The immigration policy of the United States of America (USA) is one of the most complex immigration policies in the world. Fundamentally it emphasizes family unification, acquisition of unique professional skills, diversity, protection of refugees, the protection of asylum seekers, and humanitarian protection. As such, the USA has a well-developed policy under the federal Immigration and National Act (INA) that grants access to permanent citizenship to the USA up to 675,000 persons per year (American Immigration Council, 2019). While the number has remained unchanged since the ACT's enactment in 1952, there have been several efforts to vary the procedure of selecting its beneficiaries. The most recent attempt, being President Trump's immigration policy changes, is called the “Inadmissibility on Public Charge." The modification amended section 212 (a)(4) to broaden the meaning of a public charge and hence deny people entry on account of being beneficiaries of a public charge. It also amended section 213 on the adjustment of status and issuance of public charge bonds and exclusion of noncitizens with temporary stay status on the grounds of benefiting from public charge. The constituent policy aims at benefiting the general public or the government. The rationale of rendering USA entry seekers inadmissibility on the public charge is to confine the redistributed resources to its citizens. Modification of the Public charge's meaning compounds it to mean any person who receives public aid for more than a year in three years. Some of the public benefits include rental support, Medicaid, Medicare, and Food stamps. Thus, before one is allowed entry into the country irrespective of belonging in the various eligible groups, they must prove that they will at no point benefit from public charge. The policy relates to constituent policy because it confines the limited resources to the American citizens. In essence, it emphasizes that American citizens are only those that cannot have their citizenship revoked through a proof of inconsistencies in citizenship application or benefiting from the public charge once granted citizenship. Trump’s policy change can be strengthened by the introduction of a bank's minimum balance and asking applicants to demonstrate their competence can be introduced. For one, adding the restriction of a minimum bank balance might aid in such a quest. The minimum balance would form a cut-off point below which applicants may be illegible for USA citizenship as per the "Inadmissibility on Public Charge" policy. Besides, the requirements would also need to request proof of living standards from the applicants for USA citizenship. By imposing such requirements on the persons seeking entry, it would be possible to deny entry to those that may constrain American resources by relying on welfare. According to the Federal Register (2019), the core goal of any policy changes to immigration laws is to develop the American populace and economy. The development is only achievable through the admission of individuals who can enhance the ideals of the United States like freedom, economic independence, and pursuit of social justice (Harrington, 2018). Admitting more welfare recipients into the country would only burden the economy and the existing public resource-sharing formulae. Secondly, the immigration policies adopted by the Trump Administration may be strengthened by requiring that applicants demonstrate their competence. As such, applicants would have to show how they would contribute to the USA economy upon admission. Thus, they would only be considered for citizenship once the immigration department is convinced that they can offer unique value to the USA. Somin (2018) indicates that immigration is meant to enhance diversity, economic value, and the spread of American ideals of free demand justice. As a result, the “Inadmissibility on Public Charge” policy would ensure that the admitted immigrants can contribute to the national cake without deriving public benefit. Overall, the strengthening of the "Inadmissibility on Public Charge" policy would help the USA ensure that it can positively gain from immigration. The changes may also ensure that only asylum seekers that are economically stable are admitted as USA citizens or permanent lawful residents. The "Inadmissibility on Public Charge" policy can be weakened through the introduction of speedy processing of the application and enhancing family reunion through chain-migration. For one, the enactment of changes that require speedy processing of applications for citizenship would weaken the legislation. Wadhia (2018) notes that, the slow process of processing of citizenship applications is meant to allow the conduction of due diligence on applicants. The lengthy process also aids in the establishment of possible contributions that applicants might make to the USA economy. As such, if the time and procedures taken to process applications were to be reduced, the “Inadmissibility on Public Charge” policy might be weakened. By reducing the amount of time and procedures taken to process such applications, the conduction of thorough background checks would be severely constrained. As such, it would be hard to determine with certainty that admitted applicants would not be a public charge for the United States. Further, it would also be possible to weaken the “Inadmissibility on Public Charge” policy by allowing for greater extents of ‘chain migration’. As a phenomenon, chain migration is aimed at unifying families. It is achieved by making it easier for applicants with family in the USA to gain citizenship upon application and successful vetting (Somin, 2018). Greater allowances on chain migration may increase the probability of admitting dependants who would be a public charge rather than contributing to the economy of the USA. Focusing on family unification more than the economic advancement of