Analysis Of Articles On Immigration In The United States
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/01/17/low-income-immigrants-face-barriers-u-s-citizenship/ This news article was published by Stanford University News, and the article was written by Alex Shashkevich, a Humanities Public Information Officer at Stanford University. The article addresses how low-income immigrants are being blocked of naturalization because of its high application fee and the researchers prove it by creating a study that shows how naturalization application rates increased by 41 percent. Alex is a journalist that specializes in research that happens in the humanities and social science department at Stanford University.
The News Editing staff collected this information from the Stanford Immigration Policy Lab, and the research team have been studying on this certain issue since 2015 and have been meeting with the New York State Office for naturalization application fees to decrease. Stanford University Communications deliver fact-based news from other news articles and studies that help understand certain issues; the publisher is conveying that the high fee applications for citizenship is blocking the low-income immigrants to become citizens. The purpose of this article is to inform people on the struggles low-income immigrants face when trying to apply for naturalization. The audience includes people who are conducting research on this issue, government officials, and anyone who has an interest in immigration and citizenship. The article was published in 2018, fairly recent, and still applies to the difficulty of becoming a U.S. citizen.
The article begins by discussing about how lowering the application fee for a citizenship can help immigrants become citizens and give them the same benefits as U.S. citizens. The research team started this study by researching on low-income immigrants who registered for vouchers that will cover the naturalization application fee. NaturalizeNY is comprised of Stanford’s Immigration Policy Lab, the New York State Office for New Americans, Robin Hood, and the New York Community Trust. This program pays for low-income immigrants' application fees for a citizenship, giving them the opportunity to apply for no cost. After NaturalizeNY was launched, the research team saw that the application rates increased by 41 percent compared to the immigrants who got the vouchers.
Therefore, the research team wanted to continue with the program after they saw the major increase on the application rates; they did surveys on the low-income immigrants and it showed that most immigrants wanted to become citizens. But because of the high application rate; they couldn’t afford to apply for a citizenship causing the naturalization rates to decrease in the U.S. Out of the people who applied for the vouchers, 1,760 immigrants were eligible for a federal fee waiver and were notified of NaturalizeNy; the immigrants were receiving emails, phone calls, letters, and even metro cards for transportation, but none of that increased the rates. Duncan Lawrence, executive director of the Immigration Policy Lab states that “It is clear that we have more to learn about what sorts of cost-effective nudges may or may not work.” Making the research team continue the study of what barriers low-income immigrants face applying for naturalization.
I plan on utilizing this article to reinforce my viewpoint that a citizenship should not be difficult for applicants. Using the data shown in the article that discusses how naturalization rates increased by 41 percent, and how in 1970, the naturalization application fee increased from $35 to $725. This information will be background knowledge to show that government officials are not encouraging to make a new law that will decrease the application fee for immigrants who make less than the average person. Additionally, I plan on providing evidence that it is possible to make becoming a citizen easier for immigrants by using the fact that other states are creating programs to get immigrants to become citizens by waiving their application. Lastly, I might use the examples on how the research team encouraged the immigrants who were eligible for the fee waiver by giving phone calls, emails, and to an extreme; $10 metro cards for transportation. This article will assist me with my argument about how the high cost fees for application to citizenship can make becoming a citizen problematic for immigrants.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/ice-immigration-customs-enforcement-trump-democrats. This newspaper article was published through Guardian Newspapers and the Guardian Media Group. This news report expresses how at an event in Montana, Donald Trump says “We protect Ice.” replying to the discussion's democrats have been making on abolishing I.C.E. The purpose of this article is to inform others and clarify that not all democrats agree with abolishing I.C.E. The author, Sabrina Siddiqui, is a political reporter for the Guardian Newspapers that is based in Washington, DC. Sabrina concentrates more on political based news that includes the United States rather than news happening in one state. The Guardian Newspaper have liberal beliefs, so the authors and editors advocate more on the liberal side making both sides neutral. This source is intended for middle-age people specifically middle-age people who are democrats and does not require any specialized knowledge to understand. This article was published in 2018, which is still current, and is still relevant to my argument.
