Amending Federal Licensing System to Protect Immigrant Families from Separation

Introduction

In response to Trump's executive order replacing detaining immigrant families together with detaining adults and minors separately, my core recommendation is that you spearhead significant amendments on the federal licensing system. As you are aware, the federal licensing system has been created to look into the registration of parents and children who seek asylum status in the country. However, the system appears to be punitive with the sole intention of deporting children and parents without giving them due consideration. The 1997 Flores settlement focused on improving the standards in which children under the custody of INS are housed. However, it pays no attention to the licensing process to allow such children to live in America. If you accept my recommendation, it will advance your political career. Given that security is a critical issue in America, I believe that you can push for the amendments as a way of advancing the democrats values while promoting ethics in the manner in which immigrants are treated and handled by immigration authorities and border security enforcement officers. The changes in the licensing system should allow immigration authorities to practice due diligence in assessing the needs of the immigrants. Besides, the amendments will introduce ethical standards that should be observed while handling immigrant families from separation at the border.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Family Separation Policy was initiated as a "zero tolerance" approach on issues to do with immigration. The policy was initiated under the leadership of President Bus but less strict as it acted softly on parents immigrating with minors. Under the presidency of Obama, the policy was implemented only to deport immigrants that engaged in criminal activities within the U.S. during this period, other programs such as Family Case Management Program which gave due consideration to vulnerable families from being held in detention centers. There was a change of this policy under Trump administration where the "zero-tolerance" approach was revamped to separate families at order entries where parents would be prosecuted and children assessed before being deported back to their countries. The approach was condemned by several authorities which termed the move as unethical, inhuman and violation of the rights of immigrants.

The widespread condemnation forced President Donald Trump to issue an executive order ending the family detention policy where parents were detained alongside their children. In the current policy, parents and children are detained separately. Since then, it has raised intense criticisms from Democrats and civil groups alike. Notable stakeholders in support of Trump's policy are for-profit prisons, including Civic and GEO Group. These are detainment centers contacted to hold illegal immigrants pending case hearing and determination Being the president Trump is well equipped as he can easily sign an executive order. Being funded by the federal government and having the support of the ruling party, the for-profit prisons also have substantial backing. On the other hand, stakeholders in opposition include many Democrats and civil groups key among them, American Civil Liberties Union and human rights activist and politician Pramila Jayapal. Democrats have a majority say in the Congress and can lobby members to pass or fail an associated bill brought on the floor of the house. For civic groups, they have well-informed lawyers who present their associated lawsuits against the family detention and separation policy. They also have great influential power to mobilize mass action against the same. Specifically, Jayapal may be deemed as the most uniquely poised stakeholder from the activist groups because apart from being a renowned influential activist, she is also a woman and hence complements her political counterpart Pelosi best.

The changes in the federal licensing system do satisfy not only the principles of Flores settlement but also improve how immigrants should be treated. I highly recommend you, as the Speaker of the House to push for the amendment of licensing and registration of immigrants to ensure that they are accorded a fair assessment and that their plight is heard. As required, any immigrant detention facility has to meet specific minimum requirements. These pre-requisite requirements included placing minors under the care of willing facilities or relatives, place them in a less restrictive setting and ensure their humane treatment. Currently, the working policy framework is based on the president's executive order. However, its implementation breaches the tenets of the Flores settlement. Thus, my recommendation seeks to incorporate the overlooked Flores settlement principles. The policymaking venue relevant here is the legislative-the Congress.

As a Democrat, you have always advocated for the humane treatment of all immigrants. The policy amendment to have the licensing process follow due diligence in observance of fairness will ensure that all immigrants are treated justly. The change will facilitate the development of a framework that will be followed by immigration authorities in assessing, registering and licensing immigrants. On this note, supporting this policy will work to fulfill Flores settlement provision that requires detainees to be treated which Pelosi and other Democrats advocates for humanely. It will also ensure that immigrants who fail to meets to establish the established threshold for granting asylum are repatriated back to their countries in a humane manner. Most importantly, such cooperation will ensure an overall good for the U.S. because by handling these immigrants appropriately, it will help address the security aspects associated with illegal immigrants which I believe should be the overarching objective of both parties. Embracing the proposed recommendation will ensure the humane treatment of immigrants as Pelosi advocates.

Relevant institutional and interest groups stakeholders that will be mobilized to push for the adoption of the proposed recommendation are the U.S. judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Congress, president Trump, Republicans, ACLU, and Pramila Jayapal. Key stakeholders who oppose the adoption of the recommended policy adoption are for-profit prisons key among them the GEO Group and CoreCivic. Major interest groups that would assist in pushing the resisting institution's stakeholder to support the recommendation are civil unions key among them ACLU and Pramila Jayapal. For ACLU, it will readily file a case against prevailing immigrant oppressions and breach to provisions of Flores settlement and push for abandonment of oppressive policies. On the other hand, Pramila Jayapal is influential in mobilizing demonstrations to condemn such maltreatment. ACLU has a better understanding of the existing legal framework that can be pursued to push for the amendments on licensing procedures. It will further provide legal services to the team in charge t ensure that the amendments sail through Congress. Jayapal has uniquely positioned stakeholder because she not only an activist but also a politician and good enough a woman just like Pelosi. Thus, she can be deemed to be better suited than many other activists. Notably, to some extent, Republicans are also key support stakeholders since they have accepted this policy legislation. Besides, since they have a strong relationship with these private prisons, they are better placed to ensure they adhere to the provisions of Flores agreement.

One of the institutional stakeholders who will be employed to introduce the recommended policy change is the U.S. judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security working closely with the Congress. The two bodies play a more significant role in the development of policies and subsequent lobbying to have the policies ratified. I selected the U.S. judiciary subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Congress as my preferred institutional stakeholders to introduce my policy recommendations because they deal with aspects that form the basis of the current heated debate about immigrants' issue. While the former comes up with policy changes, the latter helps in supporting the proposed changes or making further changes to ensure that the new policy will capture the interests of all the concerned parties. Thus, I felt that the two institutions are best suited to present my recommendation because it is directly related to their area of jurisdiction. The other parties such as ACLU and Jayapal will provide the relevant legal services while the later would provide publicity to mitigate the criticism faced while advocating for the new changes.

Works Cited

Conley, Julia. "Mass Mobilization Planned for June 30 to Protest Trump's Cruel Separation of Families." Common Dreams, 2018, www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/19/mass-mobilization-planned-june-30-protest-trumps-cruel-separation-families. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (1997).

Frankel, Alison. "ACLU, Class Counsel for Migrant Kids Dispute DOJ on Crucial Flores Detention Issue." Reuters, 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-flores/aclu-class-counsel-for-migrant-kids-dispute-doj-on-crucial-flores-detention-issue-idUSKBN1JL2U3. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Howell, William, G. and Lewis, David, E. Agencies by Presidential Design. The Journal of Politics, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1995-1114.

Lind, Dara. "Trump's New Plan to Detain Immigrant Families Indefinitely, Explained." Vox, 2018, www.vox.com/2018/9/6/17826912/flores-family-detention-trump-regulation. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Office of Refugee Resettlement. "Unaccompanied Alien Children Frequently Asked Questions." Office of Refugee Resettlement | ACF, 2018, www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-frequently-asked-questions. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.

Yackee, Susan W. "Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 16, no. 1, 2005, pp. 103-124.