The United States of America was built on the oppression of others and development of foreign lands
The United States of America was built on the oppression of others and development of foreign lands. Higher echelons and their successful impact on governing policies. It was also built on strong domination throughout every social institution in the nation; allowing discrimination to prevail. Racism has reached new heights of justification towards slavery, the annihilation of the Native people, colonialism and regular occurrences of unequal behaviors and treatments towards people of color. Polygenesis helped spur along and justify racism; the idea that all white descendants were groups of individuals who ultimately came from another type of species supporting the idea that Blacks, Natives, and other colored people were not ‘real’ human beings/ race. Traditions, legislation, domination, and acceptance of such social norms allow racism to be principal whether it was apparent through slavery or hidden in new laws and policies to come. Every aspect of a colored person’s life was affected upon, Education, economic status, environmental location and political rights. Those who had the power within the court system followed the Anglo-Saxon ways, allowing any change difficult and time-consuming to come across. Their first encounter with the New World and these new peoples created the opening ideas of inequality. These new people were called aboriginal people. Law and race construct each other because you need the people, Americans and undocumented residents, in order to have an equal system in creating and organizing social norms and laws.
I will like to look at the bracero program which is one of the many ways that helps undocumented folks. However, it also came with many controversies as well. Kitty Calavita stated:
“the ritual of having illegal aliens step across the border and come back as legal braceros were referred to ironically by immigration officials as “a walk around the statue” (quoted in the New York Times 1951, 34; see also calavita 1992,41). The playful term suggests they knew full well they were circumventing the inconvenience of the law-on-the-book” (Calavita, 2016).
The program was a temporary work permit in a way, designed for a labor relief measure during the time of war. Usually, agencies in the United States were able to find a compromise with allowing these aliens to come work and maintain our agricultural. However, as Calavita said, there came huge consequences for breaking the law-on-the-book which both parties faced. The worker was abused in many ways such as lack of worker protection and corruption within the border patrol helping aliens across the border while the policy was prohibiting certain aliens to come in.
It is safe to say that immigration was one of the many important topics in this year’s election. Ludwig Von Mises said in “Liberalism: The Classical Tradition” that:
“This becomes most clearly evident in the stand that it takes in regard to the question of freedom of movement. The liberal demands that every person has the right to live wherever he wants. This is not a “negative” demand. It belongs to the very essence of a society based on private ownership of the means of production that every man may work and dispose of his earnings where he thinks best. This principle takes on a negative character only if it encounters forces aiming at a restriction of freedom of movement. In this negative aspect, the right to freedom of movement has, in the course of time, undergone a complete change. When liberalism arose in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it had to struggle for freedom of emigration. Today, the struggle is over freedom of immigration”( Mises, Greaves, p.137).
Mises used the word liberal in a non-interventionist meaning. On the other hand, liberalism is every individual, no matter what country he/she is residing in, automatically have their human rights. With that being said if it does not apply to everyone or even where it cannot be considered a human right. The right we have is our First Amendment. Removal of immigration is a violation of the first amendment to the individual who already lives in the United States, people who would dream to collaborate to those who wish to migrate to the U.S.
Even if you are in the United States without permission or formal immigration document, there is still hope that you can defend yourself from deportation that is embedded in the constitution of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment states:
” No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”(Cornell Law School, 2017).
Undocumented are also people, persons, human beings, and so on; what I am trying to say is that being that you are a person you are owed procedural rights as jury trial, civil lawsuit, and rights to defend yourself in court if ever arrested When it comes to law and the legal right of undocumented aliens it can be very complicating and hard to understand. Every case is different in many ways, however, you do have the right to defend yourself in a court if you are ever in deportation situation, just like an America citizen undocumented residence have same right to a hearing before an immigration judge, the government does not have the power in most cases to pick you up and send you back without a hearing. Undocumented folks also are entitled representation in immigration courts, however, keep in mind United States government does not have to pay one to defend you in court.
There are many issues of varying complication surrounding the debate over making liberalizing immigration. With our current president, Donald Trump and many of his public supporters have repeatedly addressed the false claim that undocumented people have taken jobs away from binding American. Many are against liberalizing immigration that I would like to discuss here. Some argue that in doing so it would add to the government spending and taxes, along with providing aliens with more government services and benefits, for example, welfare transfers. Take for instance what Bryan Caplan in “The Case for Open Borders”:
“Countries with lavish welfare states have more to worry about, but there is a cheap, humane alternative to exclusion: restrict migrants’ eligibility for benefits. Creative approaches abound: For example, immigrants could be ineligible for government transfers for their first 10 years of residence, or until they’ve paid $100,000 in taxes” (Caplan,2015).
While for the meantime this would authorize incumbent (legal) migrant that were already residing over (illegal) new migrants, from the liberal point of view, it is less of a right violation than, treating the people of their First Amendment. In reality it isn’t the right way to handle the situation, however, it is at least a way of doing so that it avoids a contravene on basic human rights.
Clifton Parker, a Stanford scholar, talks about dueling. He says “dueling was outlawed in France in 1626, yet the practice continued long afterward.” People continued to duel because it was once legal to do so in France and from one day to the next they’re going to ban it. This applies to immigration. Immigration was once legal here; so no wonder people still continue to come here in search of a better life. Instead, they get discriminated, they are made to feel as if they are just an object, not people. Parker stated in his article “Laws may be ineffective if they don’t reflect social norms, Stanford scholar says”
“Jackson, the William D. Eberle Professor of Economics, says the laws against dueling were ineffective because they went against a deep-rooted norm, which also discouraged others from intervening to stop the bloodletting”(Parker,2014).
Although, there are laws that conflict with norms that are not enforced, laws that significantly influences conduct which can change norms over the period of time. One great example is the ban of smoking in public areas in the United States, business such as restaurants, diners, and so on will lose business, people in my opinion often are found smoking in these business areas.
Immigration has changed the United States in many ways such as food, music, and tradition. Some very successful individual in the United States that were immigrants such as George Gershwin and Andrew Carnegie. Let’s not forget many of the United States infrastructures such as railroad and canals which helped American in many ways in the eighteen-hundreds were built by immigrant and later on once the work was done America decided to kick them out and created laws that banded them. Till this day, not all immigrant come to America and look to take advantages, some immigrants provide very usual skilled and unskilled labor.