The multicultural status of the USA sets a variety of challenges before the US citizens, government, and immigrants. These difficulties concern social, political, economic, and healthcare aspects ad consequently impose severe legislative dilemmas, the resolution of which aims at the decision of the immigration issues. The current immigration legislation is vastly impacted by racial considerations and imposes inequality, oppression, and social insecurity on national minorities immigrating to the USA. Many studies have addressed immigration and labor law and its impact on the life of immigrants in the United States.
The majority of research findings suggest that despite the active work of the legislative branch on the improvement of immigration policies, the lives of both documented and undocumented foreigners are obstructed with multiple limitations and restrictions that violate basic human rights.
The citizenship status of those residing on the territory of the United States of America predetermines their opportunities to live, work, and have access to primary services within the country. Indeed, as Abrego and Lakhani found, despite the legal humanitarian support provided to the immigrants, the lived realities of those claimed by both documented and undocumented migrants did not significantly differ.1
Both categories of noncitizens live under the continuous fear of deportation, suffer from limited opportunities of access to different services, and are exposed to incomplete social inclusion. Similar findings are presented in qualitative research by Hofmann, Jacobs, and Petrzelka. The scholars claim that not only national but separate state immigration policies are widely used to restrict rights and freedoms for immigrants through the enacting of more exclusive laws than inclusive ones.2 Thus, the legal initiatives aimed at regulating immigration into the USA complicate the lives of the immigrants.
Such a controversial legislative decision lead to the severe measures the authorities take when dealing with high numbers of noncitizens. Deportation is one of the most significant interventions that are aimed at maintaining national security in the time of economic crisis.3 Such immigration regulation measures impose constant fear of the immigrants to be sent back to their native countries. Thus, as the research by Martinez and Ortega demonstrates, continuous deportation threats have their impact “on immigrants’ economic opportunities, emotional health and well‐being, and academic trajectories.”4 Consequently, the constant fear of deportation deteriorates further lawful behaviors of the immigrants on the territory of the USA, since they tend to be reluctant to report any crimes in fear to be exposed to police’s excessive force themselves.5
These implications are supported by Reina and Lohman’s study that demonstrates the influence of the “experiences of institutional discrimination” on the tendency of Latino residents to report intimate partner abuse incidents.6 Such findings lead to the identification of another, the most significant issue related to immigration law, which deals with the criminalization of non-citizens.
Intending to control the flow of foreigners to the country, the authorities validate their decisions and policy enactment by attributing criminal agenda to the national minorities. The history of legislation concerning immigration has been originally impacted by racism and intolerance concerning non-citizens, which now has its implications on the current state of affairs.7
Alleged criminalization of the minority populations has become a significant threat to the well-being and rights preservation of immigrants. The debate around the safety issues and the connection between crime and immigration are at the center of scholarly research. The findings of a meta-analysis conducted by Ousey and Kubrin emphasize that there is no distinct and evidentially validated dependence of the crime rates on the immigration flow.8 However, the process of criminalization of foreign residents is omnipresent in the state and national immigration policies.
The overall tendency of the US legislation to set precautious measures toward national minorities who might be either documented or undocumented immigrants is presented in the form of a well-structured system of control interventions. As Abrego et al. state, such national programs as Operation Streamline and Criminal Alien Program amplify the number of individuals “who fall into the “criminal” category.”9 Being under constant suspicion, immigrants are exposed to limited mobility, social, economic, and political rights restrictions.
Moreover, not only the legislation is biased in its perception of immigrants as criminals, but also the judicial branch of power. As has been mentioned earlier, many studies show that immigrants are exposed to institutional discrimination and limited opportunities in claiming their rights. The findings of the study conducted by Ryo show that an immigrant presented by an attorney in the court is 3.5 times more likely to be granted bond than an immigrant who appeared pro se.10 Therefore, it is evident that the immigrants residing in the territory of the USA have restricted life opportunities.
