FREE ESSAY ON ETHICAL ISSUES IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICIES

ETHICAL ISSUES IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICIES

The sun seems unrelenting as it beats down on the two families huddled together in a
rickety makeshift boat. The rafters have been floating in the open sea for what seems to
them like years. Their food and water supplies have run out and the littlest ones cry out
of hunger. But the keep going. Because they know that once their feet touch the land of
opportunity their prayers will be answered. Finally, their raft makes it to the
ankle-deep waters and they are only a few short steps away from dry land and freedom. As
quickly as the wave of relief and happiness rushes over the rafters, so does it
disappear. The Coast Guard is there and telling them that they will be shipped back. So
close to freedom.
Other families know what its like to have freedom snatched away. After years of working
six days a week for miniscule wages, sewing dresses or picking vegetables, they have had
freedom and the opportunity of a better life taken away after being rounded up by
Immigration Naturalization Services and deported back to Guatemala, Honduras, or Mexico.
These are only two examples of the travesties that occur daily in the land of opportunity
and freedom-the Unites States of America. The United States was built by immigrants, many
seeking a new life in a new land. Before 1882, anyone could move to the United States. As
the population grew, however, the Federal government decided to control immigration. But
they have done this in a very inconsistent manner, letting some people in from one
country more than others from another country. The current U.S. immigration policy is
immoral, unethical and inconsistent in its dealings with immigrants.
Early immigration laws aimed to preserve the racial, religious, and ethnic composition of
the United States, which was then largely European (Wilbanks, 1993, p.1). The first
immigration laws were aimed at nonwhites. In 1882, for example, the Chinese Exclusion Act
suspended immigration from China for sixty years. In addition, in 1907, President
Roosevelt, negotiated an informal "gentleman's agreement" with Japan, under which the
United States promised to desegregate its California schools in exchange for the promise
from the Japanese government to stop the immigration of its citizens (Anderson, 1998,
p.2). 
Soon, however, Americans were complaining about European immigrants as well, especially
those of eastern and southern Europe. As a consequence, Congress passed a new law in 1921
based on quotas; only a certain number of individuals with a given background or heritage
could move to the United States. And only 30 percent of those could be from eastern or
southern Europe (Anderson, 1998, p.2). Again in 1952, we see the same kind of
discrimination when President Truman signed the McCarran-Walter Act. Under this law,
ideology became a criterion for admission. Political beliefs were questioned as the
government sought to weed out people with even a marginally communist background
(Wilbanks, 1993, p.4).
In the last half of the century new laws emerged seeking to abolish quotas that
discriminated against nationalities, replacing it instead with an overall limit of
immigrants allowed into the country. These new policies, however, not only did not end
discrimination and unethical treatment against immigrants but also touched off a serious
illegal immigration problem. The latest and most extensive of these laws came with the
1996 Immigration Act which doubled the U.S.-Mexico border control force to 10,000 agents
over five years and adds fences to the most heavily trafficked areas of the U.S.-Mexico
border.
The controversy over immigration emerges between advocates of the open door policy and
those who support restrictions on immigration. Those Americans who support restrictions
on the number of immigrants allowed into the United States annually feel that our country
is "running out of room" (Carr, 199, p.2). They also feel that we are being overrun by
immigrants who intent on draining our resources. On the other hand, those who support an
open-door policy, feel that the unethical treatment of immigrants must stop.
These open-door supporters argue that the 700,000 immigrants allowed into the country
annually is not enough. This overall limit should be lifted and replaced with an
open-door policy, which would allow any number of people in without question. These
supporters also feel that shipping rafters back even if they are inches away from dry
U.S. soil is immoral. And worse yet, deporting families who came here illegally but
worked in the fields or did numerous other jobs that most U.S. citizens do not want to
begin with is unethical.
