Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
May 9, 2019
For decades, the U.S. has claimed there is immigration problem, however immigrants are
not the problem, it is the policies that has created the immigration system. These policies have
been clearly racialized and dehumanize migrant bodies posing them as a threat. Policies in past
presidential terms have focused on enforcement, detention centers, and less resources for
immigrants, asylees and refugees. In order to fix the immigration system, we propose a division
between short term and long term goals. For the short term we focus on revising DACA so
DREAMers could potentially have a pathway to citizenship and are better protected. In addition
to ending the Muslim Ban, there will be no wall on the Mexican border, there will be regulated
private detention centers, an increase in the ceiling for number of refugee and asylees and the
requirement of training for Immigration judges and officers of DHS, along with providing
On the other hand, our long term goals consist of abolishing ICE and moving away from
private involvement in the immigration system, providing a better and easier way for
undocumented and future immigrants, refugees, and asylees to acquire citizenship, revising the
Refugee system to allow for economic refugees and asylees, reforming Immigration Court,
ending the number of years barred from the U.S., and the ending of backlogging immigrants.
Although there are several other issues concerning immigration, the main issues we put forward
have become a subject for discussion under Trump’s Administration and deserve to be addressed
Our immigration system has been broken for decades and it finally should be
progressively changed to better suit migration patterns and the needs of migrants. Lately, there
have been too many cases involving deaths and family separations of migrants trying to come to
the U.S. or are awaiting trial. The act of deportation has become more dangerous and closely tied
to ICE, an agency largely financed and operated by private companies, that has been known to
sexual abuse and racially target people of Latino complexion. Migrants, refugees and asylees
spend months or even years waiting for their trial, and live in inhumane conditions that
desperately need to be addressed. In addition, there is such negative and inaccurate discourse
revolving around immigration that needs to be corrected and can be done by fixing the issues the
Under Trump’s administration, it has become extremely clear how he has solely
discriminated and racialized minorities and has targeted them through his policies. There needs
to be distinct and progressive laws that go against what Trump has been pursuing to ensure the
safety of immigrants, asylees and refugees here, and who are coming to America. During his
presidency, thousands of families have had their children ripped apart from them, women have
been sexually assaulted in detention centers, and people have died in these places. In addition,
Asylum seekers are being turned away, being marked as illegals when they have every right to
ask for asylum. Many are sent to Mexico to await their trial as well. DREAMers are being
stripped away from their protections from ICE and are now being targeted. The rights of
immigrants, asylees and refugees are continuously being contested in this political landscape and
it is time to reform the system that has become overtly prejudice and malicious.
This paper is organized in the following manner. First, Rachell will address the issue of
enforcement that pertains to the border, DHS, ICE and CBP. In addition to the defunding of
these enforcement practices and the redirection of funds to support immigrants. By changing the
policing of immigrants into a manner of support, the narrative surround migrant bodies can also
be rewritten. Next, Quinn will reinforce the importance of the DREAM Act’s passage, look to
the ways in which immigration courts need to be reformed, and make a proposal for a
straightforward, humane path to citizenship. Finally, Clay will propose reforming the refugee
and asylum system to allow for the consideration of economic conditions, explain how this
policy improves upon the current system, how it would benefit the economy and allow for a
I.
First it should be address the way immigration policy has become centered on this idea of
“protecting” the U.S. border. It has driven U.S. immigration policy to target migrant bodies
through law enforcement, and the construction of a wall. However, border enforcement has
proved time and time again that it is not as effective as people think it is. Building a wall does
not mean unwanted immigration will stop nor is increasing funds for DHS, CBP or ICE going to
prevent it either. This is why New Colossus suggests new immigration reform should begin with
no construction of a wall, decrease in funding for enforcement and the redirection of funds to
train officers to support immigrants; and stop the funding private detention centers. We argue
that by changing the narrative behind border enforcement that immigration policy will
restructure the way it implicitly targets black and brown bodies.These policies are both short
term and long term goals with the overall target being to provide a more efficient and safer
immigration system. By utilizing a human rights narrative, it will prevent labeling such bodies as
the problem, as threats or criminals. Through restructuring the narrative it can provide a more
effective and transparent immigration system. A system that can support migrant bodies, and no
popular belief, the rate of undocumented immigration from Mexico has not changed in three
decades (Massey 2007). People see changes in their culture and tie it to immigration when in
reality the levels of undocumented immigration have hardly shifted. By constructing a wall, it
does not just stop unauthorized migration instead it increases the perception of incidence of
unlawful presence and naturalizes the idea of immigrants as an existential threat to U.S.
sovereignty (Gulasekaram 2013). It is only a temporary solution to the bigger issue that are not
migrants but the overall system the U.S. created themselves. Even if the wall were to be built,
David Martin, former Principal Deputy General Counsel of DHS even stated, “Those intent on
crossing unlawfully would likely find other means of entering the U.S.” (Gulasekaram 2013).