Conclusively, the analysis of the recent research findings in the area of immigrant law suggests that the current state of legislation imposes severe threats and limitations to the population of non-citizens and those pending legal approval of their citizenship. The governmental endeavors aimed at preserving state security and economic stability criminalizes immigrants and exposes them to control and deportation. Such unstable living conditions diminish their well-being, developmental opportunities, and expose migrants to discrimination, limited human rights, and constant fear. Therefore, it is essential to find more relevant measures of immigration control that would allow for favorable living conditions of those allowed on the territory of the USA.
Bibliography
Abrego, Leisy, and Sarah Lakhani. 2015. “Incomplete Inclusion: Legal Violence and Immigrants in Liminal Legal Statuses.” Law & Policy 37 (4): 265-296.
Abrego, Leisy, Mat Coleman, Daniel Martinez, Cecilia Menjivar, and Jeremy Slack. 2017. “Making Immigrants into Criminals: Legal Processes of Criminalization in the Post-IIRIRA Era.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 5 (3): 694-715.
Becerra, David, Alex Wagaman, David Androff, Jill Messing, and Jason Castillo. 2016. “Policing immigrants: Fear of Deportations and Perceptions of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.” Journal of Social Work 1 (1): 1-17.
Chin, Gabriel, and Douglas Spencer. 2015. “Did Multicultural America Result from a Mistake? The 1965 Immigration Act and Evidence from Roll Call Votes.” University of Illinois Law Review 3 (1):1239-1258.
Hofmann, Erin, Paul Jacobs, and Peggy Petrzelka. 2019. “State Immigration Policies: The Role of State Compacts and Interest Groups on Immigration Legislation.” International Migration 57 (1): 109-126.
Martinez, Daniel, Jeremy Slack, and Ricardo Martinez-Schuldt. 2018. “Repeat Migration in the Age of the ‘Unauthorized Permanent Resident’: A Quantitative Assessment of Migration Intentions Postdeportation.” International Migration Review 20 (10): 1-32.
Martinez, Lisa, and Deborah Ortega. 2019. “Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented Latinos in Colorado.” Law & Policy 41 (1): 120-141.
Ousey, Graham, and Charis Kubrin. “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issue.” Annual Review of Criminology 1 (1): 63-84.
Reina, Angelica, and Brenda Lohman. 2015. “Barriers Preventing Latina Immigrants from Seeking Advocacy Services for Domestic Violence Victims: A Qualitative Analysis.” Journal of Family Violence 30 (1): 479-488.
Ryo, Emily. 2016. “Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings.” Law & Society Review 50 (1): 117-53.
Footnotes
- Leisy Abrego and Sarah Lakhani, 2015, “Incomplete Inclusion: Legal Violence and Immigrants in Liminal Legal Statuses,” Law & Policy 37 (4): 265.
- Erin Hofmann, Paul Jacobs, and Peggy Petrzelka, 2019, “State Immigration Policies: The Role of State Compacts and Interest Groups on Immigration Legislation,” International Migration 57 (1): 121-122.
- Daniel Martinez, Jeremy Slack, and Ricardo Martinez-Schuldt, 2018. “Repeat Migration in the Age of the ‘Unauthorized Permanent Resident’: A Quantitative Assessment of Migration Intentions Postdeportation,” International Migration Review 20 (10): 3.
- Lisa Martinez and Deborah Ortega, 2019, “Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented Latinos in Colorado,” Law & Policy 41 (1): 120.
- Becerra et al., 2016, “Policing immigrants: Fear of Deportations and Perceptions of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,” Journal of Social Work 1 (1): 1.
- Angelica Reina and Brenda Lohman, 2015, “Barriers Preventing Latina Immigrants from Seeking Advocacy Services for Domestic Violence Victims: A Qualitative Analysis,” Journal of Family Violence 30 (1): 479.
- Gabriel Chin and Douglas Spencer, 2015, “Did Multicultural America Result from a Mistake? The 1965 Immigration Act and Evidence from Roll Call Votes,” University of Illinois Law Review 3 (1):1250.
- Graham Ousey and Charis Kubrin, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issue,” Annual Review of Criminology 1 (1): 73.
- Abrego et al., 2017, “Making Immigrants into Criminals: Legal Processes of Criminalization in the Post-IIRIRA Era,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 5 (3): 708.
- Emily Ryo, 2016, “Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings,” Law & Society Review 50 (1): 117.