Immigration in the U.S is among one of the most prevalent social welfare problems that the government faces, where foreign nationalities enter the country and reside there illegally without the approval of the government authorities. Many neighboring countries such as Central America and Mexico contribute the majority of these immigrants, who sneak into the U.S in droves mainly in search of a better life and fleeing crime perpetrated by crime gangs, poverty and plagues (Driesen 2020). Various research articles have come out with different research designs to help address this social welfare problem, which is not only straining the relationship between U.S and her neighbors but also resulted to a perspective division, where different people have different opinions concerning immigration.
Differences
According to Nowrasteh & Bier (2019), any immigration reform developed in the future must encompass one key aspect, which involves the process of legalizing all immigrants that are considered legal by different authorities in the U.S. The research article attributes the failure of all the previous immigration reform proposals to the inability of various policymakers to agree on the suitable ways of declaring illegal immigrants legal. Nowrasteh & Bier (2019) speculates that if any of the future reform proposals have any hopes of becoming constitutional laws, they must follow a different approach from the previous ones. In the past, the congress witnessed a major fail in the legalization reforms that its members had put in place, which necessitates the development of new proposals that will, in turn, create more efficient systems of legalizing the immigrants. The research design of the article studies the problem of immigration through three option approaches, which immigration reform bills in the future should include to succeed in legalizing immigrants (Nowrasteh & Bier 2019). The first option is the tiered legalization, where democrats and their liberal counterparts supported the idea of illegal immigrants being awarded U.S citizenships, while a majority of the republicans, as well as the conservatives, suggested a system that opposed the legalization of immigrants and their eventual awarding of the citizenship. The rolling legalization option proposes the reforming of past immigrant legalization systems, where immigrants who entered the country before 2012 would be viable to make an application for legal status in the country following the 2013 reformation of the immigration bill. The last design option involved an amnesty that limited family sponsorship, where immigrant with a Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) was restricted in the number of family members they would facilitate their entry in the U.S to prevent a chain migratory system.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similarities
More so, Kanno & Haberman (2020) highlights how the ruling government spearheaded by the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has recorded several advancements in policies that are aimed at freezing legal migrations amid the corona pandemic, a move that has jeopardized the flow of workers from other countries, as well as heightening the entry requirements for the asylum seekers looking for protection. The rules for these policies outline a solid framework that will enable the aforementioned restrictions to pick speed even after the novel corona pandemic subsides. According to Kanno & Haberman (2020)), the recently extended covid-19 border rule has succeeded in barring more than 43000 asylum-seeking immigrants from accessing the country. The article analyzes the various designs that have been used to reduce the number of immigrants into the states, with one of them being the reduction in the number of foreign workers who intend to enter the country to preserve the American jobs as well as prevent a possible pandemic outbreak.
Both articles are relevant in addressing immigration as a common social welfare problem as they appropriately articulate how various constitutional authorities have responded to this problem, either by devising policies that seal off the country from immigrants or legalizing the existing immigrants by offering them citizenship and working permits. Both articles have captured how the fate of the immigrants rely entirely on the policy made by the authorities such as the congress and other associated political movements such as the democrats and the republicans (Peri 2016). The major difference between the two articles surfaces from how the government is dealing with the immigrants in each case. In the latter case, the policymakers view the immigration problem more positively and propose that all the illegal immigrants currently in the country should be legalized and issued with both work permits and permanent residences, while the former case, the policies that are enacted are majorly focused in keeping away asylum seekers and foreign workers as a way of protecting American jobs.
References
Driesen, D. M. (2020). The Unitary Executive Theory in Comparative Context. Available at SSRN.
Kanno-Youngs and Haberman M. (2020). Trump Administration Moves to Solidify Restrictive Immigration Policies. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-immigration-policies.html (Links to an external site.)
Nowrasteh A. & Bier D. (2019). Three New Ways for Congress to Legalize Illegal Immigrants. CATO Institute.
Peri, G. (2016). Immigrants, productivity, and labor markets. Journal of economic perspectives, 30(4), 3-30.owrasteh, A., & Bier, D. Three New Ways for Congress to Legalize Illegal Immigrants.
