In many cases individuals are label as refugees after being permitted to stay in the United States after applying for admission. Most of these immigrants have fled due of the fear of persecution due to their race, social clique, political officially, religion, or national origin. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors, such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the President of the United States and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the United States. (American Immigration Council, 2016) After the events of September 11,2001, the number of approved admissions fell due to the increase in the complexity of security checks. The Department of Homeland Security determined the total amount of refugees’ admission permitted into the United States for 2016 was approximately 85,000. For those that individuals that reach the United Stated before applying for refugee; there is option for them to seek out asylum within the country. The individual must declare that they are seeking asylum at any port of entry or within one year after arriving in the United States. Currently, the immigration policies don’t limit the number of individuals who are granted
In November 2016, Donald Trump was elected as president of the United States. This took a toll for many Americans and the potential changes coming our way. After a few months of his presidency, immigration became the spotlight of news discussions and social media. It started with a wall being built along the United States and Mexican border to the current travel ban. There has been pros and cons towards immigration, whether or not it would benefit or hurt our society. In the article, “The Pros and Cons of the Trump Immigration Ban Policy,” the author analyzes the pros and cons of the immigration ban policy presented by President Donald Trump. Saladan analyzes information on the growing refugee population from 1975 to 2017. The author begins their argument with the potential outcomes of restricting travel of foreigners and the different countries that are banned, which involved North Korea and 5 middle eastern countries. Saladan conveys important details regarding the refugee policy’s within this ban. He continues to state the influence with religious beliefs coming into play with this policy. Saladan states, “One of the most controversial parts of the order is under its section on refugee policy, namely its prioritization of religious minorities claiming religious persecution.” (Saladan 1) In the article, Saladan and I share the same view of the refugee policy and the effects of millions based on the implementations of
There needs to be reform not only the issue of illegal immigration but also on legal immigration and refugee and asylum policies; the three main reforms that I will cover in this paper. Current immigrant policy allows for around 1 million immigrants allowed into this country every year. Although this may seem like a low number compared to the current population of nearly 300 million people who currently live in the unites states the
From the late 80’s when we only had 20 thousand people applying for political asylum a year to the 2000’s when we had over 160,000 people applying a year. The numbers began to sky rocket , rising in a problem wed soon have to face. We are giving full trust on claims made by aliens whom we know nothing about or of. Because of the nature of asylum claims, the claimant’s true background and history are difficult to verify, and it is nearly impossible to determine whether a claimant is genuine or is a threat to the well being and safety of our society. One example I would like to bring up is from 2013 better known as the “Boston Marathon bombing”. Tamerlane Tsarnaev & Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, two young men who came to the U.S. under political asylum with extremist Islamic beliefs. Their arrival resulted 280 injuries of innocent people, and took the life of 5 more innocent people. They came into our country legally without us knowing anything about them among with the thousands more who come in to our country ever
Bureaucratic discretion – also known as “bureaucratic disentitlement” – is often written into a policy with the explicit intent of restricting access to benefits (Heinrich, 2016). Inconsistent communication, duplicated document requests, and the lack of designated case workers suggest that the policy was not designed with optimum effectiveness in mind. Additionally, one of the major components of the SIV application process required an applicant to establish that they are experiencing an ongoing serious threat because of their employment with the United States Government. In addition, the threat had to be corroborated through a risk assessment conducted by the Chief of Mission or a designee of the Chief of Mission (Congress, 2008). Requiring an individual to provide evidence that their life is in danger – and that the danger is due to their employment with the U.S. government and not due to other factors – before accepting their application produces a perverse incentive for an individual to wait to seek asylum until their situation becomes the most precarious. As many applicants found out, even when there was evidence of a substantial threat, the byzantine application process did not grant them refugee status before harm befell them and their families (Oliver, 2014; Johnson, 2013). If maximum take-up of the program was the desired outcome, the policy should have been designed to reduce
This issue was chosen due to its scope. The Syrian refugee crisis is among a list of issues that will not only shape the world in 2016 but also dominate news outlets in upcoming years. Because of the despairing situation, many governments are struggling to find ways to handle the rush of individuals seeking asylum, for the fact that it seems the crisis is worsening. In addition, the media coverage on the topic sparked my interest and led me to research information because I had no idea what was occurring and the detriment of the issue.
