Ethical Issues In Immigration Reform

As of January of 2013, illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens have a simpler approach to residency if they can prove “extreme hardship” occurs with time apart from each other (Bennett, “White Houses Eases Path to Residency…”). Constitutionality, or lack thereof, became a delicate issue in immigration reform through the controversial Arizona provision of 2010, known as the SB 1070, which allowed for officials to inquire about legal status with “reasonable suspicion,” even if that was not the original reason for arresting the individual, as stated in the Senate bill. Professor of Law Paul Bender at Arizona State University immediately recognized the potential for immorality and unconstitutionality: “reasonable suspicion” of legal status becomes a game of racial profiling and will almost certainly be used to target non-Anglos (Savage, “Supreme Court Rejects Most of Immigration Law”). Although the Supreme Court allowed the “show me your papers” aspect of the bill, it removed clauses

By making naturalization an easier process with less red tape obstructing its pathway, several moral issues and unconstitutional policies can be avoided.

Currently, President Obama is very progressive in his immigration policies and has passed some legislation successfully, such as his criminal-only deportation policies which have effectively reduced deportation rates. If not for resistance met in Congress by those who have taken a misinformed stance against immigration, many more laws could have been passed. Jeff Guo of the Washington Post recently released an article appropriately titled, “The Biggest Ideas Underpinning the Anti-Immigration Movement Aren’t Backed Up by Data,” and as his article suggests, much of the stigma that comes with the word “immigration” is at best urban legend, and at worst, vestiges of racist ideas. As the frustration towards immigration mounts, so do the severe, bordering-unconstitutional