Immigration

America, from its very beginning, has been a land of immigrants. People have come from all nations seeking free choice of worship, escape from cruel governments, and relief from war, famine, or poverty. All came with dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. America has accommodated these people of diverse backgrounds, customs, and beliefs, although not without considerable friction along the way.

Is Immigration a Serious Problem?
One of the issues often ignored in the immigration debate is the impact of immigration on sending countries. Some claim that immigration drains sending nations of their best minds and hurts their economies. Others argue that the money immigrants send to their families left behind and the economic ties they help establish benefit sending nations.
The most obvious loss to sending nations when their citizens emigrate, some analysts contend, is the loss of human capital, often called a "brain drain." People who emigrate are often the brightest and most enterprising.
Those concerned about immigration's impact on sending nations also point to the loss of tax revenue. In a study of the impact of emigration from India, Mihir Desai of Harvard University found that 1 million Indians lived in the United States in 2001. Although this number comprised only 0.1 percent of India's population, the immigrants' U.S. earnings were equivalent to 10 percent of India's national income. The study concluded that the net fiscal cost to India of losing these taxpayers was nearly 0.5 percent of India's gross domestic product in 2002.
Another benefit of immigration to sending nations is that global trade and business opportunities are often created as immigrants travel back and forth between the host and the sending nation. For example, Aissa Goumidi, who emigrated from Algeria to Marseilles, France, sold all of his textiles to merchants in Algeria. Another Marseilles immigrant, Mohamed Laqhila, an accountant, is bringing people from accounting institutions in the Maghreb countries to discuss business opportunities there with his colleagues in France. A recent phenomenon is the development of what are known as "knowledge networks." These networks often use the Internet to create networks of business contacts with similar expertise.
Those who have concluded that immigration can have a positive impact on sending nations contend that rather than a "brain drain," immigration can more appropriately be described as "brain circulation." Some commentators conclude that in the modern world, the benefits of immigration outweigh the risks to sending nations.
The impact of immigration on sending nations remains subject to debate.
Immigration Is Beneficial to the United States
America is a country of immigrants; throughout the years, people have come from every country in the world to settle in the United States. The diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and traditions of these newcomers has strengthened both American culture and the economy. Many commentators believe that immigration still plays a necessary role in allowing America to stay vital and competitive on a global scale.
Immigration benefits the United States in a number of ways. Culturally, immigrants have made a huge contribution towards producing the multicultural society to which Americans are accustomed. Music, literature, fashion, and art have all benefited from the diversity of voices, traditions, and perspectives that immigrants bring. Moreover, immigrants have made a significant impact on America's economy. The overwhelming majority of immigrants take advantage of greater opportunities in education and employment in the hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. "There is a mass of evidence to show that immigrants actually make a big contribution to the wealth and prosperity of the countries they go to," asserts Teresa Hayter, an immigration activist and author. Immigration "also improves both the job prospects and the wages and conditions of workers," she notes.
According to Ben Wattenberg, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, immigration is necessary for America's national security. In many cases, immigration allows refugees to escape repressive and even life-threatening conditions. By settling in a place more tolerant of ethnicity, nationality, religion, and race, immigrants can become productive members of society. Immigrants "are the best spokespeople for democracy and other Western values," Wattenberg contends. Therefore, the "United States must continue to accept immigrants in order to strengthen American power and influence around the world."
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States government began to severely restrict refugee and other immigration programs. Supporters of these policies argued that curbing immigration was an effective way to stop terrorists from entering the country and attacking it. However, critics argue that these measures have produced an opposite effect. "These policies instead hamper efforts to reduce terrorism, as they alienate immigrants who may be in the best position to help intelligence agencies gain access to communities they otherwise cannot infiltrate," contends Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. "Anti-immigration policies will have the most deleterious effect on immigrants who love America rather than on those who intend to harm it." Instead of stopping terrorism, the restriction of American refugee and immigration policies will only persecute the defenseless---particularly innocent women and children.
Immigration to the United States Must Be Restricted
There have always been Americans who have wanted to curtail legal and illegal immigration to the United States. Concerns that immigrants would overwhelm American society, take jobs from citizens, and change the American fabric have been around since the early nineteenth century. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, immigration has once again been thrust into the forefront of American debate. Critics of current immigration policy argue that immigration reform, particularly tighter restrictions on the flow of legal and immigrations, is imperative in light of the numerous threats immigration holds for the future of America.
For some critics, immigration represents a threat to our economy, culture, and national identity. They contend that immigrants often take jobs from American citizens and overwhelm services such as medical care, schools, and law enforcement. Furthermore, there is a belief that immigration profoundly changes our culture as well as our sense of who we are. With the concept of multiculturalism, Americans are forced to learn about other cultures at the expense of American culture. By subscribing to ideas of multiculturalism and the freedom and sacredness of each individual, argues Lawrence Auster, we have lost what has made America great. According to Auster, freedom "translates into the equal right of all individuals to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams, even if we are speaking of tens of millions of people from alien cultures whose exercise of their individual right to come to America will mean the destruction of our cultural goods."
Security issues have also become a growing concern for immigration policy critics. After September 11, 2001, many Americans acknowledged the need for tightened security and rigorous immigration procedures. "The September 11 terrorist attacks have made immigration reform a matter of life and death," asserts Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center of Immigration Studies. "Cuts in both permanent and temporary immigration would contribute significantly to improved security by permitting more efficient management and by denying terrorists cover." Immigration reform is considered a vital front on the winning the War on Terror. "The actions of September 11th were acts of war carried out against our civilian population by foreign civilians who came here legally and who lived, played, worked, and went to school in the United States," argues former Colorado governor Richard Lamm. "Immigration reform will not solve the problem of terrorism, but this problem will not be solved without immigration reform."
With national security at the forefront of American debate, illegal and legal immigration has once again become a hot topic. Reform of current immigration policy is essential to keep the United States safe contend proponents of greater national identity and immigration control.