the USA would lead to higher public charges. In general, modifications to weaken the "Inadmissibility on Public Charge" policy would lead to a greater economic burden for the USA because more welfare recipients, rather than active participants in the economy, would be admitted as citizens depriving the taxpayers the benefit of admitting immigrants. Regarding the issue of immigration, and particularly the policy of "Inadmissibility on Public Charge," the Constitution addresses the role of government in business administration. Regarding immigration legislation, the doctrine of Plenary Power allows the government to make immigration law with limited oversight from the courts (American Immigration Council, 2019). Therefore, the law requires the government to play specific roles in supporting or negating immigration issues (such as the 'Inadmissibility on Public Charge').On immigration, the USA government policy requires that businesses only offer employment to lawful and documented immigrants. Hence, only individuals who are lawful residents of the USA should be employed in business entities operating within USA jurisdictions (Wadhia, 2018). The government needs to cooperate with businesses to ensure that only those who can contribute to the USA economy are employed therein. This requirement would also allow the government to avoid the admission of illegal and undocumented immigrants as per the ‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge’ policy. Secondly, the doctrine of Foreign Commerce Power allows the government to establish uniformity in immigration rules. Thus, the government would need to formulate policies that govern immigration. Among these would be ensuring that all businesses declare their employees in the process of filing statutory remittances – according to the powers to collect taxes. Similarly, businesses would need to declare employees and their immigration status on the filings to ensure easy compliance with employment laws. This would allow for the recognition of the contributions of employees and businesses to the economy. Such contributions, which include taxation and contributions to social services, are the main tools that the USA government applies to ensure contribution to the economy by immigrants. Harrington (2018), notes that government and business can collaborate in the operationalization of the 'Inadmissibility on Public Charge' policy. Finally, using the powers of common defense and general welfare of the United States, Congress and the executive arms of government can administrate immigration. Concerning the "Inadmissibility on Public Charge," the government collaborates with businesses to ensure USA businesses do not grant illegal non-citizens employment. Such business entities are therefore required to obtain copies of immigration papers in order to offer employment to individuals. Alamillo, Haynes, and Madrid (2019) note that collaboration between the USA government and businesses with respect to the employment of immigrants would aid in the enforcement of immigration rules and laws. In this way, the government can ensure that only immigrants who have been vetted can be granted the right ad freedom to work within the U.S.
Conclusion
Immigration remains one of the most complex issues in the administration of the United States of America. It rests on a number of fundamentals, including the unification of families, the acquisition of unique skills by the USA, increasing diversity, protection of refugees and asylum seekers, and humanitarian protection. However, the fundamentals also threaten the wellbeing of the USA economy. Policies are therefore used to protect the tax payers’ resources as the case of the "Inadmissibility on Public Charge" under President Trump’s immigration policy changes. The immigration changes are in line with the constituent public policy that seeks to protect the general public or the government’s interest. The modifications of the policy would either weaken or strengthen the policy. For instance, to strengthen the policy, a minimum bank balance restrictions, and proof of living standards can be established. The proof can be obtained through aptitude testing of applicants' prove of competence. On the contrary, a requirement to speed up the processing of applications for citizenship and a greater flexibility on ‘chain migration,’ may weaken the immigration policy. Finally, the Constitution addresses the policy changes by President Trump in three different ways. First would be the doctrine of Plenary Power that allows the government to make immigration law with limited oversight from the courts. Secondly, the doctrine of Foreign Commerce Power which allows the government to establish uniformity in immigration rules. Finally, the constitution addresses the policy through the powers of common defence and the general welfare of the United States of America.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Alamillo, R., Haynes, C., & Madrid Jr, R. (2019). Framing and Immigration through the Trump Era. Sociology Compass, 13 (5), e12676.
American Immigration Council. (2019). How the United States Immigration System Works (pp. 1-10). American immigration council.
Federal Register (2019, August 08). Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-17142/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds
Harrington, B. (2018). Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions about" Public Charge." Current Politics and Economics of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 20 (2), 295-314.
Immigration and Nationality Act. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/immigration-and-nationality-act
Somin, I. (2017). Immigration, Freedom, and the Constitution. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 40, 1.
Wadhia, S. S. (2018). National Security, Immigration, and Muslim Bans. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 75, 1475.