Throughout this article, Sabrina comments mainly on Trump and his supporters wanting to protect I.C.E. and to continue with the enforcement laws. Around this time, Trump was 2 years into his term and during the midterm he wanted to expand on what he said about democrats wanting to abolish I.C.E. In Addition, Trump had migrant parents separated from their children as well; with Trump saying that democrats want to abolish I.C.E, it created a distraction so that he could fix what he did and try to have almost 3,000 children reunited with their migrant parents. Kristen Gillibrand, a senator of New York, are one of the democrats calling for I.C.E to be abolished, she states “We believe that we should protect families that need our help and that is not what Ice is doing today.”. Alexandria Ocasico-Cortez, an activist, made abolishing I.C.E. a key principle of her platform having other democrats such as Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren and many more support her. The democratic party always had an advantage over the republicans on the issue of immigration, but when it comes to I.C.E its different and more complex.
Obama had Ice focus more on the immigrants who were committing crimes and committing serious felonies that could harm the U.S. David Leopold, an immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association states “When Trump came into power, within a couple weeks, they threw out all commonsense immigration enforcement priorities. They basically said to Ice, go grab anyone you can.”; Leopold makes good points because for Trump to not only have I.C.E deport every illegal immigrant in the U.S., he has the illegal immigrant families separated from each other making it difficult for the families to reunite. During the first nine months of Trump in office, arrest by I.C.E rose by 42% and the overall arrest was 30% higher in 2017 than 2016. I.C.E. agents are distancing themselves from the Trump administration policies because it’s making it perplex for the agents to investigate on the immigrants who are a threat to the country. When the democrats say abolish I.C.E., it is not about removing the enforcement, it’s about abolishing the inhumane treatments the enforcement is giving to these families and abolishing the abuse.
For my main argument, I anticipate on using the statistics on how arrests by Ice rose to 42% and in Trump’s first year in office, it grew 30% higher than the previous year. For my refute, I plan on adding how Obama changed the immigration policy to just focus on undocumented immigrants that have committed serious felonies. When Obama made that policy, it gave undocumented immigrants time to apply for a citizenship or a green card; which is a way to make the naturalization process easier for immigrants. In addition, I will also add the main idea of the article which was that I.C.E needs to be reinforced, not abolished. My opponents are likely to agree with Trump saying that “We protect ICE” and the “zero tolerance” policy that caused families to separate. I will know what to reply with which is that Trump tried to reverse families separating by having I.C.E reunite the families while Trump tries to distract that information by saying that democrats what I.C.E abolished. In addition, I will also use this information for my concession so that the opponents can understand. Lastly, I might insert some quotes of Senators Kristen Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren, when Warren states “We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom,” it agrees with my argument. And for my opponents, I will add a quote from Jeff Sessions, an attorney general, stating that anyone entering the country illegally would be prosecuted. This isn’t fair to the undocumented immigrants who leave their country illegally because many leave because of danger.
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article/65/1/96/3058566. The journal atricle Social Problems, is a series journal that contains different articles based on different social issues in Oxford Academic library databases. Volume 65, Issue 1, discusses about the different campaigns that include the different immigration policies. The article speaks about the analysis on 125 anti-deportation campaigns led by undocumented youth groups in the United States. The purpose of this article is to inform on how undocumented youth organizations use citizenship frames to highlight the different cultural and social practices associated with citizenship. The author, Caitlin Patler, is Assistant Professor of Sociology at University of California at Davis. She is a faculty affiliate at the Center of Poverty Research, the Human Rights Program and many more. The Press at Oxford University published this journal article; the purpose of this publication was to inform the audience on the certain tactics undocumented youth organizations use to get their point across by showing the analysis on the 125 anti-deportation campaigns. Members of anti-deportation organizations, immigrants, and people who research about immigration would be the intended audience for this article. The publication of this article was recently, in 2018, still applying to the argument that the naturalization process should be easier for immigrants.