Most Immigration Is Beneficial for the United States
Immigration has long been a controversial topic in the United States. Most Americans acknowledge the contribution of immigrants and want to keep in place a process for legal immigrants to apply and become citizens after a rigorous screening process. While they realize the valuable contributions these American citizens could make to the American fabric, there has been disagreement on what kind of immigration should be welcomed in this country, how restrictive the procedures should be, and even on the impact immigration has had on our national psyche. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, critics of U.S. immigration policy called for more restrictive measures to protect the nation from further terrorist attacks. Illegal immigration also came to the forefront of national consciousness, as commentators pointed out that the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico was endangering our national security. The U.S. government struggled to find a middle ground that allowed immigration yet tightened restrictions on legal aliens so as to impede illegal immigration.
With the advent of the War on Terror, many critics immediately called for tighter restrictions on U.S. immigration policy. "One of the most pressing but neglected subjects in the war on terrorism is the relationship between immigration and terrorism," argues Richard D. Lamm, the former governor of Colorado. Perhaps the biggest concern for immigration reform supporters was the U.S.-Mexican border, which has been the site of thousands of illegal alien crossings per week. "We must understand that the border is a critical tool for protecting America and we have to recognize and admit to ourselves how vulnerable we are," suggests Lamm. Calls for a wall separating the United States from Mexico, military patrols of the border, and a virtual cessation of all immigration are among the most commonly offered solutions.
Supporters of immigration policy acknowledge that although some policies need adjustment, the United States should not become xenophobic and reactionary in light of these new threats. They argue that U.S. immigration policy is already too restrictive for some groups. For example, after the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government shut down the refugee program, which stranded more than 22,000 refugees traveling to the United States. "Many refugees were trapped in homeless limbo after giving up their old living quarters, unable to come to new homes or to join people who awaited them," reports the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. In addition, many Muslim men living in the United States legally were detained and eventually deported back to their home countries. "Immigration controls are explicable only by racism," claims Teresa Hyter, an immigration activist and author. "It is hard to see why people should not be allowed to move around the world in search of work or safety or both."
The United States must continue to balance national security concerns with an immigration policy that welcomes hard-working immigrants. Despite setbacks and criticism from both sides of the debate, officials must craft a policy that is fair to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who come to the United States in pursuit of the American Dream.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants, also known as undocumented aliens, enter a country secretly, without obtaining visas or passing through an official entry point. Because illegal immigrants do not readily identify themselves for fear of deportation, it is almost impossible to determine how many there are in the United States. Various sources have estimated between two and twelve million, but most estimates are little more than educated guesses and are often politically influenced.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border face a new danger in their harrowing trip across the vast Sonoran desert of America's Southwest. Some U.S. citizens who live near America's southwestern border with Mexico are frustrated by what they see as an unrestricted flow of illegal immigrants. These Americans believe that they have the right to protect the U.S. border and have formed citizen militia groups to do just that. Immigrant rights advocates claim that these organizations put migrants at risk and hold these groups responsible for murders and attacks on migrants in the Arizona desert.
While Border Patrol officials do not directly oppose civilian militias, they do not encourage them.
Local leaders and human rights organizations, however, take an affirmative stand against what they call the militias' vigilante actions. Since 1999 human rights advocates in Arizona have been warning state officials about the threat these civilian militia groups pose.
One alleged example of violence against illegal immigrants occurred in October 2002 in Red Rock, Arizona. A thirty-two-year-old man told a sheriff's department investigator that he was standing in the desert with a group of twelve illegal immigrants when two men wearing camouflage fatigues pulled up in a vehicle and opened fire. The man escaped, but when the sheriff arrived, two men lay dead and the remaining nine had disappeared.
While local residents in the Southwest are frustrated with U.S. border policy, most do not support civilian militias. The boards of supervisors and city councils in the Arizona communities of Bisbee, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, and Douglas have passed resolutions that oppose the formation of civilian militias. Responding to discontent in their communities, political leaders have begun to ask for federal help. U.S. senator John McCain of Arizona has advised the Senate, "Vigilante groups have formed, taking up arms, and taking the law into their own hands because they do not believe the federal government is doing its job at preventing illegal immigration at the border. We simply cannot tolerate this type of violence at the border." He and Senator Jon Kyl, also of Arizona, support resolutions against civilian militias and ask that the federal government take responsibility for border problems.
Whether civilian militias are a threat to migrants or an effective tool in controlling the U.S.-Mexico border remains controversial. The authors in the following chapter debate other issues concerning how the United States should respond to illegal immigration.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Need More Expansive Protections and Opportunities to Gain Legal Status
Illegal immigrants need both opportunities to gain legal status in the United States and protections consistent with the values inherent in the American judicial system, regardless of their status as noncitizens. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Bipartisan initiatives to allow for illegal immigrants to enter the country and work toward acquiring citizenship are needed to relieve the burden placed on an overtaxed system. A growing number of border patrol groups, some of which have been known to harass immigrants, subvert the American legal system and operate without consistent approaches to interacting with people entering the country. Driver's licenses should be issued to illegal immigrants to discourage people from creating forged forms of identification and to prevent unlicensed drivers from taking to the road.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These two measures have made it easier for the courts and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to send illegal immigrants out of the country by expanding the range of offenses that allow for deportation. They also grant agents of the INS broader authority to determine whether a person should be detained. The number of illegal immigrants impacted by the two laws dramatically increased after their passage. With regard to these detainees, William G. Paul, former president of the American Bar Association, asks about those who have not had their stories documented: "What about the lives and the plight of thousands of others being jailed and deported? What does it say about us, that we cannot promise them a fair hearing? The U.S., a nation of immigrants, cannot be free if it takes freedom from those who believe in the promise of justice for all."
