Known for his controversial administrative campaign, President Donald J. Trump has been uncompromising in the fight against immigration. This, for one’s own part, is the fight against perceived dangers to our nation. As he described: “Immigration law does not [merely] exist for the purpose of keeping the criminals out. It exists to protect all aspects of American life: the work site, the welfare office, and everything else.” President Trump has remained unyielding in his pursuits, that he has promised the construction of a wall on our southern border. While some invoke the system of asylum, arguing that his values are an infringement upon human rights – others defend his cause, asserting that illegal immigration is an abuse upon the asylum-seeking system. This point of contention subsided with the election of former President Biden and his enforcement of the Immigration Bill.
In essence, the Biden Administration has encouraged the rampant migration of incoming migrants into the country, without an appeal for refuge. This entailed further complications, with reputed gang members of international provinces, gaining entry into the United States. Only recently, has Trump been reelected and much of these arguments pertaining to illegal immigration are resurfacing. Reflecting the 1798 wartime measure of the Alien Enemies Act, Trump has returned to office with the objective of performing a mass deportation on illegal residents from Mexico and Venezuela to name a few. Such a proposition has compelled me to inquire into certain philosophical and moral standpoints: Is illegal immigration supported by the system of asylum–meant for those escaping persecution? Additionally, if someone is unhappy in their own home, is it right for them to forcefully occupy the space of another person’s home? If such a scenario does occur, would it be morally permissible for the homeowner in question, to reject their neighbor that appears to be in low spirits?
...
Following the expulsion of millions of Europeans after World War II, the United States government created the first asylum policies in 1948. This course of action was groundbreaking, as asylum policies have not yet taken effect at the time. In parallel, the United Nations released a formal statement on refugee resettlement. In accordance with the definition provided by the UNHCR: “A refugee is one who is forced to flee their own country… [due to] a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or a political opinion.” Such a comprehensive system became effective in 1980, once legislative officials enacted the Refugee Act. Otherwise stated, the system of asylum intended to act as a safe haven for individuals seeking a better life. This differed from the preceding time-periods, during which the government fought against such an establishment. For necessary context, legislative officials in 1875, established the Page Act, followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1888. Since then, the sociopolitical climate of our nation has become more progressive in comparison. However, we are now confronted with a unique set of circumstances, as a result.
The contemporary immigration system has entailed an excessive – or uncontrolled – number of immigrants gaining entry into the U.S. In consequence, a notable complication arises: If a refugee resettlement system should not be heavily moderated, then how might we impose feasible restrictions, while assisting those in need? Much like the golden mean established in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, immigration policies require the right balance between an abundance of immigrant populations, and the lack thereof.