Arguments For and Against US Immigration Policies

Every day thousands of refugees flee the war torn country of Syria. With the fear of terrorism on the rise, a nation built on the ideals of immigrants, started to shift to a paranoid state. This led to the immigration policy, a controversial topic that still resonates fear into many. Many say it is wrong and that America welcome the refugees with open arms. And there those who believe in a secure structured nation, that defends against the growing correlation between terrorism and immigration.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Immigration, a word that holds the keys to a new life and a new beginning. Immigration for some is not only a beginning, but it’s an end to their lives that they once knew. Immigration is often a second chance, but this can be overshadowed by the looming threat of terrorism. In recent years terrorist groups like Issis, have used immigration as a gateway to America. Isis used the refugees to infiltrate a nation still feeling the effects of terror. This alarming realization caused the U.S to respond with the immigration ban on Syrian refugees. This sparked great controversy, that led to a divided nation on an issue that needed unity. The immigration ban was a solution devised by President Donald J. Trump it opted for a complete ban of refugees coming from Syria. Many were outraged, but with this surreal decision there is truth to this madness. In recent a study compiled by a senate committee in 2016, “revealed that seventy-two individuals with terroristic backgrounds” (creating a threat 72). These seventy-two individuals were from the seven countries covered by President Trump’s executive order, making the ban justifiable.
In order understand this hidden threat,
we must first know the process of how the U.S deals with terrorism. Terrorism
is a very wide scale problem that correlates heavily with immigration. It should
by all means, be dealt with as soon as possible. President Bush took actions in
2002 by creating Homeland Security, the main department that deals with
terrorism. Their motive and main job is to search and identify people to get
various clues on certain pertaining threats on the United States. Terrorism is
taken very serious by this department. One of the members stated the severity
of terrorism and how there are endless threats that people usually ignore. He said,
“The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not been
dealt, this threat has not evaporated, and we can’t turn the page on it”
(Sullivan 23). It is very true; people shouldn’t turn their backs on terrorism.
It would be devastating to have our country go through a turmoil like 9/11 again.
Since the moment that this program has been in progress, the United States has
been able to capture and kill America’s most wanted terrorist through many
countries and continents.
A new problem arises, with immigrants and terrorisms blending. The lines of immigrant and civilian has been blurred.  This has led to some controversial means by the government, to address the hidden threat imbedded in our system. The process of protecting citizens from the extremity of terrorism also includes a set of government guidelines to follow. The United States government adopted a set of laws in order to control a terrorist situation in a more orderly fashion. One of the most important bills that came out of congress was right after the 9/11 attack. This bill was called the USA Patriot Act (2001). Simply, this bill gives permission to the government to search any individual personnel of suspected threat to the United States. The results of passing such a bill helped to identify and eliminate
many Issis extremists. Without this permission by the government, these people
could have done some serious damage while not paying attention. In a time
period of 10 years (up to the present day), this bill has gone under various
renovations. In 2001, there were immediate amendments that were added onto this
bill. For example, an amendment having to deal with foreign intelligence and
illegal immigration turned out to be a main focus for Homeland Security. A
local online article supplies the amendments of the first renovated copy of the
Patriot Act. It states: “When the matters involve foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence, or foreign immigration, to any Federal law enforcement,
intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security
official, there must be supplied assistance of the official information in the
performance of his official duties” (Ashcroft). The initiative that government
officials have to take now are a lot more prestigious and uphold a lot more
responsibility in their roll. In 2005, they readopted this bill in order to
have the right to search the internet to prevent cyber terrorism of any sort
from occurring. They also were given the right to search a person’s home
without a liable search warrant. This really upset citizens because, as stated
before, they were being violated of their personal privacy. Although there were
riots against the fact that their democracy wasn’t being called for, the
government could not comply because they haven’t been more successful in
obtaining evidence of terrorist threats. Later, in 2011, when Obama was
president, he authorized the most recent renovation of the bill with an
extension of the same laws until 2013. He created a controlled system of search
warranting that would have no effect on terrorist identification
and it would also put people at ease. Some of the regulations to the bill are
as follows: “Modifies reporting requirements for national security letters to
require a breakdown of the
types of persons targeted and whether such persons are subjects of authorized national
security investigations this changes the federal criminal code to reduce from
30 to 7 days the period for giving delayed notice of the execution of a search
warrant in a criminal investigation when the warrant permits the giving of such
delayed notice” (Conyers). The law states that it is required to have a
national security letter in order to take further actions in pursuing a suspect
of possible terrorism. In other words, it’s a more structured version of a
warrant. The second part of the law states that an individual can only hold onto
a record for seven days until it is unreliable, whereas before this improved
law, thirty days could have given a terrorist enough time to plot out a
strategy and followed through with it. These actions taken by the government
are overall taking a great effect on citizens, but is worth the case of
preventing terrorism.
Ever since 9/11, Terrorism has a major concern for the country since many individuals were directly affected by the destruction of such a devastating event. The government has been trying new ways to improve their ways of finding data towards possible threats to the harm and safety of others. The government’s actions have left both positive and negative effects on citizens and their personal privacy. Without the help of such a beneficial system of terrorist searching, the United States would be in terrible danger and risk of having another 9/11 event occur.
