Megan King
The story I decided to
investigate in National News is, “Federal
Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the
policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this
ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to
block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the
new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if
they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as
the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed
likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just
another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration
(Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances
that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration
residence just in cases of public charge however; this policy was to set more
restrictions on past green card members who need to apply for visas and people
who are in the process of applying for a visa. Interpretation of the bill from
the three judges that denied it, not only saw it as unnecessary however; if the
United States wanted to deny visas it would have a long time ago (Hansen). The
people who need the public benefits could have justifiable reasons as to why
they can’t take care of themselves without public benefits, but the new policy
would only work for people who can support themselves without food, housing, or
cash assistance. The results of this policy would deny the needs of a lot of
immigrants; not to mention a lot of immigrants would be denied staying in the
United States if this policy was put into place.
Immigration
is one of the most controversial topics, along with health care, that people think
they don’t want foreigners to come here but we also don’t want to send them
back to the place they were be killed. There have been previous policies
dealing with these principles like DREAMers and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” which
have been passed and debated more likely in the time period of a lame-duck
sessions (Adler et al 237). The behavior and actions of policymakers have a big
impact on what will get passed during congressional terms, which Congress has
been very unproductive the past decade. Since the Speaker gets to create the
calendar of what bill will get to be debated on, gives the Speaker of the House
the, “power to refer legislation” (Adler et al 246). A major difference in the
two chambers is that the House is more majoritarian, majority will be for one
party or the other, while the Senate is egalitarian, individuals who are more
likely to vote and prevent legislation from being put forward (Adler et al,
245). With the increased partisan polarization, in order to get the other
parties attention will have to be over the top, for example the Democrats
response to the 2016 gun massacre in Florida, entailing Democrats using mobile
phones and being apart of sit-ins to try to pass a restrictive gun law (Alexander).
Since
the Democrats were the minority party, the sit-ins and catching the Republicans
off guard, they not only got attention, but their goal is to block as much
legislation from the majority party that they can. The minority house in the
Senate has more power than the minority party in the House because they can
filibuster the policy (Alexander).
The image represents that
a new age of immigration has started to emerge where it’s not just individuals
making the risky journey to the United States or to a different country, but
they are bringing their families with them. With the United States, immigrants
that are coming here whether it be from circumstances involving asylum,
economic gains, or wanting a better life still are more likely than not to be
denied. I think people try to bring their families with them because they think
they will stand a better chance of getting approved with the Immigration
Courts. As complicated as this process
is, the ten percent chance that people do have in getting their case approved,
living at the Border in harsh conditions is still better than going back to
their original country.
As a result, the whole dilemma
involving what should be done and what is being passed through the White House are
two different resolutions. The polarization between parties, especially with
controversial issues, along with the indecisiveness within the American public
voters can either involve switching parties when elect time comes or protesting.
There is a low population that will actually favor what is being passed
however; the Trump administration is making it harder than ever to get restrictive
immigration policies through.
Bibliography
Adler,
E. Scott, Jeffrey A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan. 2019. The United States
Congress. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-68019-5
Megan, I found your post to be super interesting. Current immigration issues are so important to be aware about. As someone who has family members working in immigration law, I have always heard that it is encouraged for legal residents to not receive any financial aid from the government. This is due to the complications it could create once that individual can become a citizen. I always imagined that this policy was in place, but I understand now that judges have blocked such policy that it may just be a tool lawyers use to help their clients.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing up this important issue to our class! The controversy with immigration is very scary and urgent, because peoples livelihood's are at risk. I also totally agree that polarization stands in way to solving this issue. With divided government, it makes it hard to get much done. The statistics about the number of families coming with children is shocking as well and makes this issue even more pressing. Hopefully this is an issue the American government and people can decide on quickly!
ReplyDelete