Citizenship... for Illegals?

           

 There are millions of people who would like to become American citizens. Among them, there are those who are trying to get into the country using the right process, and those who got into the country legally but, there are those who are in the country illegally. So, let us discuss America's immigration policy and its reformation. I think the immigration reform is a mistake; it is not focusing on solving the problem, illegal immigration.

               The Immigration Act of 1965 is the law governing current immigration policy. It states that immigration to the United States will be based upon the following: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, and protecting refugees.  This is the system that should be followed not one that will harm Americans. The Immigration Reform bill proposes a legal way to earn citizenship: passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, and learning English. This process is to me unfair and disrespectful of people like me who patiently waited two years to attain a visa and cross the border legally. We are the people following the law and trying to become citizens legally, a process that requires five years of residence and other requirements; but even then you are not guaranteed citizenship. In addition to it being disrespectful and unfair, Tom Cotton, a representative of Arkansas and an Iraq war veteran, says, "This approach is unjust and counterproductive. We should welcome the many foreigners patiently obeying our laws and waiting overseas to immigrate legally. Instead, the Senate bill's instant, easy legalization rewards lawbreakers and thus encourages more illegal immigration”. I agree with his statement. 

             My opposition to the bill is because I believe it will encourage more illegal-immigration. People will think that if they come out of the shadows, they will be pitted and given citizenship after a slap on the wrist. Instead of punishing law breakers, this reform will reward them with a one way ticket to achieving the American dream that every immigrant to the United States is searching for. I don’t think that is fair to anyone. Immigration reform is an attempt at fixing the immigration policy currently in effect. I beg to differ, I don’t think the policy is broken but I however, think that there is no authority figure that can be trusted by the public to enforce it. The people we trust to protect and do what’s best for us need to do their job.

Reforming Primary Elections?

“Reforming Primary Elections Won’t Make Government Better” by John Sides, is an article in the Washington Post about primary elections and voter turnouts. Sides aims his argument at those people who believe that reforming primary elections can make a difference on who votes, how they vote, and who they vote for. He writes the article to convince them that their idea does not work. He presents evidence from political research: "The most recent and comprehensive work is by Eric McGhee, Seth Masket, Boris Shor, Steve Rogers, and our own Nolan McCarty.  They find a weak and inconsistent relationship between primary rules and polarization in state legislatures. Letting independents vote via open primaries does not elect more moderate candidates”.  Sides’ argument is strong because of his use of research information to prove his claim, he states: “There aren't enough true independents voting to make open primaries a means of reducing polarization. Voters may lack the necessary information or aptitude to distinguish among more moderate and more extreme candidates”.  I agree with John Sides because although there are many people claiming to be independent, only a few of them are voting and making their opinions heard. And, I also agree with him about some voters not having enough information to choose more moderate candidates but it is because they do not educate themselves on politics although they have the means to do so.

Unwise Use of Mercy

In Mercy at the End of a Life, by the editorial board of The New York Times, published on Oct 2, 2013, the editors attempt to answer the question of whether or not a dying or elderly prisoners, who pose no threat to the public, may be released.

The American Public is the intended audience for this attention grabbing editorial. The authors are credible because of their use of Attorney General Eric Holder Jr’s speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association's House of Delegates. The authors also use data from the Human Rights Watch. I believe their indirect argument is not to release the kinds of prisoners in question. Their argument is logical and provides compelling evidence.

When I read this editorial, I paid particular attention to the words “pose no threat to the public” and “elderly and dying prisoners.” I agree that they should not be released just because they are dying or are elderly. My reasons are: just because they are old, it does not mean that they are not capable of committing crimes. And, in today’s society, we are seeing a growing number of criminals over the age of 60. This fact is living proof of the kind of world we leave in today, not perfect (obviously), or mildly screwed up but rather completely screwed up. If they are sick, they may be taken to the hospital for treatment but I disagree with letting them loose on the grounds that they are sick and may die in prison. For example “Herman Wallace, a 71-year-old man who spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement conditions for the murder of a prison guard was released on Tuesday because of advanced liver cancer” (New York Times Editorial Board). His age and health should have not played a role in whether or not he was released. On contrary, results of psychiatric tests determining whether or not he had changed or was remorseful of his crime after spending more than 40 years in solitary confinement should have played a role in his release.