These policies demonstrate that this country has a hypocritical value system. On one hand
we value our heritage and the fact that we are all descendants of immigrants overcoming
enormous obstacles to come to the land of the free. We value the ideal that Emma Lazarus
penned on the Statue of Liberty when she wrote "Send these, the homeless, the tempesttost
to me, /lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Now the consensus and un-American attitude
has become "shut the door behind you." We value our heritage so much that almost every
generation has drawn up some barriers to immigration. Now we value keeping out the same
people as our ancestors once were, looking for a better life and freedom. As pat Buchanan
wrote in 1996 in a column against immigration, " When did we vote to rid America of her
'dominant European culture'?" He supplies the answer to his own question: "Never"
(Wilbanks, 1993, p.4).
In a recent article in the Miami New Times, Defede (1999) writes that the "immorality of
America's immigration policy exists not in its treatment of Cubans, but in its treatment
of the rest of the world when compares with Cubans" (Defede, 1999, p.13). Defede feels
that the United States is inconsistent with its immigration policy and is especially
lenient towards Cubans. According to Defede, it is immoral to repatriate a Cuban refugee
caught in the surf, so close to dry land and freedom. But he says the problem exists
because the U.S. allows Cubans who reach dry land to stay in the U.S. and grants them
residency 366 days after they arrived. That is the lure that brings the Cubans and the
promise that they risk their lives for. Eliminate this and the illegal immigration from
Cuba would slow to a trickle, according to Defede.
The U.S. policy towards Haiti, however, couldn't be any more contradictory. According to
an editorial written in America (1992), a U.S. District Judge tried to halt U.S* efforts
to ship back some two-thirds of the 15,000 Haitians who had left their homes after the
military coup that overthrew the government of Jean Bertrand-Aristide. The U.S. Supreme
Court lifted the ban and the Coast Guard began removing more than 10,000 Haitian refugees
being detained at the U.S* Naval base in Guantanamo Bay. This led to a hunger strike by
the then 82 year-old humanitarian Katherine Dunham. Also, according to the article, an
outcry erupted from U.S. Catholic bishops who said it was "morally irresponsible" and
"morally questionable" (America, 1992, p.1). The article also quotes the Catholic
Archbishop Edward A. McCarthy who said, "It is only natural that the refugees experience
should spawn well-founded suspicions that the treatment received by Haitians is the
result of institutional racism. Only 55 out of 9,000 Haitians are granted political
asylum, while there is no publicly recorded case of any one of some 10,000 predominantly
white Cuban boat people being denied admission" (America, 1992, p.1).
Another author argues that the U.S. immigration policy takes away our freedom to act as
humanitarians (Wilbanks, 1993, p.1). Wilbanks goes on to say that national governments
make decisions about refugee admission on the basis of national self-interest and that
humanitarianism takes a back seat. Wilbanks feels that the U.S. should view refugees from
a religious point of view instead of a pure national interest view. In this way, Wilbanks
feels, citizens will not see refugees as strangers or objects for receiving but instead
as people made in God's image with whom to enter into a relationship (Wilbanks, 1993,
p.4).
In a recent article by Carr (1999), she examines the recent immigration laws as being
unethical. As an immigration lawyer she deals with immigrants seeking asylum or fighting
to not be deported. One case Carr gives as an example is of a young man who was guilty of
the "crime" of working in the United States without permission. He was doing work that
most Americans won't do in order to support his American wife and child. Carr had to
break the news of his deportation back to Mexico to him. In another case, a mother was
deported away from her six-month old baby. There wasn't time to arrange for the baby to
travel with her so she was sent back to Mexico alone. In her desperation to get back to
her baby, she died in the heat of the New Mexico desert (Carr, 1999, p.1.)
This is the kind of unethical treatment of immigrants by the U.S. that Carr speaks out
against. One of the new laws that Carr is opposed to is the requirement that a
petitioning relative provide a guarantee to support the new immigrant-even if the
petitioner is a woman with young children who herself depends on the immigrant husband
for his support (Carr, 1999, p.2). Carr does not understand why such laws were passed
when several studies concluded that new immigrants contribute more to the economy overall
than they take out. In addition, immigrants do not commit proportionately more crimes
than American citizens do. Carr contends that immigrants bring energy and expertise to a
jaded society (Carr, 1999, p.2).
