The main reasons for immigration in another country, for most, is to earn more, have more chances at reaching their dreams, or being reunited with their family and have the same chance their family member who migrated got at being succesful. Because of the different reasons for immigration, different types of visas were created to suit each type. Since globalization and the need for skilled workers were on a high, the United States introduced two more types of visas that can help an individual come to the United Sated legally to deter the influx of illegal immigrants and to deter those who would want to enter the country to resort to illegal channels these are the H-2A and H-2B visas. H-2A is a type of visa that permits agricultural workers from foreign countries abroad to come over to the United States just for a temporary or seasonal work (Liebert, 2010). The down side of this type of visa is that the process takes too long, the certifications are usually handed after the harvest season is over, and that it is costly for the employers since they are required by the government to provide for the lodging, transporation and meals of the employees for free, therefore, employers would seek other options in employing skilled workers (Liebert, 2010). The second type of visa, the H2-B visa, is designed to allow the entry of skilled and unskilled workers who are non-agricultural workers in the United States for temporary or seasonal work (Liebert, 2010). However, this type of visa, like the H2-A visa and other types of sponsorship visas issued for employment purposes are hard to get since most employers find the process too burdensome and costly. And those who are lucky enough to get the sponsorship to work in the United States are some of those who, although entered the United States legally, decide to stay in the country indefinitely once their sponsorship expires. This is because, as stated earlier, globalization has played a very imporant role in the increase in immigration to highly developed countires or highly urbanized cities in a country to fullfill a dream like the American Dream since immigrants and people who decide to stay in global cities believe a really good economy will lead to more jobs opportunities because it will need more people coming in to help sustain the economic boom. However, in recent years, the United States economy has gone the opposite direction, forcing employers to find ways to cut costs and leaving a large number of the work force unemployed. The effects of the lay-offs and company closures have left workers in temporary working visas the first ones out the door. Nevertheless, despite knowing that their stay in the developed country has or will become illegal, these workers from poor nations would rather be in a country that is rich and try their luck at success there, rather than stay or go back to their country that is classified as 3rd world knowing that they will never attain their dreams there. And since some uscrupulous companies and employers know the situation of these illegal immigrants, especially now since the economy is down and most companies had to introduce price cuts and find different ways to spend less on their employers pay, some of these employers in the developed countries affected, like the United States, would rather hire illegal immigrants and pay them less than they would pay a citizen or green card holder for the same amount of work.
Also another down side to increased immigration is the increase in part time jobs and jobs that do not reqire a higher educational attainment, the decrease in demand of skilled workers in the intermediate level because of the surplus of people with such skills, decreased wages and continued job insecurity which created very serious problems. Hence, the state which plays a vital role in policy creation with respect to immigration has been changed by the revolution and growth of the global economy. This is due to the fact that the negative effects of increased immigration such as hiring illegal workers for less and the migration of immigrants to highly developed countries through illegal and dangerous channels like crossing the border without a visa, helped the development and formation of new immigration policies and views, and called for an enhanced role of the state in immigration processes. However, this role of the state in immigration policy making is not without constraints (Sassen, 1999).
Looking at its past, the United States of America is well known for their rigid immigration policies. They have constantly tried to secure their border and permiters tightly and have come up with several negotiations with other states like Mexico with respect to the control of immigrants. However, the congresss failed attempts to pass successful immigration laws and policies has made it imperative for individual states and municipalities to act and create their own in order to protect and benefit that particular state or municipality (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2009). A recent example would be the new Arizona immigration law, which is known as SB 1070. Recently, Arizona has just passed a very stringent and controversial immigration bill signed by its governor that allows police the power to question individuals if they are deemed to be illegal immigrants even upon mere suspicion. According to this law, illegal immigration is a crime and the police have the power to question and detain illegal immigrants and those who do not carry their immigration documents with them.
Also, since some individual nations cannot properly address their problem of immigration, international organizations or bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Union (EU) had to step in and protect the rights of immigrants in global nations or cities. These international organizations had to legislate or give more rights to immigrants not given by individual states in order to protect them from human rights abuses stemming from criminalization of immigration, immigration raids and discrimination of the immigrants. The act of policy making by these organizations outside the individual state which affect the policies of such individual state with respect to immigration are called de facto transnationalization of immigration policy making according to Saskia Sassen (1999). The policies with respect to immigration in this case are no longer shaped by the individual nation state alone but are created with the help of the immigrants themselves and public debate regarding immigration. Therefore, in a de facto regime, policy making is centered and focused on international agreements and conventions and various rights previously gained by immigrants and these factors are considered the constrains in the states role in controlling and legislating about immigration (Bonilla, Melendez, Morales, De Los Angeles Torres, 1998). In short, a de facto regime limits the control of the state with respect to such policies. In this kind of policy making, the rights of the immigrants are usually extended by the judiciary and such extention of their rights created more contraints for the states immigration policy creation. Thus, as earlier stated, the immigration policiy is now shaped no longer just by those in the administrative or executive branch of the government, but also through public opinon and debate about the matter (Bonilla, Melendez, Morales, De Los Angeles Torres, 1998). Here, the states have given up a part of their soverignty with respect to cross-border flow of capital as they have lifted border controls and created more immigration-friendly national policies in order to enhance globalization. Hence, visa policies, family reunification and migration policies were formerly and exclusively the domain of individual nation states but now international communities or organtizations have a say like the European Union.
The immigration policy of the United States, which is considered a de jure one since it is created by its Congress eventhough it is still affected by its international agreements with other countries. However, because of globalization, the de jure, in which the individual nation state has the sole and vital role in shaping its immigration policies and laws, has to coincide and work together with the de facto since it is very clear that globalization is pushing towards just that with the part relinquishment of border controls by the state to big and successful firms in order to benefit the economy and increase trade and investment. Furthermore, a step towards the unification of the de facto and the de jure should be done because prior immigration policies of the United States and reforms to it were shown and proven to be unsuccessful.
At the moment, we see that there are on going negotiations and forums between United States of America and Mexico with respect to immigration and the stricter protection of the US-Mexico borders. These kinds of dialogue may be a positive development as the immigration policies of the United States may be improved by their negotiations with Mexico, a country which has one of the highest numbers of immigrants in the United States, both legal and illegal. Furthermore coordination of the de jure and the de facto, taking into consideration transnational conditions, will help properly regulate immigration by helping policy makers refrain from committing the same mistakes as they did in previous immigration policies which have failed and create policies like the US refugee policy which succeeded (Sassen, 1999).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment