Filtering by
- All Subjects: Immigration
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
began the task of dealing with an influx of Europeans seeking refugee status stateside, even before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. American interest in the global situation, nevertheless, did not officially begin after the initial attack on the 7th of December. Before that date, the United States government had to address refugees seeking asylum from European countries. Often studied, German emigration to the United States at times took center stage in terms of the refugee situation after the Nazi regime enacted anti- Semitic legislation in Germany and its occupied nations, prior to the American declaration of war. France, however, had a crisis of its own after the Germans invaded in the summer of 1940, and the fall of France led to a large portion of France occupied by Germany and the formation of a new government in the non-occupied zone, the Vichy regime.
France had an extensive history of Jewish culture and citizenship culture prior to 1940, and xenophobia, especially common after the 1941 National Revolution in France, led to a “France for the French” mentality championed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chief of State of Vichy France. The need for the French Jewish population to seek emigration became a reality in the face of the collaborationist Vichy government and anti-Semitic statutes enacted in 1940 and 1941. French anti-Semitic policies and practices led many Jews to seek asylum in the United States, though American policy was divided between a small segment of government officials, politicians, individuals, and Jewish relief groups who wanted to aid European Jews, and a more powerful nativist faction, led by Breckenridge Long which did not support immigration. President Roosevelt, and the American government, fully aware of the situation of French Jews, did little concrete to aid their asylum in the United States.
This thesis is about how Liberian activists were able to help Liberian immigrants under Temporary Protected Status and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to convince President Trump to extend DED policy. They also lobbied members of Congress to pass the Liberian Relief Immigration Fairness Act, which granted permanent legal status to TPS and DED recipients. My research questions were: How did advocacy groups influence politicians? How did the media cover the narrative that advocacy groups crafted? How was the battle to get an effective resolution accomplished? I interviewed advocacy groups and a congressional staffer and analyzed various primary and secondary sources in order to gain historical context. This case study will provide the reader deeper understanding about the complexity of the broken immigration system in the United States that has been ongoing for many years. I will also discuss the Constitutional debate on prosecutorial discretion that continues to raise the alarm on many issues that complicate the process. Additionally, this study will benefit other countries hoping to solve their immigration crisis and more importantly, it will bring awareness to the general public in the United States and help hold elected officials accountable when discussing the betterment of immigration issues. I found that Liberian activists, TPS and DED recipients were very influential in getting favorable legislation passed.
During the first week of his presidency, President Trump signed three executive orders that would serve as the basis for three of his administration’s most prominent deterrent immigration policies: the “Trump Travel Bans,” sanctuary jurisdictions, and the construction of a southern border wall. While this paper describes the intended goals of each executive order, it also details the complementary policies utilized by the administration to deter both legal and undocumented immigration. Though these federal policies target different immigrant groups, they all attempt to deter some form of immigration. It is the goal of this paper to analyze whether or not the immigration policies of the Trump administration are actually effective in deterring multiple forms of immigration. To do this, this paper asks two main questions.
Each section of this paper addresses two questions when analyzing the goals of each policy. First, are the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration effective in reducing threats to national security and/or undocumented immigration? Next, this paper questions whether or not the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration are mostly symbolic in nature.
Finally, this paper includes a future policies section which predicts future immigration policies President Trump may decide to undertake. This section bases these hypotheses on the three policies detailed within this paper and their results when compared to their intended goals. Finally, this section takes into account the symbolic nature of the deterrent immigration policies of the Trump administration.
Immigration, especially unauthorized immigration, is a timely and a hotly debated issue. One of the issues that continues to challenge policy makers is what kind relief should be granted to unauthorized immigrants who entered the country as children. A few solutions have been proposed, including the 2001 Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This bill provided a path to gaining permanent legal residence and eventually naturalization for these young immigrants. The bill failed to pass, but inspired a wave of similar legislation, to no avail. The issue remains. In 2012, however, the Obama Administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in which childhood immigrants could apply to defer any action to deport or expel them from the country. DACA enabled nearly 800,000 eligible young adults to work lawfully, enroll in higher education, and plan their lives without the constant threat of deportation. However, on September 5th, 2017, the Trump Administration announced the gradual termination of the program. This decision was challenged in federal courts and heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2019. At the time of this study, a decision had yet to be made. This study provides an analysis of the DACA program, including the issues associated with its implementation. Furthermore, it examines the economic costs and benefits of revoking DACA and provides evidence of American public support for the program. Finally, it discusses the future implications of a Supreme Court decision, and the ways in which states and universities should respond. Future studies should examine deeper the human rights crisis created by the program’s termination. Ultimately, this study provides rationale for passing permanent legislation to significantly reform our immigration policy.