylum ban. This xenophobic ban “bars most migrants (many of whom are Central Americans) from entering the United States to seek asylum at the southern border” (zora.medium.com). The effects of this ban will be tremendous, being that there are “tens of thousands of migrants every month at the southern border.” The ban, once implemented, will even go as far as turning down unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There are many politicians and lawyers fighting against this ban and hoping that the Supreme Court does not rule this as permanent. A Minnesota representative, Ilhan Omar, even rebuked this order by saying, “I believe that decision is morally and legally wrong. Seeking asylum is a legal right that people have, and we know that the Supreme Court has been wrong before” (zora.medium.com). This court order is a symbol of the fight for immigrant rights and the controversy that comes along with it.
This court order falls on one extreme side of the spectrum, and we must work to meet somewhere in the middle. Immigration quotas should not be permitted to prevent an individual from being safe. Border patrol agents should not be permitted to pick and choose who is granted that safety, and entrance should not be granted only to the small fraction of applicants with extraordinary abilities or deep pockets. There must be a fair system implemented that gives everyone an equal chance to reside in this country. Change will take time, but it is possible.
Works Cited
https://medium.com/the-establishment/inside-immigration-court-fc46cefe5bce
https://zora.medium.com/the-latest-transit-ban-bars-migrants-seeking-asylum-aa3400762a9b
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
https://theweek.com/articles/837512/complicated-history-asylum-america--explained