Some have called for policies and programs that allow for the introduction of illegal immigrants into the country with the ultimate promise of citizenship. These immigrants often come into the country to earn a higher wage than the one they can receive in their home country. If they are caught illegally entering the country, they are sent back to Mexico only to try again. It remains to be seen whether a measure to extend a fence along a portion of the border will effectively stem the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. Homegrown border patrol groups—operating outside of the legal system—have been accused of harassing and inflicting violence on illegal immigrants. Organized crime has also operated along the border, charging a premium for smuggling services. While several promising initiatives to handle illegal immigration at the border had been proposed before 2001, the 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., forestalled many of these measures. Jacoby believes that President George W. Bush's advocacy of a guest worker program, with benefits including driving privileges and health care, is a bold step toward a solution but criticizes the plan because it does not allow for the eventual granting of citizenship. "[W]hat kind of democracy depends for its livelihood on a vast pool of noncitizen nonpersons who cannot participate in civil society?," he asks.
Immigrants Who Enter the Country Illegally but Pose No Threat to National Security Should Be Afforded More Protections
Immigration policy should be tailored to allow entry to people who do not threaten national security or impose a burden on the American economy. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Many immigrants are detained and held in facilities across the country without adequate protections and privileges. Although various alternatives to detainment have been successful, they have not been implemented on a widespread basis. Furthermore, initiatives like George W. Bush's proposed guest-worker program are needed to ensure that illegal immigrants employed in the United States receive some recognition and benefit for their contributions to the national economy.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These measures granted broad authority to agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) giving them responsibility for determining whether immigrants should be detained. Immigrants without proper documentation, many seeking political asylum in the United States, have been sent to facilities across the country to await decisions on their status. A quarter of the children whose paperwork is compromised have been held in facilities that also house juvenile criminals. Some of these waylaid immigrants are unable to be deported because the United States does not have diplomatic relations with their home countries. Government-run and private detention centers routinely exceed their capacity, so detainees are often sent to city and county jails without opportunities to argue for their freedom. While less restrictive approaches to detainment have been successful, such initiatives have either not gained widespread support from the INS or have been difficult to implement. Despite the continuation of prohibitive detention policies some strides were made in 2000 when the INS agreed to standards that allowed for access to legal services for many detainees. More should be done to ensure that detainees are afforded protections consistent with the accommodating spirit of the American judicial system.
Despite attempts to restrict illegal immigration, people—especially at the U.S. southern border—routinely enter the United States with the intention to gain employment. Recognizing the dependence that the American economy has on this workforce, President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program in 2004. The plan called for legal status for temporary workers that could be renewed every three years and benefits including driving privileges and health care. Many members of Congress expressed concern about the plan, especially in light of potential breaches of national security by people entering the country. Citing a book by Michelle Malkin, commentator Cathy Young notes, "Given the realities of the global economy and the U.S. labor market, the flow of migrants into this country will be a fact for the foreseeable future. Making legal entry easier for people who want to better their lot in life is a much more feasible solution than making entry `a fiercely guarded privilege,' as Malkin suggests in her book. It is also far more feasible than the fantasy of deporting the 9 million to 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here." Young advocates the redistribution of resources away from restrictive border control and toward strategies that target immigrants from countries with an established connection to terrorist activity.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Should Be Obligated to Follow the Proper Legal Channels to Gain Rights and Privileges
More should be done to restrict illegal immigration and ensure that people entering the country illegally are not afforded the protections and rights provided to citizens. President George W. Bush's 2004 proposed program to offer legal status to undocumented workers disadvantages those going through the proper channels to gain citizenship. Municipalities across the country have policies in place that prevent law enforcement officials from making arrests based solely on illegal immigration status. As many as eleven states have allowed illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses. Efforts to enter the country illegally have the potential to compromise national security and contribute to a sense that illegal actions have no negative consequences and may in fact reward those who subvert the law.
In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his intention to sponsor a program that would provide illegal immigrants with the opportunity to work legally in the United States for three-year renewable periods. The president was careful not to label the program amnesty for illegal immigrants, although some viewed the proposal as an open invitation for people from Mexico to enter the United States and undercut the wages of workers in low paying jobs. William Norman Grigg, editor for the New American, claims, "Open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, subsidies for Mexico's economy, exporting manufacturing capacity south of the border, expanded welfare benefits for foreigners who entered our nation illegally—these are all part of the same seamless design. As [Mexican President Vicente] Fox himself put it, that design is the `integration' of the U.S. and Mexico into a hemisphere-wide political unit."
Cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston have "sanctuary" programs in place that handcuff law enforcement groups from arresting illegal immigrants. Under such programs, illegal immigrants must first commit a crime before they are arrested—even though their status as illegal aliens is reason enough to report them to immigration officials. Many in the law enforcement community believe, illegal immigrants, some of whom return to the United States after being deported and subsequently contribute to gang activities, are afforded too many protections. Although the immediate removal of illegal immigrants already deported after committing crimes would arguably serve a benefit, sanctuary programs prevent law enforcement officials from taking immediate preemptive action. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, reports that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants makes it difficult for sanctuary programs to be discontinued. She notes, "The population of illegal aliens and their legal brethren has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating them, even at the expense of annulling the law and tolerating avoidable violence."
In order to provide for national security, policies should be put into place to prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and voting. The 9/11 hijackers were in possession of more than sixty driver's licenses. Reports also exist of convicted terrorists being on the voting rolls of various states. More careful measures to ensure that only legal immigrants and citizens receive government-issued documentation and voting privileges would restrict illegal immigrants from having the ability to harm its citizens and possibly impact elections.

