Today’s political environment, has seen more public dissatisfaction with an incoming president than any other time in recent history. Protests around the country are ongoing as people are voicing their opposition to new immigration policies and presidential actions deemed to be unethical, unconstitutional, and immoral. Although there are those who support President Trump’s view on immigration, there is a large contingent of the population who believe the president’s conduct is morally and ethically wrong. In contrast to what some see as wrong conduct, Geuras and Garofalo (2011) note, “Right conduct refers not only to the honest management of public resources but also to respect for the rights and dignity of persons within and outside of public organizations” (p. 321). Immigration rights groups and activists argue the new rules for deportation violate basic civil rights and harm the dignity of those immigrants …show more content…
This is creating an atmosphere of mistrust and disrespect for the Trump administration. This perceived lack of “right conduct” on President Trump’s part, has made it all but impossible for him to garner the support of the citizenry to trust him to govern effectively in a bi-partisan manner. The inability of people to trust, or even respect the president, has many calling into question his judgement on other political decisions. Whether the president’s action is right or wrong depends on one’s moral and ethical point of view. Consequently, this issue has strong emotions tied to it. Many believe his actions are clearly in direct opposition to the statement, "right conduct in government translates into a well-founded respect for, and trust of government on the part of the
In his study The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate, Andrew Rudalevige examines the American presidency and how it has changed over time. First off what is an Imperial Presidency? An imperial presidency is a term that was coined around the 1960s by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. In the beginning of the book Rudalevige states, “Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. had affixed an enduring adjective to the Nixon Presidency: Imperial. This didn’t mean that the president literally had become emperor but suggested the occupant in office exercised more absolute power.”
The United States has long wrestled with questions over immigration policy, with heavy partisan rancor characterizing the nature of illegal immigration as a political issue. As a humanitarian, economical and sociological issue, illegal immigration is not only a pressing issue but one that can invoke highly charged and emotional reaction from both sides. This was amply demonstrated this past week when President Obama announced that the Department of Homeland Security would be granting 'deferred action' status to a category of illegal immigrants falling into a qualifying set of demographic conditions. According to Julia Preston & John H. Cushman Jr.'s 2012 New York Times article entitled "Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S," the President used his executive authority to limit the number of deportations committed upon illegal immigrants by easing the status of the youngest of these.
Like many of Trump’s actions since taking office, the public and the media has castigated this decision. Julian Zelizer published an opinion piece on CNN arguing that this demonstrates Trump’s inclination towards imperial leadership. Beginning in the title “With Arpaio pardon, Trump shows he wants to be the imperial president,” Ziezler uses an almost remarkable multitude of logical fallacies to convey his argument. Specifically,
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals also commonly referred to as DACA has recently been rescinded by our President Donald J. Trump. The authors of this article, Alexander Burns and Vivian Yee do a very clear job of getting the job across that what President Trump did was unacceptable, they create an objective article by stating pure facts, but also use specific wording to try to make it sound like Donald Trump is even worse of a President than the American people believed. They bring up controversial parts of this presidency, for example “In an echo of the campaign against Mr. Trump’s effort this year to ban travelers from parts of the Muslim world...” This creates a form of pathos by giving the reader worse thoughts about Donald Trump.
The new president has signed a lot of orders. There is one major topic that he talks about which is sanctuary cities and their fundings. In this essay, I’m going to talk about how Donald Trump is taking away funds from the sanctuary cities. This is happening because of the help they are giving to immigrants. The second thing is how these decision affects many immigrants and their families. I know that there’s a lot of people who disagree with these cities. I am in favor, because there are many immigrants that come to the United states in seek of a better life. To live the “American dream.” These immigrants are not here to harm America in any way.
In response to, “President Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration,” the presidents of many prestigious colleges wrote Donald Trump a letter that was released publicly. In this letter, they provide their grievances to Trump’s proposed methods of controlling immigration. They utilize scholarly diction, repetitious descriptions of America, and appealing to the mindset of majority of modern people to convince Trump of their argument.
The passage analyzed in this independent study activity is a speech on immigration delivered by Donald J. Trump in Phoenix on August 31st, 2016. During his speech, Trump clearly asserted his hard-line approach to illegal immigration in United States.
