Public Attitudes toward Immigration Policy

This applies to all immigrants indiscriminately. The above law by the government means that persons whose legal stay expires in the US will be required to appear before a judge upon being served a notice to Appear, and can be removed, forcefully, by the law enforcers without necessarily being taken through the entire court process. In most cases, persons whose visas expire while in the US and their legal stay has expired find it difficult to renew the visa. If they have a criminal case to answer, still, the person can be easily deported out of the country without any negotiations, directly by the immigration officials. The officials have increased powers to remove any person illegally in the US, where illegally means that they don’t have the right documentation to be in the US.

“That is because the Supreme Court has held that such immigrants can still be considered “in transit” and not here long enough to qualify for due process protections. ” (Kulish, 1). Persons on transit have to either possess legal documents identifying them as legally in the US or go back to their countries. Persons who have stayed in the US for a long period have to be identified and produced in courts which will determine their legal standing to be in the US. Majority of these are subjected to deportation as long as they don't possess any legal permits to be in the US, fulfilling the executive order. The first category considers the feasibility of the person from an attribute point of view.

This is in terms what the person can contribute to the country. The second category, known as the categorical approach group, considers the distinct categories of persons and favors one category against the other. They tend to group people together, such as Africans, Asians, etc. Both groups have valid reasons for why they would consider person X as a viable immigrant and not person Z. The categorical judgment is the most prevalent in the US with a study carried out confirmed that “the fundamental distinction between public reactions to legal and illegal immigrants is in the much greater prevalence of categorical judgment…” (Wright, Morris & Jack, 231). The classification of groups and judgment of persons based on their category is majorly driven by the emphasis to uphold morality among other things.

The second group subscribing to the attribute-based judgment of the admissibility or rejection of a person’s quest to belong to the US is as prevalent as the categorical group. The person’s economic integration into the US is considered. When they are able to contribute to the aggressive economic-driven business orientation of the US, they stand a better chance of being admitted. When a society perceives that the incoming members will have positive input towards their wellbeing, they will readily accept such immigrants. The public is endocentric in that they consider themselves before the rest. Otherwise, the individual will be rejected. These opinions go a long way to inform the public policy for or against immigrants (Noja, et al. The policy makers are members of the government, elected into office by the public and thus, are influenced by the will of the majority in the United States.

To them, the presence of more citizens is profitable for labor and means of production. The immigrants, thus, are most welcome, and the policies supporting the deportation of immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are slighted by this category of persons. They compare the economic potential of the immigrants and contrast it with the economic losses of a highly expensive labor base, narrow market and less flow of cash, thus preferring immigration (Noja, et al. According to the CAP Immigration, immigrants into the US move into the labor market in search of stable jobs. This search spins the labor market into action with more seekers for jobs and a higher supply of labor, translating to an increased level of trading activities. Common among these questions is the implication of immigration in political power sharing among the natives and other races.

The more Africans get into the united states or the higher their growth rate, the more their chances of having a greater say in the legal and political organs of the country. For instance, the Obama election was largely supported and enabled by the people of color with the African-Americans at the forefront. This is an example of political shifts enabled by the dominance of a group of people. The whites would want to conserve their majority status in the US and thus, prevent the Mexicans from coming onto the US. Such a move, therefore, would require a beef up of the security personnel at the border. This action would raise the public expenditure on security along the borders, thus stretching further the country’s expenditure on border security (Hainmueller & Daniel, 225-244).

The public, therefore, considers this as an unnecessary burden, hence the need for the attribute-based immigration judgment and policies to screen incoming persons. The person’s morality and their economic viability are to be ascertained. Despite the many opinions, often opposing, by the public, there is the consensus from empirical research that as labor and skills migrate into the united states of America, the living standards of the Americans go higher and therefore the general economic wellbeing stabilizes more than without the immigrants. A lot of labor sources in the country are not natives. The country is a big beneficiary of economic integration of people from different cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and political backgrounds, all of whom unite together to build one diverse and complementary culture aimed at one nation.