Immigration

America, from its very beginning, has been a land of immigrants. People have come from all nations seeking free choice of worship, escape from cruel governments, and relief from war, famine, or poverty. All came with dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. America has accommodated these people of diverse backgrounds, customs, and beliefs, although not without considerable friction along the way.

Is Immigration a Serious Problem?
One of the issues often ignored in the immigration debate is the impact of immigration on sending countries. Some claim that immigration drains sending nations of their best minds and hurts their economies. Others argue that the money immigrants send to their families left behind and the economic ties they help establish benefit sending nations.
The most obvious loss to sending nations when their citizens emigrate, some analysts contend, is the loss of human capital, often called a "brain drain." People who emigrate are often the brightest and most enterprising.
Those concerned about immigration's impact on sending nations also point to the loss of tax revenue. In a study of the impact of emigration from India, Mihir Desai of Harvard University found that 1 million Indians lived in the United States in 2001. Although this number comprised only 0.1 percent of India's population, the immigrants' U.S. earnings were equivalent to 10 percent of India's national income. The study concluded that the net fiscal cost to India of losing these taxpayers was nearly 0.5 percent of India's gross domestic product in 2002.
Another benefit of immigration to sending nations is that global trade and business opportunities are often created as immigrants travel back and forth between the host and the sending nation. For example, Aissa Goumidi, who emigrated from Algeria to Marseilles, France, sold all of his textiles to merchants in Algeria. Another Marseilles immigrant, Mohamed Laqhila, an accountant, is bringing people from accounting institutions in the Maghreb countries to discuss business opportunities there with his colleagues in France. A recent phenomenon is the development of what are known as "knowledge networks." These networks often use the Internet to create networks of business contacts with similar expertise.
Those who have concluded that immigration can have a positive impact on sending nations contend that rather than a "brain drain," immigration can more appropriately be described as "brain circulation." Some commentators conclude that in the modern world, the benefits of immigration outweigh the risks to sending nations.
The impact of immigration on sending nations remains subject to debate.
Immigration Is Beneficial to the United States
America is a country of immigrants; throughout the years, people have come from every country in the world to settle in the United States. The diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and traditions of these newcomers has strengthened both American culture and the economy. Many commentators believe that immigration still plays a necessary role in allowing America to stay vital and competitive on a global scale.
Immigration benefits the United States in a number of ways. Culturally, immigrants have made a huge contribution towards producing the multicultural society to which Americans are accustomed. Music, literature, fashion, and art have all benefited from the diversity of voices, traditions, and perspectives that immigrants bring. Moreover, immigrants have made a significant impact on America's economy. The overwhelming majority of immigrants take advantage of greater opportunities in education and employment in the hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. "There is a mass of evidence to show that immigrants actually make a big contribution to the wealth and prosperity of the countries they go to," asserts Teresa Hayter, an immigration activist and author. Immigration "also improves both the job prospects and the wages and conditions of workers," she notes.
According to Ben Wattenberg, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, immigration is necessary for America's national security. In many cases, immigration allows refugees to escape repressive and even life-threatening conditions. By settling in a place more tolerant of ethnicity, nationality, religion, and race, immigrants can become productive members of society. Immigrants "are the best spokespeople for democracy and other Western values," Wattenberg contends. Therefore, the "United States must continue to accept immigrants in order to strengthen American power and influence around the world."
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States government began to severely restrict refugee and other immigration programs. Supporters of these policies argued that curbing immigration was an effective way to stop terrorists from entering the country and attacking it. However, critics argue that these measures have produced an opposite effect. "These policies instead hamper efforts to reduce terrorism, as they alienate immigrants who may be in the best position to help intelligence agencies gain access to communities they otherwise cannot infiltrate," contends Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. "Anti-immigration policies will have the most deleterious effect on immigrants who love America rather than on those who intend to harm it." Instead of stopping terrorism, the restriction of American refugee and immigration policies will only persecute the defenseless---particularly innocent women and children.
Immigration to the United States Must Be Restricted
There have always been Americans who have wanted to curtail legal and illegal immigration to the United States. Concerns that immigrants would overwhelm American society, take jobs from citizens, and change the American fabric have been around since the early nineteenth century. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, immigration has once again been thrust into the forefront of American debate. Critics of current immigration policy argue that immigration reform, particularly tighter restrictions on the flow of legal and immigrations, is imperative in light of the numerous threats immigration holds for the future of America.
For some critics, immigration represents a threat to our economy, culture, and national identity. They contend that immigrants often take jobs from American citizens and overwhelm services such as medical care, schools, and law enforcement. Furthermore, there is a belief that immigration profoundly changes our culture as well as our sense of who we are. With the concept of multiculturalism, Americans are forced to learn about other cultures at the expense of American culture. By subscribing to ideas of multiculturalism and the freedom and sacredness of each individual, argues Lawrence Auster, we have lost what has made America great. According to Auster, freedom "translates into the equal right of all individuals to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams, even if we are speaking of tens of millions of people from alien cultures whose exercise of their individual right to come to America will mean the destruction of our cultural goods."
Security issues have also become a growing concern for immigration policy critics. After September 11, 2001, many Americans acknowledged the need for tightened security and rigorous immigration procedures. "The September 11 terrorist attacks have made immigration reform a matter of life and death," asserts Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center of Immigration Studies. "Cuts in both permanent and temporary immigration would contribute significantly to improved security by permitting more efficient management and by denying terrorists cover." Immigration reform is considered a vital front on the winning the War on Terror. "The actions of September 11th were acts of war carried out against our civilian population by foreign civilians who came here legally and who lived, played, worked, and went to school in the United States," argues former Colorado governor Richard Lamm. "Immigration reform will not solve the problem of terrorism, but this problem will not be solved without immigration reform."
With national security at the forefront of American debate, illegal and legal immigration has once again become a hot topic. Reform of current immigration policy is essential to keep the United States safe contend proponents of greater national identity and immigration control.
Most Immigration Is Beneficial for the United States
Immigration has long been a controversial topic in the United States. Most Americans acknowledge the contribution of immigrants and want to keep in place a process for legal immigrants to apply and become citizens after a rigorous screening process. While they realize the valuable contributions these American citizens could make to the American fabric, there has been disagreement on what kind of immigration should be welcomed in this country, how restrictive the procedures should be, and even on the impact immigration has had on our national psyche. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, critics of U.S. immigration policy called for more restrictive measures to protect the nation from further terrorist attacks. Illegal immigration also came to the forefront of national consciousness, as commentators pointed out that the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico was endangering our national security. The U.S. government struggled to find a middle ground that allowed immigration yet tightened restrictions on legal aliens so as to impede illegal immigration.
With the advent of the War on Terror, many critics immediately called for tighter restrictions on U.S. immigration policy. "One of the most pressing but neglected subjects in the war on terrorism is the relationship between immigration and terrorism," argues Richard D. Lamm, the former governor of Colorado. Perhaps the biggest concern for immigration reform supporters was the U.S.-Mexican border, which has been the site of thousands of illegal alien crossings per week. "We must understand that the border is a critical tool for protecting America and we have to recognize and admit to ourselves how vulnerable we are," suggests Lamm. Calls for a wall separating the United States from Mexico, military patrols of the border, and a virtual cessation of all immigration are among the most commonly offered solutions.
Supporters of immigration policy acknowledge that although some policies need adjustment, the United States should not become xenophobic and reactionary in light of these new threats. They argue that U.S. immigration policy is already too restrictive for some groups. For example, after the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government shut down the refugee program, which stranded more than 22,000 refugees traveling to the United States. "Many refugees were trapped in homeless limbo after giving up their old living quarters, unable to come to new homes or to join people who awaited them," reports the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. In addition, many Muslim men living in the United States legally were detained and eventually deported back to their home countries. "Immigration controls are explicable only by racism," claims Teresa Hyter, an immigration activist and author. "It is hard to see why people should not be allowed to move around the world in search of work or safety or both."
The United States must continue to balance national security concerns with an immigration policy that welcomes hard-working immigrants. Despite setbacks and criticism from both sides of the debate, officials must craft a policy that is fair to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who come to the United States in pursuit of the American Dream.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants, also known as undocumented aliens, enter a country secretly, without obtaining visas or passing through an official entry point. Because illegal immigrants do not readily identify themselves for fear of deportation, it is almost impossible to determine how many there are in the United States. Various sources have estimated between two and twelve million, but most estimates are little more than educated guesses and are often politically influenced.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border face a new danger in their harrowing trip across the vast Sonoran desert of America's Southwest. Some U.S. citizens who live near America's southwestern border with Mexico are frustrated by what they see as an unrestricted flow of illegal immigrants. These Americans believe that they have the right to protect the U.S. border and have formed citizen militia groups to do just that. Immigrant rights advocates claim that these organizations put migrants at risk and hold these groups responsible for murders and attacks on migrants in the Arizona desert.
