In the contemporary world, where the process of globalization, alongside a series of other social and political factors, serves as a powerful driver of communication and relocation, immigration is one of the most frequently discussed subjects. This issue is relevant not only to the multinational countries such as the United States but to all the modern states that attract large groups of individuals for versatile reasons. Immigration can occur in two forms – legal and illegal, and while the latter form is majorly opposed and fought against, the former is treated from several different perspectives.
To be more precise, the political perspectives on the issues of immigration differ from various political parties of the United States. In that way, as specified by Fine and Levin-Waldman (2016), one of the significant events in this area occurred in 2010 when Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed a statute enforcing the immigration law in the state according to which the police services were permitted to arrest the immigrant individuals who were unable to provide proof of their legal status or citizenship; in turn, the immigrants were obliged to carry their documents in order to show them upon request. This policy was designed to address the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico in the state of Arizona, and it eventually was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court based on the premise that the state law contradicted the national law on the subject matter (Fine & Levin-Waldman, 2016).
It is important to note that Governor Brewer is the representative of the Republican Party, a party known for its opposition to the legalization of the undocumented migrants and the DREAM Act that was initially proposed by the Democratic Party, the one whose views I support. In particular, I adhere to the pro-immigration views and deem it necessary for the government of the United States to grant the undocumented immigrants the legal status and, should they meet a set of requirements, citizenship.
Many Republican Governors of different states have expressed their disagreement with this perspective by saying that the legalization will prevent the United States from developing a viable immigration law helping to control the unauthorized entry of the country and by opposing the birthright citizenship of the children of undocumented migrants born in the USA (Weiner, 2013). Based on such statements, it is possible to conclude that the Republican Party is rather far from my ideas. At the same time, according to Hawkins (2015), the American Independents carry an even more radical view on the legalization and support “the prompt deportation of all illegal aliens” (para. 7). Additionally, the birthright of the children of undocumented individuals is also strongly opposed.
In that way, it is possible to make a conclusion that the Party whose views are the furthest from my individual perspective is the Independent party, whereas the position of the Democratic Party is the closest. Finally, the Republican Party seems to be rather divided on the questions of immigrations with 77% of the members agreeing that the provision of legal status to the unauthorized individuals will motivate more people to enter the country illegally and 66% saying that the legalization will lead to the immigrants’ taking over the jobs of the United States citizens and serve as a massive drain on the government funds and services (the latter opinion is shared by 72% of the members) (Doherty, 2013). As a result, the Republican Party can be characterized as standing in the middle of this argument and supporting both sides but gravitating more towards the Independents’ ideas.
References
Doherty, C. (2013). Five facts about Republicans and immigration. Web.
Fine, T. S., & Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2016). American government (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.
Hawkins, M. (2015). Independent American Party. Web.
Weiner, R. (2013). Republicans on immigration reform: Before and after. Web.