As the headline in the news remind us daily: immigration in the U.S. is an important policy topic of today. There is a high dependence on the U.S. as haven for refugees and people seeking a better life.
Following the very public femicide of a pregnant Ecuadorian woman by her partner, a Venezuelan immigrant, violent protests have erupted among Ecuadorian citizens who are demanding a crackdown on immigration from Venezuela. After the start of the protests, Ecuador’s President Lenín Moreno announced that new measures would be considered to limit immigration and that security forces would be deployed to monitor Venezuelan immigrants. These public reactions to the murder, and Moreno’s response, have been harshly criticized by those who view them as xenophobic against innocent Venezuelans.
Under the Donald Trump presidency, recent years have seen a substantial rise in the attention and emotion invested in the United States’ immigration debate. However, continuous criticisms of the country’s immigration system from both ends of the political spectrum fail to recognize the other countries that are being affected by the same migration patterns. Although all countries in Central America have been affected in some way by the recent waves of migration, Mexico is in the center—geographically and politically—of the movement, and is arguably more the subject of a ‘crisis’ of immigration than the United States.
The past and present roles of immigration policy drive political, economic, and cultural dynamics in the formation of prison privatization. While inaugurated by President Nixon, succeeding administrations have continued to augment “tough on crime” strategies. The Reagan administration’s addition to the strategy was the infamous expansion of the use of private prisons to incarcerate individuals from at-risk communities, such as low-income minority neighborhoods. Often forgotten is that the groundwork for the development of private prisons was laid by immigration.
In recent weeks, immigration has once again risen to the forefront of the American political dialogue since President Donald Trump began to vocalize his objections to the latest ‘caravan’ of Honduran immigrants heading towards
As Latino people comprise an increasing proportion of the United States population, it is more and more pressing that non-Latino people understand who these people are, where they come from, and what role they play in our modern society. Latinos make up the largest minority group in the U.S. at around 58 million people, or 18% of the country’s population.
Since the start of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, the country has been seeing mass migration that has astounded many. A late-2017 survey compiled by the group Consultores 21 discovered that more than four million Venezuelans have left the country since the start of the revolution in 1999, with another 51 percent of young adults still living there stating that they had hopes of also emigrating (La Patilla 2018).
The rhetoric and reality behind the immigration policy is something that has been widely debated. In particular, the Diversity Visa Program, is aspect of the immigration policy that has notoriously gained negative rhetoric through the Trump administration. However, I argue that the reality behind this program contrasts the negative rhetoric that has been attributed to this program.
United States immigration policies have complex and nuanced justifications; determining who qualifies to be permitted in any given country is no easy task. Of grounds for inadmissibility for individuals with leprosy, however, the reason is surprisingly simple: theology. In the bible, leprosy was “considered a curse of God, often associated with sin” and its codification within domestic immigration policy bloodies any ethical discussion of what legal immigration to the United States could possibly mean (Gillens 2007).