Physically the wall only provides as an obstacle for migrants to work around. History has
demonstrated that wall built on U.S. border have been ineffective. In 1990, as part of Operation
Gatekeeper, spanned fourteen miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. That partial fence clearly
had aesthetic and optical benefits, as it tended to reduce border crossing and apprehensions in the
populated city of San Diego. But, it had no meaningful effect on actual deterrence, as it simply
pushed migration further eastward towards the Arizona border region” (Gulasekaram 2013).
However, the wall does not just have physical component to it, it provides a reasoning for
people to believe there is a threat to be protected from. It pushes the narrative that black and
brown bodies are either to be feared or hated. It provides political incentives for citizens to
pressure the national government over the immigration issue and for them to take control by
persuading them that fence building is a necessary government solution (Gulasekaram 2013). It
then steers the power away from each state and solidifies federal power over immigration. It
becomes easier for politicians to vote on a bill for a wall without analyzing the humanitarian
consequences. As stated previously, fences and wall do not affect migration flow, people will
find other ways and this has resulted in a higher death rate.
Instead of pushing humans towards death, policy should focus on the receiving end rather
than policing and declusion. Higher death tolls obviously equal lower undocumented
immigration rates but at what costs? It is also interesting those who vote on the matter have the
least amount of contact with migrants whether authorized or not, they do not see the actual
repercussions of the policies they support (Gulasekaram 2013). The policies then provide the
narrative that the government is providing safety and that they are the citizens care takers. The
physicality of a wall embeds the notion the demographic makeup and cultural moves on the
those who are deserving (American citizens) versus undeserving (immigrants). They are being
kept out and will continue to be the inferior class who can never legitimately become part of
American society. People will continue to believe there are too many Mexicans, and that they
need to be kept out. It also gives law enforcement an easier diagnosis of unlawful presence
Besides the construction of a wall, funding for Border Enforcement has shown to be
impotent as well. The budget for enforcement has consistently grown over the decades, agencies
have began targeting specific areas and devoting more time on patrolling the border. In 2002 INS
began patrolling the two sectors of San Diego - Tijuana and El Paso - Juarez and used what they
called the “Tortilla Curtain” to stop unauthorized migration. However, migrants naturally went
around them to cross into less patrolled regions (Massey 2007). By 2002, two-thirds were
entering other points at the border avoiding the patrolled areas and finding areas they would be
less likely to be caught and coincidentally less heavily patrolled. As mentioned previously,
border enforcement also increases the likelihood of injury and death. These sections at the border
not only are less patrolled but all the more dangerous. Border Patrol has failed to decrease the
number of migrants coming in and with this population, comes an increase in vulnerability to
exploitation.
Rather than pouring money into DHS, ICE or CBP, the issues should be addressed head
on. We are far too into history to have open borders but redirecting where funding goes is a first
step. That significant amount of money can be used to support migrants instead of targeting and
patrolling them. A pathway to citizenship or a worker-visa program can decrease the exploitation
of this population. Along with targeting companies that have been known to recruit
translators, and immigration lawyers that could help keep track of who is coming in and
eliminate this undocumented status. In addition, a better partnership with Mexican, where a vast
majority of migrants come from to work can lead to a smoother migration process where they
can be less vulnerable and the U.S can regularize their status through long term residency.
Providing safety is a key part in decreasing enforcement. People can continue to argue that
migrants are not citizens, it is not their responsibility but they are human beings. PEople cannot
claim their nation was built by immigrants without acknowledging the effects the U.S. has had
on other countries that have led to them coming to this country. It is time to take responsibility
and give reparation to the population of migrants that are exploited, racialized and have no other
means of providing for themselves or family. Patrolling will not prevent migration flow so
the U.S. must stop its relationship with private detention centers. This institutional private
detention center complex has been known for its inhumane conditions, assault both physically
and sexually, and death. No one should fear coming into this country and be thrown in what is
another name for a prison nor fear dying or being separated from their families. Before ICE
became the face of private detention and enforcement, their original mission statement was to
“detect and prevent terrorist and criminal acts by targeting people, money, and materials that
support terrorists and criminal networks (Neto 2006). This is not what is occurring today. ICE
keeps migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers there basically indefinitely. They are either taken
from the border, or through ICE raids in cities throughout the U.S which usually are black and
brown communities. They have not focused on their mission but instead redefine their power to
include detaining regular people. This has been done through racialization and hyper-policing.