The first counter-argument
states that a nation cannot label migrants as terrorist. Many people want to
look past the hate and accept each and every immigrant. Many nations want to openly accept migrants and offer them safe haven. But the
reality is terrorism is like a cobra. If we let our guard down it can strike
with such ferocity that leads more separation between the U.S and immigrants.
Labeling an entirety of immigrants, leads to the effect of fear that the
terrorist wanted to instill in each nation. But how can a nation combat an
enemy if one can’t identify it first, people need to acknowledge the fact that
immigration is the window of opportunity for terrorism.
This problem was addressed
famously by Ronald Reagan who quoted “A nation that cannot control its border
is not a nation.” This quote embodies the dream of a secure unified nation. If
we look at the current state of our borders, they are withered like the
policies that created them. It is time to re-engineer a system based on
security and opportunity. An example that helps envision the problem faced
today, is the object of a door. Imagine the past border policy, as an open door
undermining our security. With this new policy, we have closed that door
leading to more awareness of rising threats. But with every action there are consequences.
This means the ban of migrants; each nation has to come terms with every
positive action has negative consequences. Why are people willing to sacrifice
our national security for migrants?  Yes,
America is a nation built on immigrants, but where is the line drawn between
security and acceptance?
The second counter argument
is that the United States should be involved more with immigration. Many people
want to admit as many possible refugees. Refugees flee from the chaos caused by
the war broken countries like Syria. People feel a certain personal
responsibility, to help everyone in need. But the cost to maintain immigration
each year is quite staggering, in an article by Washington times “Mass immigration costs government 296 billion a
year.” That number continues to rise with each new country we accept in, we
cannot sustain a working country with an outflow of money like that. We are
already a nation in deep debt, yet we try to continue to take on new expanding costly
problems. Picture this problem this way, the U.S is a ship being sunk down by
debt. And when we add immigration, sooner or later, the money attributed will
bring us to rock bottom. We need to prioritize the needs of U.S first, and once
we are at a stable self-efficient level, then we can start to provide the
necessary care the migrants need.
Fear, a word that repels a
feeling of safety and creates a world based on paranoia. This fear of terror
started on the day the nation stood still. September 11th “a series
of suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with Islamic
extremists, led the deadliest attack on American soil”. This feeling of fear
still resonates with us today, the terrorist wants to create a sense of
paranoia in such a vast country. These attacks are what fuel the hate, and
modern day stereotypes of today’s immigrants. We need to remove this fear,
because when we convey fear it only strengthens the terrorist to act. In an
article Washington Times polled
Americans if they feel safe, “42 percent of Americans say they are less safe
from terrorism The physiological scars left by 911 are irreversible, but we can
start to dismantle this fear if we acknowledge the threat and work for a secure
nation.”
The third counter argument,
is that immigration does not create fear. Being a nation that has a long record
of welcoming refugees and immigrants, they say there is no cause for concern.
But the truth is we need to become aware and more knowledgeable about the
people we let in. 
The factor of not knowing who these people are, creates this
fear in each U.S citizen. This sense of breach of security, has a ripple effect
in the U.S. As addressed before, many view immigration as a threat. If we
address this dividing issue and start to dismantle stereotypes, we can create a
nation not driven by fear. But a nation driven by the strengthen and sense of
security, which redefines and unifies the country.
Immigration poses a threat to a nation’s security and is a hidden that that divides a country already on the edge. The balance of security and acceptance needs to be addressed. This will ultimately create a structured nation. The hidden threat needs to be addressed, creating a nation not driven by fear, but rather of strength. The U.S should reevaluate the policies but the U.S needs to still maintain the core ideals built from immigration. Immigration is here to say, it’s a matter of how well the U.S can adapt to this ever-changing problem.
Works Cited
Vaughan, Jessica. “Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order.” Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 09 Feb. 2017. http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order>.Ashcroft, John. “USA Patriot Act.” American History ABC CLIO. Gov’t and Court Documents, Morgan, Gregory W. “Global War on Terrorism.” American History. ABC-CLIO. N.p., n.d. Sullivan, Eileen. “Homeland Security Forecasts 5-Year Terror Threats.” Associated Press [Austin, TX] 20 Dec. 2008: 21-25. SIRS Issues Researcher. USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011. 14 USC. Sec. 1805. 2011. The Library of Congress. Rep Conyers, John, Jr., 29 July 2009. <http://thomas.loc.gov/>.Radio address “A nation without borders is not a nation” (Ronald Reagan) http:://www.presidency.ucb.eduVaughan, Jessica. “Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order.” Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 09 Feb. 2017. http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order>.Taylor, Adam. “Poll: 42 Percent of Americans Say They Are Less Safe from Terrorism than before 9/11.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 22 Aug. 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/22/poll-42-percent-of-americans-say-they-are-less-safe-from-terrorism-than-before-911/?utm_term=.e9fb70133571>.