Proposition 187, California's notorious ballot initiative to deny schooling and medical
care to illegal immigrants, spawned a wave of controversy when passed in 1994. In Rosin's
(1995) article she examines some of the un-American and immoral attitudes towards
immigrants. Rosin (1995) quotes one Republican, Marge Roukema, as saying, "These
criminals come here to prey on American citizens." Another Republican, Lamor Smith,
sponsored a House bill, which in part would put a cap of 330,000 family-sponsored
immigrants. In addition, it would cut down the total number of immigrants by 25 percent
from 800,000 to 600,000 by the end of the century (Rosin, 1995, p.1).
This un-American attitude, according to Rosin, is spurred by the belief that immigrants
are welfare sponges. Republican Alan Simpson goes as far as to threaten deportation for
legal immigrants who make 'excessive use of welfare' in their first five years (Rosin,
1995,p.2). According to the article, a recent Urban Institute study shows that
working-age non-refugee immigrants are less likely than natives to be on welfare.
Activists to ensure a more ethical treatment of immigrants have suggested several
strategies. For a more humane approach to reduce the influx of Cubans to our shores
Defede (1999) suggests an end to the "wet-feet policy." Defede also suggests curtailing
smugglers who bring Cubans ashore by perhaps using the FBI or the Navy. As mentioned
earlier, Defede feels the "wet-feet policy" is unethical and cruel to those Cubans who
risk their lives only to be repatriated when caught before they could step on dry U.S.
soil. Defede suggests ending repatriations altogether and says that if Castro threatens
to unleash another flood of refugees that we encircle the island with warships and cut
off all oil shipments to his country (Defede, 1999, p.13).
In response to the Haitian refugees, activists have suggested that all boat people be
granted refuge for a time. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk said that even Haitians who cannot
qualify for political asylum deserve the shelter provided by the legal remedy called
Temporary Protected Status (America, 1993, p.183).
The United States Government and its citizens need to re-examine the immigration policy.
Allowing 700,000 immigrants into the country a year is not enough. Instead we need an
open-door policy. The overall limit gives the INS too much power to pick and choose whom
they feel should be let in. A 700,000-year immigrants cap also encourages illegal
immigration. American's are always saying, " If those people want to get in let them do
it the legal way." Well, given the means and resources most immigrants would most
definitely choose to come legally as opposed to climbing high barbed-wire fences or
floating for days on a raft. The fact that we allow people to die trying to get to our
soil is an inhumane, immoral, and unethical as forcing Africans to this country and
turning them into slaves. An open-door policy would also end the inconsistency of the
current immigration policy. Presently, we allow thousands of Cubans to enter the U.S. and
to remain as residents while the majority of Haitians are turned back. 
We have an historic commitment to immigration and we need to remember that immigrants
keep our nation strong, economically competitive, and culturally rich. The question of
whether America's doors should be open or closed will continue to be intensely debated in
the courts, in Congress, and in communities where immigrants settle.
Bibliography
WORKS CITED
Anderson, George M. (1998). Fortress North America: the new immigration law. America,
178, 3.
Carr, Ann (1999). Deporting Resident Aliens: No Compassion, No Sense. America, 180, 6,
18.
Defede, Jim (1999). Life in the Echo Chamber. Miami New Times, 14, 13-15.
Rosin, Hanna (1995). Strange Days. The New Republic, 213, 11.
Wilbanks, Dana W. (1993). The moral debate between humanitarianism and national interest
about U.S. refugee policy; a theological perspective. Migration World Magazine, 21, 15.
Throwing people back is no good. (1992). America, 166, 183. 
Questions about the golden door. (1993). America, 168, 3.