But who really benefits? Boza states, the undocumented status of migrants provides
advantages to at least 3 groups: media pundits who make their careers railing against them,
politicians who use them as scapegoats and contractors who profit from massive enforcement
expenditures (Boza 2009). It is interesting how the media adds to this threatening discourse
because they consistently dehumanize undocumented workers and promote a message of fear
and hate that attracts views and convinces them that ICE is justified for its actions. This provides
a collective acceptance of militarization in their neighborhoods and persuades them to vote for
candidates who promise to be tough on crime (since that is inherently linked to migrants as well)
when in fact immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native born (Boza 2009). The
media also provides “fake news,” for example, on October 5, 2006, Lou Dobbs said ‘just about a
third of the prison population in this country is estimated to be illegal aliens’. This is a gross
misrepresentation of the reality – less than 6 percent of prisoners are foreign-born, and only some
of those are undocumented immigrants, the remaining being naturalized citizens, permanent
legal residents and other visa holders (Boza 2009). By minimizing migrants to criminals and
promoting a hateful discourse, it continues to dehumanize them and make them suitable targets
for enforcement. People will continue to favor ICE because they think immigrants are all
criminals when they are given false information. Even with ICE raids, there is no evidence that
they do anything to prevent more unauthorized migrants. It solely is there to make people think
support it is effective. It just fuels more fear into people and perpetuates false notions.
By arresting migrants it then provides a dependency from the prison on the production of
criminals to fill the prisons in which they built (Boza 2009). Once again, the percentage of those
who are criminals are fairly low but in order to fills those spaces, ICE targets black and brown
bodies who are stereotyped as immigrants and question their presence in the U.S. If the person is
not able to provide documentation quick enough then they are taken. Politicians also rely on
these prisons in order to pass more repressive laws and vise versa. Militarization and detention
centers do not lead to the reduction of migrant flows. Coming to the U.S as someone who is a
black or brown body should not lead to being imprisoned. Unauthorized status should not equal a
criminal act nor should it lead to being help in a detention center for weeks to months. It is
inhumane to treat people as such and support institutions that do so. Funding should instead be
redirected elsewhere besides fueling an institutional complex and organization that only benefit
from racism and criminalization. Through our short and long term goals, we hope that
enforcement will decrease, with the eventual abolishment of ICE and start of a transparent
immigration system.
II.
Politicians and pundits alike often lament that “our immigration system is broken”
and that “comprehensive immigration reform” is the way to fix it. While these phrases are
certainly helpful insofar as they are digestible, they do little to explain why it is broken or what
reform actually looks like. Here, we will examine 3 key aspects to making the process of
immigration more humane and effective: the passage of the DREAM Act, the restructuring of
Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican and Dick Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, in an effort
to “provide undocumented youths who came to the United States before the age of sixteen a path
toward legalization on the condition that they attend college or serve in the U.S. military for a
minimum of two years while maintaining good moral character” (Odeja, Takash, 2010). While
the decade immediately following the bill’s introduction was defined by intensely anti-immigrant
policies, in 2010, the act gained momentum and seemed like it might be passed through both
chambers of Congress. Much of the rhetoric around the DREAM Act’s passage revolved around
the ways in which legal status could help to bolster U.S. interests. An Obama Administration
memo entitled “THE DREAM ACT: GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY, GOOD FOR OUR
SECURITY, GOOD FOR OUR NATION” was released detailing DREAMers ability to
“contribute to our military’s recruitment efforts and readiness”and “cut the deficit by $1.4 billion
and increase government revenues by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years.” Ultimately, the bill
passed a vote in the House of Representatives but failed to gain cloture in the Senate. As a result,
the millions who entered the country as children that could have gained citizenship lost their
opportunity. In 2014, Barack Obama signed an executive order called Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) granting protected status to approximately 671 million immigrants
but the order did not create the path to citizenship that they needed (Ehrenfreund, 2014).
beneficial for the United States but we propose its immediate passage on the grounds that it is a
necessary first step in changing the immigration system. It is vital to recognize that the bill is
imperfect to say the least; it “would not help [DREAMers’] families,” “only addresses a specific
time period,” and puts immigrants without degrees or a military record at risk of deportation
(Díaz-Strong, Gómez, Luna-Duarte, and Meiners, 2010). Still though, we must pass the act as a
means of, at the very least, solving a large problem while not giving up in the pursuit of larger
immigration reform. The DREAM Act would still give the opportunity of legal status to 2
million people and help them to gain stronger economic standings in the country (Odeja, Takash,
2010). Furthermore, DACA recipients have been put in danger by the Trump administration.
Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the status of DACA recipients has been in constant danger,
with President Trump consistently using them as bargaining chips in gaining funding for a border
wall (Oprysko, 2019). While a federal appeals court ruled in favor of DACA when Trump
challenged it in court and the Supreme Court refused to review ruling, the fact of the matter is
that DACA is in danger and no matter the DREAM Act’s imperfections, its beneficiaries deserve
Court Reform
Easily one of the largest issues facing the immigration system today is the
organization of immigration courts. According to the American Bar Association’s 2019 review
of the immigration system, immigration courts are reaching a breaking point. Starved for
resources, “we identified numerous issues hindering due process and the fair administration of
justice in the immigration court system, ranging from staffing, training and hiring issues to
adjudications) and the adoption of video-conference technologies that impeded fair hearings,”
the report read. This could easily be read, by many, as the entire system. The negative impact of
this disorganization is clear. With all of this comes a deeply inefficient system that serves to
benefit no one who enters the country. Furthermore, the court system fails the simple moral idea
of equal justice under the law; so long as immigration courts exist under the Department of
Justice, it is impossible for them to serve without political agenda (AILA, 2018). In the Trump
administration, this has meant that judges have been reviewed by the Attorney General to ensure
that they met a certain number of adjudicated cases, or face suspension or termination (AILA,
2018). Under the current system, immigration courts simply lack the resources and independence
political whims of the Department of Justice and provided with the resources necessary for a
court of its kind. First and foremost, this means building up staff to a level adequate for the
number of cases seen. While the it has been argued that the level of cases taken should be
decreased to levels on par with other courts, we must recognize that such a practice would
essentially mandate that fewer immigrants were given their due process each year; if we are to
create a more efficient system, we must increase resources so that the highest number of people
are given the best trials possible, not reduce the number of people seen by judges to meet the low
level of resources. As the ABA (2019) argues, the number of immigration judges should be
increased by at least 100, the ratio of clerks to judges must be at least 1:1, and judges need to
provided adequate training and funding. We must also move to ensure that each and every
immigrant seen in court receive adequate representation. The entirely dehumanizing and
ineffective method of utilizing video chat software to conduct trials must be ended immediately.
In an egregious violation of rights, immigrants are often not afforded the right to an attorney
which, naturally, has a negative effect on their ability to perform well in court. According to the
American Immigration Council (2016), “only 37 percent of all immigrants” and “14 percent of
detained immigrants” receive council. Roughly four times as many detained immigrants were
released with representation than without and about half of immigrants with legal representation
got immigration relief where under a quarter without representation did. It is clear that an
independent immigration court is paramount to a moral and effective immigration process and
Path to Citizenship
As it stands, the United States approaches the issue of citizenship in a way that is
almost entirely meaningless. While efforts were made by both the Bush and Obama
administrations to reform the immigration system, both not only came up short, but actively
increased immigration enforcement. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s 2019 budget
proposes “comprehensive immigration reform” and its economic benefits without explaining
what that reform looks like. Because of the passive treatment of immigration in Congress, the
path has been opened for anyone who cares to to further oppress the country’s immigrant
population. Under the Trump administration’s proposed xenophobic policies, immigration would
be greatly reduced while enforcement would see massive increases (Gelatt, Pierce, 2018). Under
his proposal, the ability to petition for family members would be lost in a massive blow to a
population that makes up 59% of Green Card holders (Gelatt, Pierce, 2018). His proposals go
even further than reducing immigration, scrapping the diversity visa lottery and proposing
allowing people into the country based on “merit” which corresponds with education level and
occupation (Gelatt, Pierce, 2018); while Obama proposed an “earned” immigration program,
earning it meant not being a criminal and passing a civics test, a far cry from the actively classist
and racist system that his successor is working to establish (The White House, 2013). Because of
the illegal status attributed to so many, a number of immigrants lack the autonomy to fully
participate in structures in the communities and the country in which they reside; this status
hamstrings their capacity to experience social and economic opportunity that they, as human
should be far more open and accessible to people no matter their background. The immigration