Trump’s decision to falsely accuse the Central Park Five of doing past crimes is, in my opinion, very racist. He had no evidence or facts against the boys, he just assumed they had committed crimes because of the color of their skin. He was wrong for doing so, however, he wasn’t wrong for thinking they were the ones who raped the woman. The teens did indeed confess to doing the crime so what person wouldn’t believe they did it. Everyone believed them because they confessed to doing it. After 27 years, Trump should really apologize to the Central Park Five for treating them so poorly. Our country’s president should be the mature person he is supposed to be and apologize.
The U.S. has always being considered the land of opportunities. Back in my home country opportunities were very scarce, which led to my family immigrating to the U.S. for a better future. Having had firsthand experience in the immigration transition system, it has been captivating to hear in the news about the Executive Order Obama issued on November 20, 2014. Seeing families getting separated, violence raising in the Mexican border, and the increasing Latin population in the U.S. signaled the need for this Executive Order in immigrant communities. Even though the Constitution states that Congress has the duty of writing our Nation’s laws, President Obama declared an Executive Order on Immigration. It is believed to be a political boom for
Michael Walzer’s Membership and Joseph Carens’s Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders present two strikingly different views on the justifiability of restrictions on immigration. In essence, Walzer argues that restrictions are generally justifiable, and Carens argues that they are not. In this essay, I will argue that Carens’s view is the more compelling one due to the following central reason: it promotes freedom of the individual. I will then apply Carens’s and Brown’s arguments to Donald Trump’s immigration policy, specifically his proposal to build a wall in order to keep immigrants from unlawfully entering the country. I will argue that this proposal is a marked move towards injustice and xenophobia disguised as an attempt to reclaim state sovereignty.
It is important for businesses and professionals to be versed in ethical issues because it helps with decision-making when faced with different situations that create a moral dilemma. Business and professional ethics help to develop a certain moral standard and expectation in the business world. The ethics in which a business or a professional operates within benefits both the giver and receiver. Engaging in the exchange of goods, services and information requires some level of trust in order to maintain civility. The thought that a person or a business is doing things that are unethical
Immigration issues have become a widely talked issue among people, since Paris was attacked in November 2015 by terrorists who migrated to France from Syria as refugees (Gallagher, 2015). In America where the Presidential Election is going to be held, people eagerly care about how the presidential candidates stand for immigration issue, because immigrants can seriously affect people’s daily lives: immigrants bring America lots of advantages both economically and culturally; however, immigrants do have drawbacks: illegal immigrants shared most of the welfare from programs provided by government, like “food stamps and Medicaid” (Meyer, 2015). All the presidential candidates have clear positions for immigration issue, and Donald Trump – the most popular and eye-catching candidate – is not an exception. As a conservative right-wing Republican, Donald Trump wishes to reduce, or even stop people migrating to America.
With immigration policy being front and center, Americans find themselves in this 2016 election year with so many candidates and so many competing viewpoints. The sheer volume of election year rhetoric can be overwhelming, confusing, and sometimes downright nauseating. In his article “Imagining the Immigrant: Why Legality Must Give way to Humanity”, the emeritus professor at Dominican University of California, John J. Savant, expresses, “The world now watches to see how well our behavior will match our lofty rhetoric” (375). Americas have a duty to maintain the nation by exercising their right to vote. Specifically, a mandate to reform the current national immigration policies by electing politicians that will promote a secure border, while enriching the nation with an influx of tax paying, hard working, law abiding, peaceful and productive immigrants from impoverished neighbors, Such as Mexico and
The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.
The main focus of this week’s readings was about the United States reception of immigrants through policy. From the Martin reading, we saw that there are two main approaches to immigrant policy. They may be accommodating or they can also be restrictive. For the former, these policies extend rights to unauthorized immigrants, such as access to health care or tuition assistance. These policy tend to appear where there has been a history of unauthorized immigrants and the local populace does not see the harm in having them within their city. Varsayani describes sanctuary ordinance as a cities declaration of noncooperation with federal immigration authorities. These cities will choose to deal with unauthorized immigrant as a citizen of that city and will only contact federal immigration authorities in case of a felony. On the other hand, there are the exclusionary policy approaches that are undertaken by state and local level governments. Varsayani explains that when a city or state experiences a large influx of immigrants whether they may be legal or illegal there sometimes is a negative reaction to their arrival. Often fueled by fear many citizens make assumptions about illegal immigrants and join together to pass ordinances or propositions that would make it difficult for those immigrants to live in their city or state. Whenever states or local governments do this they preempt their power over immigration issues that are not part of their jurisdiction. This is often done