Privatization Of Immigration

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan once remarked that the “nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This phrase has been cited to criticize government work for decades. Despite the constant reproach from the American people, very little has been to done to curb the inadequacy that seems to only grow worse with each new congressional session, especially in regards to immigration. Since the formation of the colonies that eventually became the United States of America, immigration has been a crucial part of the nation’s culture and success. Today, immigration has emerged as a major political issue, as there are currently an estimated 11 million immigrants living in America illegally

Privatization of such a major piece of our government may seem like the waving of a white flag to some, but it is a solution that both sides of the political spectrum have supported in the past. Privatizing the system appeals to both parties, not just those who support libertarian policies and generally lean to the right of the political spectrum. President Clinton passed the “FAIR Act of 1988” which required all government agencies to declare whether their position as a government entity was crucial to their success, and he was also in favor of privatizing Social Security, as he could see the necessity for shifting to private organizations (Jacobson). Many leftist Democrats see Bill Clinton as a political role model, so his acceptance and support of privatizing certain governmental agencies proves that left- leaning politicians might not meet this idea with as much opposition as originally thought. Privatization also brings the benefit of competition, which would act as a safety net in avoiding an ineffective system like the one seen in the status quo. China has seen the advantages of privatization in the last decade. They have privatized sectors like public transportation, critical infrastructure, and telecommunications, and the country has even grown to become the largest privatizer in the world (Sharma). As China’s

Many democrats support the idea that amnesty should be granted to every illegal immigrant, on the grounds that nobody can decide the country in which they are born. In the current race for president, the only alternative to offering amnesty is complete deportation of all illegal immigrants. This policy is supported only with belligerent ad hominem to the opposition and racist generalizations about said immigrants. Olu Shola, a woman who immigrated from Kenya, spoke about the current state of the system. She explained that “It is a shambles… and if you are really lucky you will only be caught up in it for one to two years” (Okolosie). Another informant reveals that over four million people are currently stuck in the system waiting to be granted citizenship (Center for Immigration Studies). Once the country switches to the private sector, the millions who are currently stuck in it will be given the opportunity to obtain a lawful citizenship under the new system. Democrats would generally support granting those who are stuck in the system amnesty. Blind amnesty, however, can cause an abundance of issues. Peter Skerry highlights the dangers of blind amnesty in his editorial posted to the online political journal, “Brookings.com”. He explains that offering amnesty only sends the wrong message and brings more illegal immigrants (Skerry). Under the new