Political unrest and local war happens around the world all the time. Many people live in a dangerous situation and suffered from violence. Hence, large amount of asylum seeker undertakes a huge perilous, try to cross the ocean and arrive Australia. To deal with this issue, Australian government enacted mandatory detention policy and offshore processing policy, these policies become highly contentious in the community with many arguments and criticisms. This report will focus on the nature and purpose of these immigration policies and the impact towards the asylum seeker as well as the criticism form international. To propose some advice about how the future policies should be framed.
The post 9/11 phase saw a considerable increase in deportation in the United States and a decrease in immigration. In fact, multiple measures were taken to strengthen the immigration system and alter the country’s view and debate of immigration which was, and still is, a hot topic. In 2002, the Bush Administration passed the Homeland
As a result of the 2001 September 11th attacks, a series of catastrophic, heartbreaking incidents which claimed the innocent, helpless lives of approximately 3,000 individuals, the implementation of increased foreign affair regulation, and more stringent guidelines related to the admission and monitoring of legal immigrants, highlights the profound effect induced upon the controversial issue of immigration in response to these drastic terrorism events, a pivotal moment redefining the perception of immigration held by individuals in the United States. In fact, in consequence to the attacks, the United States government supported the implementation and ratification of the Homeland Security Act, a submission validated by President Bush which facilitated
More than any country in the world, the United States has been a haven for refugees fleeing religious and political persecution in their home countries. Linked forever to the phrase inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," the United States, in the eyes of persecuted people throughout the world, has been idealized as a land of freedom and new beginnings. However, the changing face of refugees seeking asylum in the United States in the past several decades has exposed stark gaps in the legal, administrative, and social treatment of
America since then has become disdainful and pessimistic on foreign travelers entering the U.S, giving Americans’ that idea instilled that either all of them pose a threat or none of them do, leaving americans no option or evidence as to why to trust on good heart anymore. Edward Danticat explores what The United States has evolved to after 9/11 and the increased security procedures before taking in foreign immigrants and refugees that pose threat. The trauma of 9/11 caused an longing effect that lowered the systematic security of the U.S to Retaliate against terrorism no chances can be taken, never again. Noting also “Safety through Immigration Control”, Krikorian exploits the awareness of Islamic terrorism that has spread and can be most notably identified with Middle eastern descent civilians, to which can only be assumed today given the circumstance and “suspicion”. While this goes as an immoral justification as a means of National Security, it goes to question if these “random” searches are legitimate and if they really have accomplished any sense
This research describes the legal ins and outs of American immigration policy, citizenship, ‘border control’, and the relationship between foreign policy and constitutional law, regarding refugees. Since the birth of the United States in 1776, citizens, from countries all around the world have considered making the trek to America, in hopes of pursuing a different, more prosperous life. Yet, many of history’s hopeful travellers have learned- legally entering America is potentially the most strenuous part of finding their place, in the country. From the late 18th Century until now, there has been gradual increase not only in the quantity of immigrants from around the world, but also the amount of countries these immigrants are
A third concern entails the imposition of a time limit requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice is concerning as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal to
A third concern entails the establishment of a time limit, requiring “asylum seekers to file their claims within one year” of their arrival; notably, if it is not demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that” the claim was filed within the one-year deadline, the “claim for asylum will be rejected” (Asthana, 2011, p.37). Asthana (2011) refutes this practice, as “Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention prohibits the return of a refugee to a country where […] life would be threatened on account of […] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (p.38). Consequently, concerns are raised, as a strict “enforcement of the one-year time limit implies that an asylum claimant who would be capable of establishing all the requisite elements necessary to achieve asylum may nevertheless be denied protection” if they fail to meet the deadline (Asthana, 2011, p.38). Thus, the “result is contrary to article 33(1) as it threatens the refoulement of a genuine refugee” (Asthana, 2011, p.39). Consequently, the UNHCR has argued that an asylum request should not be “excluded from consideration” simply due to the “failure to meet a filing deadline” (Settlage, 2012, p.159). Due to the “exceedingly complex” process, this practice raises concern as “[t]here are no exceptions for missing this deadline”; in fact, even “the failure to include information required on the application, or any errors or inconsistencies in the application, […] can be fatal