Immigration

Can two different political and social ideologies ever come to a pragmatic solution to the current illegal immigration debate? In my opinion, I don’t think there will be an evident change in policy for a long time because of how complex the issue is due to the many underlining angles of the situation. For example, the struggle for State versus Federal authority, societal influences, in which people either see immigrants as being productive or problematic to American society, and the legality of the issue. That being said, we need to provide a systematic compromise that is underlined by a federal law, which would give leniency to the States to provide the aspects of legalization.

The editorial I choose tackles this issue on immigration in a biased, but objective way. It addresses whether or not states should have the right to have legal authority to enforce a law that’s enacted by the states. If it did come to fruition, the editorial states that profiling could be problematic and faulty in trying to evaluate the legal citizens from the illegal immigrants. Moreover, it affirms that the federal system on immigration is essentially “kaput” and the federal government should handle it. Also, it establishes the ideal of a fair compromise between both polarized positions, in which deportation and amnesty are not tangible fixes. This editorial is worth reading because of its short, informative message, which gives incite to a defining point in political and social history. Even though Texas has decided to side with Arizona on their stance on the issue, I think Texas will be likely to change their minds because the majority of the citizens are in fact of Hispanic decent. All in all, we all are the decedents of immigrants, and should be vigilant to domestic affairs that could potentially be detrimental to the ideology of the United States and Texas.

Link