policies detailed above are untenable and inhumane. We do need comprehensive immigration
reform but we also need to redefine what that reform looks like. The strategy for creating a
stronger immigration process is two-pronged. The first has to do with our capacity to take on
new migrant populations. While popular rhetoric posits that there are too many immigrants, the
fact of the matter is that we can admit far more people per year than we currently do. Despite the
sentiment that we are a “nation of immigrants,” the population is only 13.5% where Canada’s is
20% (Dalmia, 2019). Keeping in mind that we are one of the largest countries in the world, this
means that there are millions that could have been granted citizenship but have not received it. It
is vital that we increase the number of immigrants admitted to the country per year to
percentages on par. We must also create a pathway to citizenship for the massive number of
currently undocumented immigrants that currently reside in the country so that we meet the
levels other wealthy nations. A recent Pew Research study found that there are just over 10
million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the country, though some have reported
numbers as high as 30 million (Passel, Cohn, 2018). A process has to be developed for these
people to be provided with the resources to obtain green cards and later become citizens of the
United States. This must also occur without the 3 and 10 year bans that some have proposed
which would force people to return to their country of origin for certain amounts of time before
re-entering the country. This process would consist of the same criminal background checks,
civics tests, and biometric data input, that all new citizens must go through, but would do away
with the fines paid for undocumented residence. It makes little sense to give a financial penalty
to people who are often taken advantage of economically and who, by all accounts, serve to help
enrich the economy rather than hurt it (Mathema, 2015). Ultimately, it should be clear that we
have to build an immigration system that works for immigrants, not against them. That means
making it accessible and efficient, and taking increased immigration enforcement off of the table.
III.
Our proposed policy would modernize and reform the current refugee and asylum
system, ensuring our country stand up to it’s principles of ensuring liberty and the pursuit of a
happiness for all, by leading the international community in creating a more humane process for
seeking refugee and asylum status by allowing for extreme economic conditions to be grounds
for both statuses. This reform would begin to correct injustices in the current system, granting
greater opportunity for applicants to access the help they need, while also ensuring greater
The refugee and asylum system as it stands currently, is flawed. Under the Trump
administration the pathway for seeking asylum has tightened, as the ceilings for refugee and
asylum seeker for 2019 falls at less than a third of the average ceiling over the last thirty years
(Lind, 2018), citizens of select Muslim countries have been temporarily barred seeking refugee
status (Exec. Order No. 13769, (2017)), USCIS offices abroad have been closed and staff have
been cut (Robbins & Jordan, 2018) that conduct interviews and screenings for refugee applicants
(Jordan, 2019). The system is also deeply flawed in that decreased opportunity for refugee
seekers and deep backlogs in immigration courts (where many asylum seekers and
undocumented immigrants find themselves) (Lou & Watkins, 2019), coupled with a lack of
guaranteed legal representation for either, makes seeking safety a resource based game. Even
worse is the fact that those that are able to afford counsel are exponentially more successful than
those without (as asylum seekers are four times more likely to be released from custody, and
undocumented immigrants are eleven times more likely to even seek asylum in the first place
(Eagly & Shafter, 2016), pointing to the fact that the inadequacy of our current system is what is
standing in the way of people who could qualify for asylum and refugee status.
In contrast, our proposed policy would be more effective procedurally, and in ensuring
applicant’s welfare, and giving them a much fairer shot, it would insure greater security for the
nation as a whole, and even save the country and tax payers money.
Cost
In determining the cost benefit of our policy proposal, we will first analyze the financial
burden of refugee and asylum seekers under the current system, to understand what effect
expansion might have. Next we will look at the financial impact of undocumented immigrants,
under the assumption that more undocumented immigrants would be able to apply for asylum
Experts have affirmed refugee and asylum seekers as beneficial to the American
economy time and time again. As recently as 2018 a leaked report from the Department of
Health and Human Services found that refugee and asylum seekers contributed a net fiscal
benefit of 63 billion dollars over the last ten years (U.S Department of Health and Human
Services, 2017), with the average refugee contributing more to the government in taxes than they
receive in benefits within five years of their resettlement (NY Times). Possibly even more
importantly to the average voter, refugee resettlement within a locality has a negligible effect on
the wages and employment of native workers (U.S Department of State, 2017).
