Argumentative Essay On Immigration Issues

Since its birth, America has continually thrashed out who should or should not be allowed to dwell within its borders. Such is still true in 2017, with a President whose biggest campaigning points dealt with immigration reform. President Trump’s controversial travel ban was struck down by the 9th circuit court largely because of its blatant discriminatory nature against those who practice Islam. While those three federal judges and most of the American people were able to discern the discrimination in that particular proposal, there are a plethora of others that are not able to make that same association concerning immigration law and the US-Mexico border. Kevin R. Johnson, Dean of the School of Law and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest

While this is morally just statement, it doesn’t necessarily hold truth. Consequentialism, the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged by its consequences and not by its intent, shows us that while these are great words, in the real world people are being discriminated against because of their race and nationality. Johnson and Trujillo list four categories of foreign nationals that demonstrate this racial and nationality discrimination: those who have been admitted as immigrants, nonimmigrants, been granted asylum, and who are undocumented (87). Essentially, within each of those categories, the road to enter the country is “substantially conditioned by racial and ethnic considerations that disfavor noncitizen from Mexico” (104). The authors back up their claims by detailing how many visa are issued to each country. They argue that immigration laws completely ignores social and cultural ties that the United States and Mexico. There are clear indications that people from Mexico want to come to the US. Conversely, people from Ireland do not have that same desire, yet the two counties share the same amount of issued