On March 20, 2020, the United States of America passed a law that effectively dangled asylum processing to individuals who might be moving to Mexico or Canada. The law issued by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was meant to mitigate COVID-19 in the country. The regulation applied to all people traveling to Mexico or Canada, and all immigrants without valid documents in the country. Only individuals who meet all the requirements will be permitted to seek asylum. The law is practiced when the United States (US) is in a health crisis caused by the global pandemic (COVID-19). This report explains the perspectives of a naturalist and positivist on the US COVID-19 law.
How a Positivist would look at this Legislation
Analyzing the legislation in context, a positivist would consider the law an appropriate measure to protect the United States citizens from COVID-19. A positivist would consider the fact that the law was issued by the National Health Department responsible for mitigating the spread of the global virus (Somek, 2017, p. 1). Coronavirus has immensely hit the world, and significant negative impacts have been reported in countries that do not have sufficient measures to control the virus. Countries that have left it boarders open have suffered an accelerated spread of the virus because people from other countries are not adequately screened to ensure they are safe to enter the country. Being a global pandemic, each country needs to protect its people from the deadly virus.
One of the measures taken by the United States of America is the regulation of people seeking asylum, especially from other countries. The positivist would argue that state borders are the most dangerous points in the spread of COVID-19 (Kichloo et al., 2020). The virus does not move from one point to another on its own, but it is carried by people who move from one country to the other. It is critical for every government to protect its borders and regulated the number of individuals entering or leaving the country. Through these containment measures, the government will significantly reduce the spread of the Corona Virus.
Further, the positivist will view the legislation to portray that the government as a concerned agent who is willing to protect its citizens from external attacks of the virus (Kichloo et al., 2020). The positivist would further argue that if it were not for the government’s measures in place, the situation would be worse today in the United States. These are the desperate times that require any authority to take strict measures to protect citizens from the unprecedented pandemic.
How a Naturalist would look at this Legislation
A naturalist may argue that the legislation goes against the natural law. The denial of asylum seekers from certain countries the ability to access the service might be viewed as discrimination against human justice. Natural justice advocates for equal treatment of people regardless of where they come from (Christie, 2019, p. 1). The fact that even individuals and minors who have been screened by the immigration department and considered harmful have been denied the service, the naturalist might look at this as a deliberate effort by the government to deny noncitizens essential services during the pandemic. Further, he might consider the disputes between America and Mexico as the basis of prohibiting people from Mexico the ability to seek asylum in the US. Lastly, a naturalist will consider the policy as an effort to reduce the number of asylum seekers in the US expeditiously.
Reference List
Christie, G. (2019) Canadian law and indigenous Self? Determination: a naturalist analysis. Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
Kichloo, A., Alberta, M., Dettloff, K., Wani, F., El-Amir, Z., Singh, J., and Chugh, S. (2020) ‘Telemedicine, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and the future: a narrative review and perspectives moving forward in the USA’, Family Medicine and Community Health, 8(3): e000530. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000530
Somek, A. (2017) The legal relation: legal theory after legal positivism. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.