While Border Patrol officials do not directly oppose civilian militias, they do not encourage them.
Local leaders and human rights organizations, however, take an affirmative stand against what they call the militias' vigilante actions. Since 1999 human rights advocates in Arizona have been warning state officials about the threat these civilian militia groups pose.
One alleged example of violence against illegal immigrants occurred in October 2002 in Red Rock, Arizona. A thirty-two-year-old man told a sheriff's department investigator that he was standing in the desert with a group of twelve illegal immigrants when two men wearing camouflage fatigues pulled up in a vehicle and opened fire. The man escaped, but when the sheriff arrived, two men lay dead and the remaining nine had disappeared.
While local residents in the Southwest are frustrated with U.S. border policy, most do not support civilian militias. The boards of supervisors and city councils in the Arizona communities of Bisbee, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, and Douglas have passed resolutions that oppose the formation of civilian militias. Responding to discontent in their communities, political leaders have begun to ask for federal help. U.S. senator John McCain of Arizona has advised the Senate, "Vigilante groups have formed, taking up arms, and taking the law into their own hands because they do not believe the federal government is doing its job at preventing illegal immigration at the border. We simply cannot tolerate this type of violence at the border." He and Senator Jon Kyl, also of Arizona, support resolutions against civilian militias and ask that the federal government take responsibility for border problems.
Whether civilian militias are a threat to migrants or an effective tool in controlling the U.S.-Mexico border remains controversial. The authors in the following chapter debate other issues concerning how the United States should respond to illegal immigration.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Need More Expansive Protections and Opportunities to Gain Legal Status
Illegal immigrants need both opportunities to gain legal status in the United States and protections consistent with the values inherent in the American judicial system, regardless of their status as noncitizens. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Bipartisan initiatives to allow for illegal immigrants to enter the country and work toward acquiring citizenship are needed to relieve the burden placed on an overtaxed system. A growing number of border patrol groups, some of which have been known to harass immigrants, subvert the American legal system and operate without consistent approaches to interacting with people entering the country. Driver's licenses should be issued to illegal immigrants to discourage people from creating forged forms of identification and to prevent unlicensed drivers from taking to the road.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These two measures have made it easier for the courts and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to send illegal immigrants out of the country by expanding the range of offenses that allow for deportation. They also grant agents of the INS broader authority to determine whether a person should be detained. The number of illegal immigrants impacted by the two laws dramatically increased after their passage. With regard to these detainees, William G. Paul, former president of the American Bar Association, asks about those who have not had their stories documented: "What about the lives and the plight of thousands of others being jailed and deported? What does it say about us, that we cannot promise them a fair hearing? The U.S., a nation of immigrants, cannot be free if it takes freedom from those who believe in the promise of justice for all."
Some have called for policies and programs that allow for the introduction of illegal immigrants into the country with the ultimate promise of citizenship. These immigrants often come into the country to earn a higher wage than the one they can receive in their home country. If they are caught illegally entering the country, they are sent back to Mexico only to try again. It remains to be seen whether a measure to extend a fence along a portion of the border will effectively stem the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. Homegrown border patrol groups—operating outside of the legal system—have been accused of harassing and inflicting violence on illegal immigrants. Organized crime has also operated along the border, charging a premium for smuggling services. While several promising initiatives to handle illegal immigration at the border had been proposed before 2001, the 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., forestalled many of these measures. Jacoby believes that President George W. Bush's advocacy of a guest worker program, with benefits including driving privileges and health care, is a bold step toward a solution but criticizes the plan because it does not allow for the eventual granting of citizenship. "[W]hat kind of democracy depends for its livelihood on a vast pool of noncitizen nonpersons who cannot participate in civil society?," he asks.
Immigrants Who Enter the Country Illegally but Pose No Threat to National Security Should Be Afforded More Protections
Immigration policy should be tailored to allow entry to people who do not threaten national security or impose a burden on the American economy. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Many immigrants are detained and held in facilities across the country without adequate protections and privileges. Although various alternatives to detainment have been successful, they have not been implemented on a widespread basis. Furthermore, initiatives like George W. Bush's proposed guest-worker program are needed to ensure that illegal immigrants employed in the United States receive some recognition and benefit for their contributions to the national economy.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These measures granted broad authority to agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) giving them responsibility for determining whether immigrants should be detained. Immigrants without proper documentation, many seeking political asylum in the United States, have been sent to facilities across the country to await decisions on their status. A quarter of the children whose paperwork is compromised have been held in facilities that also house juvenile criminals. Some of these waylaid immigrants are unable to be deported because the United States does not have diplomatic relations with their home countries. Government-run and private detention centers routinely exceed their capacity, so detainees are often sent to city and county jails without opportunities to argue for their freedom. While less restrictive approaches to detainment have been successful, such initiatives have either not gained widespread support from the INS or have been difficult to implement. Despite the continuation of prohibitive detention policies some strides were made in 2000 when the INS agreed to standards that allowed for access to legal services for many detainees. More should be done to ensure that detainees are afforded protections consistent with the accommodating spirit of the American judicial system.
Despite attempts to restrict illegal immigration, people—especially at the U.S. southern border—routinely enter the United States with the intention to gain employment. Recognizing the dependence that the American economy has on this workforce, President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program in 2004. The plan called for legal status for temporary workers that could be renewed every three years and benefits including driving privileges and health care. Many members of Congress expressed concern about the plan, especially in light of potential breaches of national security by people entering the country. Citing a book by Michelle Malkin, commentator Cathy Young notes, "Given the realities of the global economy and the U.S. labor market, the flow of migrants into this country will be a fact for the foreseeable future. Making legal entry easier for people who want to better their lot in life is a much more feasible solution than making entry `a fiercely guarded privilege,' as Malkin suggests in her book. It is also far more feasible than the fantasy of deporting the 9 million to 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here." Young advocates the redistribution of resources away from restrictive border control and toward strategies that target immigrants from countries with an established connection to terrorist activity.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Should Be Obligated to Follow the Proper Legal Channels to Gain Rights and Privileges
More should be done to restrict illegal immigration and ensure that people entering the country illegally are not afforded the protections and rights provided to citizens. President George W. Bush's 2004 proposed program to offer legal status to undocumented workers disadvantages those going through the proper channels to gain citizenship. Municipalities across the country have policies in place that prevent law enforcement officials from making arrests based solely on illegal immigration status. As many as eleven states have allowed illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses. Efforts to enter the country illegally have the potential to compromise national security and contribute to a sense that illegal actions have no negative consequences and may in fact reward those who subvert the law.
In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his intention to sponsor a program that would provide illegal immigrants with the opportunity to work legally in the United States for three-year renewable periods. The president was careful not to label the program amnesty for illegal immigrants, although some viewed the proposal as an open invitation for people from Mexico to enter the United States and undercut the wages of workers in low paying jobs. William Norman Grigg, editor for the New American, claims, "Open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, subsidies for Mexico's economy, exporting manufacturing capacity south of the border, expanded welfare benefits for foreigners who entered our nation illegally—these are all part of the same seamless design. As [Mexican President Vicente] Fox himself put it, that design is the `integration' of the U.S. and Mexico into a hemisphere-wide political unit."
Cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston have "sanctuary" programs in place that handcuff law enforcement groups from arresting illegal immigrants. Under such programs, illegal immigrants must first commit a crime before they are arrested—even though their status as illegal aliens is reason enough to report them to immigration officials. Many in the law enforcement community believe, illegal immigrants, some of whom return to the United States after being deported and subsequently contribute to gang activities, are afforded too many protections. Although the immediate removal of illegal immigrants already deported after committing crimes would arguably serve a benefit, sanctuary programs prevent law enforcement officials from taking immediate preemptive action. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, reports that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants makes it difficult for sanctuary programs to be discontinued. She notes, "The population of illegal aliens and their legal brethren has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating them, even at the expense of annulling the law and tolerating avoidable violence."
In order to provide for national security, policies should be put into place to prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and voting. The 9/11 hijackers were in possession of more than sixty driver's licenses. Reports also exist of convicted terrorists being on the voting rolls of various states. More careful measures to ensure that only legal immigrants and citizens receive government-issued documentation and voting privileges would restrict illegal immigrants from having the ability to harm its citizens and possibly impact elections.