On the undocumented side, experts suggest that contrary to popular belief, undocumented
immigration is not a financial burden to the United States, having little to no economic effect
overall (Hanson, 2015). Undocumented immigrants contribute to their state via property ($3.6
billion), income ($1.1 billion) and sales and excise tax ($6.9 billion) per year, paying an effective
tax rate on their income 2.6% higher than the top 1% of taxpayers on average nationally (Gee, &
Gardner, 2016), which exceeds the cost of education and healthcare that they incur
(Congressional Budget Office, 2007). Under our policy, undocumented immigrants would be
even more beneficial to the country, as refugee/asylum status and the “legalization” that it
ensure, would result in an increase in their tax contributions of more than two billion dollars
annually, as currently undocumented immigrants further comply with tax law, and see an
increase in wages as a result of their new “legal” status (Gee, & Gardner, 2016).
Effectiveness
There is ample evidence that undocumented immigrants empart on their journey for
economic reasons, and to insure the safety of themselves and their loved ones. This can be
observed anecdotally, and more generally through the decline in undocumented migration
following the 2008 economic recession, and the innumerable historic cases of undocumented
immigration flows mirroring economic conditions and opportunity in the United States (Hanson,
2015). More specifically, we see that undocumented immigrants uncoerced return migration is
“Dependent on the accumulation of savings,” in the United States (Chort & Rupelle, 2016). All
of this, along with the economic conditions in the countries from which most undocumented
immigration occurs (Congressional Research Service, 2019), supports our conclusion that our
expansion of the refugee and asylum definition to include economic refugees would allow the
protection.
Security
The creation of the economic refugee and asylum categories and the subsequent growth
in applications by currently undocumented people and those that might’ve otherwise become
undocumented, would ensure a more secure immigration system. At the moment, we have
both sides are truly concerned about the criminal nature of these undocumented immigrants
(New York Times, 2019), it would only make sense to want to vet them through our highly
intensive asylum system. The current process takes an average of six months, involving twelve
page application (Willingham, 2018), fingerprinting, with biographic information run through
five databases of various national intelligence and security agencies, as well as in person
interviews conducted by USCIS and DHS (U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2009).
The United States has the most advanced and secure system for vetting asylum seekers in the
world, and if undocumented immigrants are truly a threat, allowing them to seek asylum would
Human Rights
Last, but most importantly, is the effect this policy will have on human rights. Firstly, our
policy would of course expand the total number of people who could access asylum, not only by
raising the total ceiling and expanding the definition of a refugee and asylee, but also in the
increase in funding for translators and legal representation in both immigration courts and within
the refugee/asylum system, which both immigration judges and advocates are largely in favor of
(Medina, 2019). This increase can be funded at least partially by the increased tax revenues
The creation of the economic refugee status would also allow applicants to avoid the
dangerous, unjust, and sometimes deadly journey that undocumented immigration necessitates.
Migrants are often targeted for kidnapping (Amnesty International, 2014), must pay coyotes for
their smuggling and are often extorted by gangs and police for upwards of $10,000 (Kulish,
2018), and are subject to violence with up to one in three migrant women being sexually
assaulted (Kessler, 2019) on their thousand mile journeys. With our policy in place, however,
these migrants would have a much greater opportunity to apply for the both the economic and
broader refugee status from their home country, with greater funding meaning applicants
wouldn’t have to wait in their current situation for as long. The establishment of economic
asylum would also allow people to apply who, due to the direness of their situation, did not have
The creation of the label of economic refugee and asylees would be the largest piece of
immigration reform in the last century, with our policy ensuring the protection of more people in
need by allowing those already here to apply for legalization, allowing more people to apply for
refugee status from their home country instead of having to impart on a treacherous migration,
and making the process more just overall. In short, it’s the humane thing to do. However, the
increase in refugees in the country and the legalization of undocumented immigrants would also
benefit the American economy, and further ensure the security of every American.
Conclusion:
Lastly, through the short term and long term goals we have laid out, we hope to reform
the immigration system to a point where migrants are no longer de-humanized, mistreated or
enforcement, along with the abolishment of ICE, migrant bodies will not fear persecution for
coming to the U.S., and the rhetoric surrounding them will be restructured. In addition, the
creation of the economic refugee and asylee would allow for an immigration system that’s better
for the human rights of the migrant, and for the United State’s economy and security overall.
Furthermore, by passing the DREAM Act, establishing independent immigration courts, and
creating a pathway to citizenship, we can create a system that does right by those who work to