05 Mar Temporary Immigration Ban
The States unanimously looking up for the best of the social and economic establishment is likely to see enormous campaigns for upcoming 2020 elections as well. The potential candidates/ parties sought to dig out the current problems are most likely to focus upon ‘immigration’ as one of the highlighting topics. Last few months have seen significant ups and downs in the national security policies and screening of immigrants that step into the US. In a November 2018 statement, US President Donald Trump said, “We need people in our country, but they have to come in legally, and they have to have merit.” The Trump administration has been tirelessly trying out all possible ways to develop the best national security measures for the States and its residents.
Anyhow, concerning immigration, the uncontradicted argument is that it raises the standard of living of more impoverished immigrants. Immigrants can be said to be the world’s most effective foreign- aid program on a per capita basis. Apart from being a tool of charity, a massive number of immigrants ideally benefit the United States.
Contrary to this, an argument opposite to this states that new footfalls bring down wages for the low- income Americans with whom they compete. The evidence here is clashing and argumentative. However, a 2008 meta-analysis of over 100 papers which was based on the effects of immigration on native-born wage growth emphasized the impact of wages as “very small” and “more than half of the time statistically insignificant.” Also, another argument that immigrants are a drain on federal resources is usually and significantly considered.
Amidst these two poles of arguments, whether there should be a temporary ban on all kinds of immigration into the United States still has a shadowed conclusion. The administration anyhow has the final authority to cherry pick the decisions as per the need of the hour. And the current upsurge of ‘national security’ issues into the country shows that a temporary ban on all sorts of immigration can be a no amazement!
Danny Eapen, born to Indian parents living in the US says that “People in the Middle East get screened by others in the Middle East.” Although Danny couldn’t vote, he supports Trump and tells such a ban is more of an effort to target certain problematic hot spots in the world.
On his act of temporary ban on all kinds of immigration into the US in 2017, Trump said that the suspension was intended to provide enough time to go through how refugees are vetted before they can resettle in the US. “Making America safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet,” Mr. Trump said.
There are no two sides of the argument when it comes to the national security of any country. Several measures were taken, will be taken and are being made to ensure the safety now and then. Having a ‘temporary ban’ can be a significant part of it to go through the pre-existing vetting system in the country. This may take an indefinite time, or a specific period may be reserved to ensure all the preventive methods and measures.
This may, in turn, pose some unprecedented problems; probably to those who were about to re-enter the country, looking to go to US for higher studies, about to set up a business or join a job in the US, married to either a US citizen or a NRI who stays there and were likely to shift in the US, or someone who was about to seek a medical treatment there. A time-consuming indefinite ban on immigration may probably be a blind step towards itself as well as the world in the name of national security. This may stand as a giant loophole if period and an already prepared plan and a timeline are not thought upon thus mainly affecting the country as well as the potential immigrants.
The US government thus requires considering all the probable pros and cons of the temporary ban.