Native American Wisdom

In 1492, Columbus and his crew, lost, battered, and sick with dysentery, were helped ashore by a people he described as "neither black nor white...fairly tall, good looking and well proportioned." He believed he had landed in the East Indies, thus calling these people Indians. In fact, they were part of a great population that had made their homes on this continent for many centuries.
The inhabitants of this mighty land were not one people. Their customs differed. Their languages differed. Their lifestyles differed. Some tilled the earth; others hunted and picked the abundance of the land around them. They lived in different kinds of housing. They governed themselves by differing rules.
But they shared a common belief that the earth is a spiritual presence that must be honored, not mastered. The Western Europeans that came to the shores of this new country shared a very different belief, however. To them, the entire American continent was a beautiful, but savage land. A land, that it was not only their right, but their duty, to tame and use as they saw fit.
Unlike many other traditions, the spiritual wisdom of the Native American Indian is not found in a set of "scriptural materials." It is, and has always been, a part of the everyday fabric of the Indian's daily life and experience. These people speak quietly. Their words are simple and their voices are soft. We have not heard them because we have not taken the time to listen. Perhaps now is the time for us to open our ears and hearts to the words they have to say.
As the twentieth century draws to a close, Western civilization is facing the inevitable results of their philosophy of dominance. We have gotten out of balance with our earth, and the very future of our existence depends on our ability to restore that balance.
THE WAYS OF THE PEOPLE
From "The Wisdom of the Native Americans" by Kent Nerburn (New World Library, 1999).
Life is an endless cycle of change. We and our world will never remain the same. Every generation has difficulty relating to the previous generation; even the language changes. The child speaks a different language than the parent does. It seems almost miraculous, then, that certain voices, certain books, are able to speak not only to one, but to many generations beyond them. The plays and poems of William Shakespeare are still relevant today – still capable of giving us goosebumps, still entertaining, disturbing, and profound. Shakespeare is the writer who, in the English language, defines the word classic. There are many other writers and thinkers who, for a great many reasons, can be considered classic, for they withstand the test of time.
THE TEACHING OF CHILDREN
… All the customs of our people were held to be divinely instituted, and customs involving the training of children were scrupulously adhered to and transmitted from one generation to another… It is true that we had no schoolhouses, no books, no regular school hours. Our children were trained in the natural way — they kept in close contact with the natural world. In this way, they found themselves and became conscious of their relationship to all of life…
We taught our children by both example and instruction, but with the emphasis on example, because all learning is a dead language to one who gets it secondhand. Our physical training was thorough and intelligent, while as to the moral and spiritual side of our teaching. I am not afraid to compare it with that of any race...
We conceived the art of teaching as, first and foremost, the development of personality; and we considered the fundamentals of education to be love of the Great Mystery, love of nature, and love of people and country...
THE ROLE OF THE ELDERS
… The distinctive work of the grandparents is that of acquainting the children with the traditions and beliefs of the nation. The grandparents are old and wise. They have lived and achieved. They are dedicated to the service of the young, as their teachers and advisers, and the young in turn regard them with love and reverence. In them the Indian recognizes the natural and truest teachers of the child…
A LIFE OF SERVICE
… We are never permitted to forget that we do not live to ourselves alone, but to our tribe and clan. Every child, from the first days of learning, is a public servant in training… The young boy was encouraged to enlist early in the public service, and to develop a wholesome ambition for the honors of a leader and feastmaker, which could never be his unless he proved truthful and generous, a well as brave, and ever mindful of his personal chastity and honor…
THE BEAUTY OF GENEROSITY
… It has always been our belief that the love of possessions is a weakness to be overcome… Therefore we must early learn the beauty of generosity. As children we are taught to give what we prize most, that we may taste the happiness of giving; at an early age we are made the family giver of alms… Pubic giving is a part of every important ceremony. It properly belongs to the celebration of birth, marriage, and death, and is observed whenever it is desired to do special honor to any person or event… Upon such occasion it is common to literally give away all that one has to relatives, to guests of another tribe or clan, but above all to the poor and the aged, from whom we can hope for no return…
ORDER, ETIQUETTE AND DECORUM
… No one who is at all acquainted with us in our homes can deny that we Indians are a polite people… a low soft voice has always been considered an excellent thing… Even the warrior who inspired the greatest terror in the hearts of his enemies was, as a rule, a man of the most exemplary gentleness... In the presence of a guest, promiscuous laughing or a careless attitude are not permitted. Rigid decorum and respectful silence are observed... The serving of food is always orderly and polite. Guests are offered food at whatever hour of the day they may appear...
THE MORAL STRENGTH OF WOMAN
… In the woman is vested the standard of morals of our people. She is the silent but telling power behind all of life’s activities… She rules undisputed in her own domain. The children belong to her clan… she holds all the family property, and the honor of the house… Possessed of true feminine dignity and modesty, she is expected to be the equal of her mate in physical endurance and skill, and to share equally in the arduous duties of daily life. But she is expected to be superior in spiritual insight…. There is nothing artificial about her person, and very little insincerity in her character… her profoundly religious attitude gives her a strength and poise than cannot be overcome by ordinary misfortune.
SACREDNESS AND HONOR
… A sense of honor pervades all aspects of Indian life. Orphans and the aged are cared for… He sets no price upon either his property or his labor. His generosity is limited only by his strength. He considers it as an honor to be selected for a difficult or dangerous service, and would think it a shame to ask for any other reward… He is always ready to undertake the impossible, or to impoverish himself for the sake of a friend… Where the other person is regarded more than the self, duty is sweeter and more inspiring, patriotism more sacred, and friendship is a pure and eternal bond.
THE MEANING OF DEATH
… Our attitude toward death… is entirely consistent with our character and philosophy… We never doubt the immortal nature of the human soul or spirit, but neither do we care to speculate upon its probable state or condition in a future life… we were content to believe that the spirit which the Great Mystery breathed into us returns to the Creator who gave it and, and that after it is freed from the body it is everywhere and pervades all nature. Thus, death holds no terrors for us… The idea of a "happy hunting ground" is… invented by the white man…

