For a large number of people the problem of migration from one state to another is an urgent one. Despite the fact that such a process is possible and welcomed, it is known for a number of difficulties. On the one hand, in the United States for migrants there is the necessary social assistance and services from the state. On the other hand, there are some obstacles to a full-fledged life of an arrived person, with which he needs to cope on his own. Using the example of the Lobo family case, it is necessary to analyze how the state should specifically help such people, and also to identify why it is wrong to overcomplicate the migration process.
First of all, it is necessary to start with an example of the Lobo family, that is, migrants who came to live and work in the United States of America. It is important to emphasize that laws do not prohibit migrant children from receiving educational services (U. S. Supreme Court, 1982). However, the family could not find an appropriate institution for a long time. School administrators constantly requested a number of documents, which were either extremely difficult to obtain or not possible at the time of contacting the organization. After extensive attempts to resolve the issue, it was settled through litigation because it was in conflict with federal law and a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Accordingly, the result of the case was the admission of the child to a public school, regardless of his status and the presence of any pre-required documents. Thus, constitutional human rights, which are vital to America, were respected.
After all of the above, it is necessary to analyze whether the state should help migrants at all, and what advantages and disadvantages of such a policy can be identified. It is essential to start with the benefits, one of which has already been mentioned. Firstly, migrants are people who have certain legally enshrined rights (Urbina & Álvarez, 2018). Human rights to education are inalienable and constitutional, and should be protected and fully implemented accordingly (U. S. Supreme Court, 1982). Another positive quality of the policy of state assistance to migrants is the principle of humanity (Urbina & Álvarez, 2018). The fact is that a visiting person finds himself in an unstable state for some time, because the living conditions change dramatically. This affects both the psycho-emotional sphere and the economic one. A person needs help so that he does not become a marginal or a dangerous element of society.
On the other hand, such a policy has its drawbacks, namely, the spread of dependency. The human factor cannot be excluded, as a result of which some migrants try to live free of charge, not working, but receiving social benefits (Urbina & Álvarez, 2018). This gives rise to economic problems in the states, and also reduces the level of confidence in the fairness of government actions. In addition, a drawback can be identified as a huge flow of migrants, for whom government assistance becomes an incentive. Significantly reduces the number of jobs for American citizens and increases the number of people in the territory (Urbina & Álvarez, 2018). Thus, hatred of visitors, racism, and social contradictions are born.
It is logical to assume that school management decided to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court of 1982 because of the lack of places in schools. In other words, there is no malicious intent to be found here in terms of racism or prejudice against migrants (Urbina & Álvarez, 2018). The fact is that schools are designed for a certain number of children, so staff and resources may not be enough. In turn, due to the influx of migrants, American children may not get a place. However, in my opinion, this should not be an argument, since I share the position on the inviolability of people’s rights. Accordingly, the leadership of states and schools, in particular, should provide for such situations, and it is possible to open additional educational institutions. I do not agree with the policy of schools to demand additional documents, because this can be interpreted as an attempt at segregation. Such actions are contrary to both democratic and humane principles of equality.
References
U. S. Supreme Court. (1982).Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202. Justia.
Urbina, M. G. & Álvarez, S. E. (Eds.). (2018). Immigration and the law. Race, citizenship, and social control. University of Arizona Press.