The U.S. government deported over four million undocumented immigrants between 1997 and 2012. Undocumented students have been able to make claims for their legal and social identification; they are recognized for using their voice to advocate for pro-immigrant legislation to stop deportation and detention. The campaigns use citizenship frames to reflect and influence laws and policies which can reinforce the alienation of other immigrants. With these anti-deportation organizations, they introduced pro-immigrant legislatives such as the DREAM act, a proposal to give undocumented minors residency and qualification to attend school. The 125 anti-deportation organizations Patler used are led by two national undocumented youth organizations in the United Stated between February 2009 and December 2012, United We Dream (UWD) and Dream Activist (DA), and their local organizational members. UWD and DA are the two largest organizations representing the undocumented youth across the nation. In June 2011, John Morton, a I.C.E. director, updated the deportation guideline stating that immigrants who have completed high school or college were a low priority for deportation; this is called the Morton Memo. Patler then created a campaign database of information about case subjects; for instance, sex, origin, student status, and level of education. Patler collected as much information she could; she started by creating a coding scheme to analyze action alerts that touched on the Morton Memo; to applying the codes for campaign tactics and results. Patler used a variety of newspaper databases to track the media hits. The outcome of the analysis was that campaigns increased every year but were not evenly distributed. DA and UWD organized 85% of the cases for the analysis, 26% were group campaigns, 63% of the total cases focused on current and former immigrant students.
I plan to utilize this source for my argument to predict what my opponents will say. With my argument being about immigration and deportation; my opponents are most likely to bring up the DREAM act, which gives undocumented young adults who came into the U.S. as children permanent residency. The DREAM act bill failed in December 2010; using this source for my opponent's viewpoint can show my opponents why I think the Immigration system should change. These undocumented youth organizations work hard for their voice to be heard and when they try to create certain bills about naturalization, congress denies them and fails them. This article was heavily based on statistics and facts, so I think I will use some of the statistics Patler uses in the article and some of the facts she uses as well. Stating that anti-deportation organizations use citizenship frames to challenge deportation and to support the pro-immigrant legislation will help make my argument in a later paper more effective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/california-joins-other-states-in-lawsuit-to-block-trump-effort-to-limit-poor-immigrants-access-to-a-path-to-us-citizenship/2019/08/16/0b77bb44-bfa0-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html. The Washington Post is a magazine article that has a variety of content. The article is to update the audience about the situations that are going on with the immigration policies. Maria Sacchetti, an immigration reporter for the Washington Post, including Customs Enforcement and the court system. Immigration is what she specializes in, she’s been on CNN, Washington Journal C-Span, and many other news stations discussing about the U.S. immigration policy. The Washington Post has more of a liberal view rather than conservative; although Jeff Bezos bought the company, he respects both parties. The intended audience for the article would be mainly liberals, immigrants, immigrants who depend on public help, and U.S. citizens who relies on public help as well. The article was published in 2019 making it recent and relevant to my argument.
Throughout this article, Sacchetti reports the new rule that Trump administration announced that immigrants who wants to apply for a green card and visa extension cannot get public help such as food stamps, Medicaid, and other public assistance. California, which has the largest population of immigrants, filed a federal lawsuit hoping to tear down the rule the Trump administration is trying to make. This rule is going to affect many immigrants in the United States who struggle financially and need the public help. California Attorney General, Xavier Berreca, states that “This cruel policy would force working parents and families across the nation to forego basic necessities like food, housing, and health care out of fear. Thar is simply unacceptable.” Federal officials, which are one of the opponents in my argument, states that the rule is not retroactive and can have immigrants cover their own expenses without U.S. citizens having to pay taxes for food, housing, and more. Ken Cuccinelli, an acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, stated that after this rule it will ensure “self-reliance and self-sufficiency for those seeking to come to, or to stay in, the United States.” Immigrant organizations are raged with the Trump administration saying that the administration is racist and Cuccinelli does not deserve the role he has as an acting director. Nearly 400,000 immigrants can be subjected to the rule every year. With that being said, California has about 10 million immigrants, Texas has 3 million, and New York and Florida have about 2 million. Cuccinelli states that officials will be agreeing with him saying that after this rule immigrants will be self-sufficient. Trump supported Cuccinelli stating that is was about putting America First and that he doesn’t think it’s fair for the American taxpayer paying for people to come to the United States.
I plan on using the opinions and data used in the article to add significance to my article. I will use the claim that immigrants who are impoverished will not be able to obtain a green card or visa if they have food stamps or Medicaid. Also, to back up my argument, I will be stating how the rule can endanger the health and safety of the immigrants and their families. The opponents of my argument are saying that this rule will help immigrants become self-sufficient and help them become successful. I will use the statistics in the article using the amount of immigrants in the popular states, so that my opponents can see how effective the rule will be when it becomes active. This online article will serve as an ally for my article because it has many valid points and can give me a boost for my argument.