"We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers.”
The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh... What are human beings without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, human beings would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to all human beings. All things are connected. This we know.
The earth does not belong to human beings; human beings belong to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the children of the earth. We do not weave the web of life, we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves."
-(Attributed to) Chief Seattle, Suqwamish and Duwamish
The following are excerpts from Kent Nerburn's book, "The Wisdom of the Native Americans" (New World Library, 1999).
THE GREAT MYSTERY
The attitude of the American Indian toward the Eternal, the Great Mystery that surrounds and embraces us, is as simple as it is exalted. To us it is the supreme conception, bringing with it the fullest measure of joy and satisfaction possible in this life...The worship of the Great Mystery is silent, solitary, free from all self-seeking... It is silent, because all speech is of necessity feeble and imperfect; therefore the souls of our ancestors ascended to God in wordless adoration… Our religion is an attitude of mind, not a dogma.
THE TEMPLE OF NATURE
There are no temples or shrines among us save those of nature. As children of nature, we are intensely poetical. We would deem it sacrilege to build a house for The One who may be met face to face in the mysterious, shadowy aisles of the primeval forest, or on the sunlit bosom of virgin prairies, upon dizzy spires and pinnacles of naked rock, and in the vast jeweled vault of the night sky! A God who enrobed in filmy veils of cloud, there on the rim of the visible world where our Great-grandfather Sun kindles his evening camp-fire; who rides upon the rigorous wind of the north, or breathes forth spirit upon fragrant southern airs, whose war canoe is launched upon majestic rivers and inland seas — such a God needs no lesser cathedral.
THE POWER OF SILENCE
We first Americans mingle with our pride an exceptional humility. Spiritual arrogance is foreign to our nature and teaching. We never claimed that the power of articulate speech is proof of superiority over "dumb creation"; on the other hand, it is to us a perilous gift... We believe profoundly in silence — the sign of a perfect equilibrium. Silence is the absolute poise or balance of body, mind, and spirit. Those who can preserve their selfhood ever calm and unshaken by the storms of existence — not a leaf, as it were, astir on the tree; not a ripple upon the shining pool — those, in the mind of the person of nature, possess the ideal attitude and conduct of life… If you ask us, "What is silence?" we will answer, "It is the Great Mystery. The holy silence is God’s voice." …If you ask, "What are the fruits of silence?" we will answer, "They are self-control, true courage or endurance, patience, dignity, and reverence. Silence is the cornerstone of character."
THE PRESENCE OF SPIRIT
Naturally magnanimous and open-minded, we have always preferred to believe that the Spirit of God is not breathed into humans alone, but that the whole created universe shares in the immortal perfection of its Maker… The elements and majestic forces of nature — lighting, wind, water, fire and frost — are regarded with awe as spiritual powers, but always secondary and intermediate in character. We believe that the spirit pervades all creation and that every creature possess a soul in some degree, though not necessarily a soul of conscious itself. The tree, the waterfall, the grizzly bear, each is an embodied Force, and as such an object of reverence.
POVERTY AND SIMPLICITY
We original Americans have generally been despised by our white conquerors of our poverty and simplicity. They forget, perhaps, that our religion forbade the accumulation of wealth and the enjoyment of luxury. To us, as to other spiritually-minded people in every age and race, the love of possessions is a snare, and the burdens of a complex society a source of needless peril and temptation… It is simple truth that we Indians did not, so long as our native philosophy held sway over our minds, either envy or desire to imitate the splendid achievements of the white race. In our own thought we rose superior to them! We scorned them, even as a lofty spirit absorbed in its own task rejects the soft beds, the luxurious food, the pleasure-worshipping dalliance of a rich neighbor. It was clear to us that virtue and happiness are independent of these things, if not incompatible with them… Furthermore, it was the rule of our life to share the fruits of our skill and success with our less fortunate brothers and sisters. Thus we kept our spirits free from the clog of pride, avarice, or envy, and carried out, as we believed, the divine decree — a matter of profound importance to us.
NATURE AND SOLITUDE
As children of nature, we have always looked upon the concentration of population as the prolific mother of all evils, moral no less than physical. It was not, then, wholly from ignorance or improvidence that we failed to establish permanent towns and to develop a material civilization. We have always believed that food is good, while surfeit kills; that love is good, but lust destroys; and not less dreaded than the pestilence following upon crowded and unsanitary dwellings is the loss of spiritual power inseparable from too close contact with one’s fellow men.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PRAYER
Prayer — the daily recognition of the Unseen and the Eternal — is our one inevitable duty…The spiritual mind is concerned only with the essence of things, and it is this we seek to strengthen by spiritual prayer, during which the body is subdued by fasting and hardship. The second, or physical mind, is lower. It is concerned with all personal or selfish matters, like success in hunting or warfare, relief from sickness, or the sparing of a beloved life. All ceremonies, charms, or other incantations designed to secure a benefit or to avert a danger are recognized as emanating from the physical self.… The rites of this physical worship are wholly symbolic; we may have sundances and other ceremonies, but the Indian no more worships the sun than the Christian worships the cross. In our view, the Sun and Earth are the parents of all organic life. And, it must be admitted, in this our thinking is scientific truth as well as poetic metaphor…. our whole life is prayer because every act of our life is, in a very real sense, a religious act. Our daily devotions are more important to us than food…. We recognize the spirit in all creation, and believe that we draw spiritual power from it…. Thus we see no need for the setting apart one day in seven as a holy day, since to us all days belong to God.

