In the chapter titled, "Contested Membership over Time," Roberto Gonzales explains the obstacles undocumented immigrants in the United States face in modern times. He discusses how immigration policies like DACA do not meet the needs of many of whom these policies are made for.
Undocumented immigrants include adults as well as children who have lived as long as they can remember in the United States. However, some cannot obtain legal status from immigration policies because of the differentiation between a good and bad immigrant. Some immigrants were a part of gangs or had a felony on their record, but their criminal history was in the past and since then they could have changed their ways. They might have been on a gang list in their teens, but now they could have put the past behind them and now have a family to take care of. The author is critical of this distinction between “felons” vs. “families” and I share a similar opinion. People are too complex to be categorized into ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because life circumstances change. So does that mean immigration policies fail to acknowledge that humans are variable and can turn their lives around for the better or worse. Does that mean that these immigration policies are a failure to the government? The policies could help out those who are accepted as “deserving” of legal status, but even then problems arise. Even if someone is deemed as deserving of legal status, it might come too late for them to build a career, like in Esperanza’s story. Although I admired Obama during his presidency, I feel like the author was not all that glad when he talked about the immigration policies.
The issue at hand is comparable to universities and how they select their future students. Just like certain immigrants are granted legal status in the United States, certain applicants are granted acceptance into a university. Just like when we applied to UIC, they checked at our background, our record, and high school GPA. A university selects the 'good' students and not the 'bad' students, essentially giving acceptance/membership to those deemed deserving of acceptance of the college education. If all universities failed to accept a straight A student into their school because of a failed class in their freshman year of high school, they would be putting this person in the 'bad' category simply because of one thing done in the past. When an immigrant applies for legal status, the immigration policies ideally should recognize the person for who she/he is and not was.
How can immigration policies recognize who would be deserving of legal status without categorizing immigrants as good and bad?
I liked how you made the comparison about the acceptance to a university and immigration. One should not be identified as competent/incompetent based on standardized testing. There is a flaw to this system because not all students are great test takers. Based on the score, the student is able to know what universities to apply and which ones NOT to apply. Immigration can be seen the same way. For example, a one-time mistake with the law/police can change your opportunity to apply for residency. A mistake done in your early teens or 20s is not something one should be identified as. Under Trump presidency, I don't think there could be an immigration policy to legalize immigrants that is NOT based on the "good" or "bad" immigrant.
ReplyDelete