Abortion Primer

Abortion
An abortion is a medical or surgical procedure that ends a pregnancy. Throughout history, differences over moral and religious values have made abortion a highly controversial issue. The procedure has been legal in the United States since 1973, but it remains controversial with divergent views on such questions as when human life begins, the rights a woman has over her own body, and government interference in the private lives of individuals.
The Abortion Controversy
The two factions involved in this controversy are poles apart in their views on abortion: whereas the pro-choice movement contends that a woman's right to abortion is absolute, the pro-life movement asserts that a fetus's right to life is indisputable. Both sides rely on legal, scientific, and human rights arguments to support their arguments.
Behind this debate is the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Roe was based in part on the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy, which the Court ruled was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Even after viability, however, when the fetus could survive outside of the womb, the Court ruled that states must allow abortions that could save women's lives. In 1992 the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, maintaining a woman's fundamental right to abortion.
Abortion rights advocates have praised Roe and Casey for recognizing that a woman's right to control her body takes precedence over a fetus's right to life. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out, "Enforcement of the idea that the fetus has legal rights superseding those of the woman who carries it would make pregnant women second-class citizens with fewer rights, and more obligations, than others." Just as it would be unthinkable to force someone to use their body to donate organs to preserve the life of a living person, pro-choice organizations stress that it would be absurd to allow a fetus to use a woman's body as a life-support system without her consent.
Members of the pro-life movement refute these arguments, however, arguing that Roe and Casey blatantly ignore the fetus's basic human rights. Critics of these rulings assert that the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property," does not give a woman the right to abort her fetus.
Abortion foes also argue that a woman's control over her body is not an absolute right. While a woman has power over her body and can choose how she would like to use it, laws can restrict her control when it infringes on the rights of others. As Frederica Mathewes-Green, an author, columnist for Christianity Today, and commentator for National Public Radio, states, "It is because I still believe so strongly in the right of a woman to protect her body that I now oppose abortion. That right must begin when her body begins, and it must be hers no matter where she lives---even if she lives in her mother's womb."
Most importantly, members of the pro-life movement contend that a fetus is indeed a separate, living human being whose rights begin in the womb and extend after birth. Humanist and ethicist Diana Brown rejects the pro-choice claim that a fetus "is merely part of the mother's body and is entirely hers to dispose of.... Since the fetus is, however, genetically distinct from the mother, the latter position is hard to sustain."
Despite the longtime debate between members of the pro-choice and pro-life movements, the controversy over rights remains unresolved.
Roe v. Wade Ignored the Fundamental Fact that Abortion Kills the Unborn
Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, was a knee-jerk reaction to the feminist era that heralded in a new code of sexual conduct. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court was faced with new realities--women were entering the workforce and demanding equal rights. The Supreme Court invented a theoretical right to privacy--interpreted as the right to exercise control over one's body (as well as a bogus right to sexual privacy)--in an effort to appease a splinter group of abortion-rights activists. So shaky was the Court's interpretation of the word liberty to include the right to destroy human fetuses, that Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his dissenting Roe v. Wadeopinion, wrote, "To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."
There are two problems with abortion. First, the woman who considers an abortion is a friend, roommate, boss, wife, sister, or neighbor to someone. She finds herself in a desperate, untenable situation where it seems the only solution is to have an abortion. Second, no matter how much one empathizes with her, abortion is not a "choice"; it is the killing of an unborn human life. Since it is immoral to own another human being and to act as if some humans are not fully human because it serves some economic purpose, abortion runs contrary to democratic principles, which protect equality and human life.
When Roe v. Wade made women's reproductive issues a private matter, the decision dismantled church and community services that helped women "choose" to have a baby. Before 1973 choice meant adoption: adoptive parents chose to have a child. After 1973 "choice" meant abortion. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was not illegal in this country. Most of the fifty states had statutes that permitted a physician to make the medical decision to perform an abortion when the mother's physical or mental health was in jeopardy. To most people these situations would include the cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Roe v. Wade went beyond the parameters of mother's health and allowed for abortions if the child was "unwanted for anyone or more of a variety of reasons--convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy . . . for any reason or for no reason at all . . . any woman is entitled to an abortion," contended Justice Byron R. White in his opinion.
Roe v. Wade broke down pregnancy into three stages or trimesters. Before 1973 life was considered to begin at the moment of conception. Either a woman was pregnant or she was not. There were no degrees of pregnancy: no one was a "little" pregnant, as no one person is a "little" dead. The Court ruled that as long as the unborn baby was not viable, that is, it could not live outside the mother's womb, it was okay to abort.
Roe v. Wade protected the rights of women to have control over their own bodies
The Roe v. Wade decision (January 1973) legitimized what had previously been almost universally condemned: the practice of abortion. The U.S Supreme Court, by a seven-to-two vote, struck down all state laws that restricted a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and granted to the states only very limited regulatory rights during the second trimester (the state must have a compelling interest in order to infringe upon a woman's right to an abortion during the second trimester). The makeup of women seeking abortions also changed from primarily single, poor black women to rich, married, white women.
In Roe the Court debated a challenge to a Texas antiabortion statute. Although the Court held that a fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment and thus is not protected thereby, it declared the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it did not strike the proper balance between the mother's protected right to privacy and the state's interests. Roe did not sanction abortion "by demand," as many of its critics maintain. In fact, Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger's concurring opinion stated that, "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand." In addition, Blackmun carefully articulated that privacy, not abortion, was a "fundamental right." Subsequent statutes dealing with the second trimester had to be carefully drafted so that any infringements on the mother's rights had to demonstrate compelling state interests. This concept meant that a state could seek to regulate abortion by insisting that any rights that a woman might have are overridden by the need to save human lives. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, laws that impinge on protected personal rights will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a "compelling state interest." Once it is shown that a law impinges upon a right, the burden is on the state to demonstrate that its interest is "compelling," leaving the Court to resolve the issue of whether the interest supersedes that right.
Millions of abortions have been performed since Roe was decided, and the United States ranks third in the world in the number of abortions carried out. Unsatisfied with the fact that women can still have abortions, some antiabortion activists have turned to more-violent protests. Undoubtedly, the abortion debate is far from over.
Roe v. Wade gave everyone the responsibility of thinking carefully about abortion
The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision superseded each state's right to determine the legality of abortion in most situations, as John E. Schwenkler explains. It also created a greater responsibility for everyone involved in the abortion debate---the pro-life side, the pro-choice side, the medical personnel who perform abortions and their support staff, and the women and girls who have abortions. When abortion was illegal, most did not consider it an option, and therefore it was not subject to debate. Now that it is legal, it is the duty of every person potentially impacted by the issue to examine its many components through the dual lenses of personal values and scientific fact, then arrive at a well-considered opinion.
The "common ground" movement highlights points on which both pro-life and pro-choice advocates can agree---for example that no woman should be forced to have an abortion---and emphasizes beginning from those commonalities to enter into a useful discussion as an alternative to virulent and sometimes violent battles. Says Frederica Mathewes-Green in U.S. Catholic, "It is possible to disagree with people without calling them baby-killers, without believing that they are monsters or fiends. It is possible to disagree in an agreeable way." Mathewes-Green continues, "Common ground does not mean compromise. ... In this case, common ground means something more like a demilitarized zone, a safe space where conversation and exploration can take place."
An informed decision requires access to all relevant facts. "When a fetus is diagnosed as disabled or `defective' in some way, few parents are offered a truly informed choice about their options," says Shelley Burtt. "The role of the medical practitioner is not to prescribe a course of action but to provide the necessary information for the patient to decide what he or she truly wants to do." Burtt describes a physician's failure on this front as a form of eugenics and states, "Physicians genuinely committed to patient autonomy in the context of genetic testing would not prejudge the worth or desirability of bearing a child whose genetic makeup was in some way abnormal. Instead, they would seek to ensure that parents truly understood what it meant to care for a child with special needs."
The right of an adult to make an informed decision regarding abortion is protected by Roe v. Wade, but not all pregnant females are adults. When a minor is pregnant, federal abortion laws intersect with state parental-involvement laws, which require that minors seeking an abortion obtain the consent of at least one parent. According to legislators Spencer Abraham and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, "Parental-involvement laws protect parents' rights to know about the important decisions that their children face." They cite a 1996 Gallup poll in which 74 percent of respondents supported the parental-consent requirement for minors seeking abortions, "Whatever one's position on abortion, every American should recognize the crucial role of parents in their minor child's decision whether or not to undergo an abortion."

Debate #2 - The Death Penalty

The United States as well as Japan, India, Guatemala, Botswana, Zambia and many other nations practice capital punishment (also known as the death penalty) today. While Canada, Australia, and almost all of Europe, among others, have abolished the practice.
See the world map for more country by country information. Here is some
general info on the death penalty and here is more on the Capital Punishment controversy and here is a site opposed to the death penalty
and another supporting the death penalty.
Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are two major organizations opposed to the death penalty and Justice For All is a group supporting the penalty.

Anti or Pro

Reading in to this subject has made me very confused..

Couse personally for me it seems you can be both..Both pro and anti

On one hand it could be good having gun control and on other hand it's not necessary..

Some cases people should be aloud to choose on their own...
But some people should not even come close to a gun.

So what is my conclusion..

That you should really think hard about this kind of matter..And the government should defintly give this a big consideriton.

Maybe the debate we are going to have tomorrow in class will help me to figure out my point of wiew..But for now i still think that their is no need fore gun control/

Sussan

Hi everyone! I'm for gun-control. Have you ever seen the documentary film" Bowling for Columbine"(2002) directed by Michael Moor? Columbine high school massacre occurred in 1999 which killed 12 students and a teacher as well as wounding 24 others and is the third-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, after the 1966 university of Texas massacre and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php
Some interesting film clips there! Can you believe? if you open a bank account, you can get a gun. K-mart once selling gun bullets.

And you can buy a gun at Walmart.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=420391&fromPageCatId=420394&catNavId=170084
Regulation!

Thanks.
Maki