For some time, Congress has debated on “The Dream Act” for potential legislation. The Dream Act would give a young, undocumented person the opportunity to gain citizenship for those who have been living in the U.S. continuously. The requirements under the Dream Act include being under the age of 35 years old and have been living in the U.S. for 5 years prior to when the Act would be passed. The Dream Act has not yet been passed, but the passing of this act would give these people permanent citizenship and residency. On August 15th 2012, Barack Obama passed a new policy called DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) where people under the age of 31 years old can request deferred action for 2 years instead of being deported.
If I were in Congress, I would not support the path-to-citizenship laws because regardless of whether these illegal immigrants have been living continuously in the United States or came as a minor or adult, they are breaking the law and should be deported. I do not agree with the age under the DACA program where being under the age of 31 makes one of these immigrants eligible. The age requirements under these programs play a big factor in my decision of not being for the legislations of them. However, in another way, I am somewhat for the passing of this legislation because I believe if you are a child or young teen that has been living here continuously, then they should be eligible for the program. It is not fair to the children or young teens that were brought illegally with their parents. Also, is it right to deport the parents who are above the age requirements but keep their children in the country under the DACA program?
While reading this chapter, the essay by Stephen Macedo was the one that caught my attention but also was the first essay in the chapter. Macedo and myself have different opinions on this controversy. He believes it is a state’s obligation to make sure that its citizens are taken care of and that countries that are economically well off, such as the United States, also take care of its citizens and noncitizens by allowing immigration. On page 281, Macedo explains to us that he argues his beliefs about immigration from a Cosmopolitanism which means that he believes that we have duties to all humanity that are not out-weighed by specific duties to our fellow citizens. I argue the opposing side, which is Anticosmopolitanism. In my argument, a country has obligations to its own citizens that outweigh its duty to help those in need that are not citizens. Because I think from a Anticosmopolitanism viewpoint, that is why if I was a member of Congress, I would not be supporting the path-to-citizenship laws. Although I claim to be on the Anticosmopolitanism side and that I would not pass laws under the path-to-citizenship program, I do have certain questions and concerns for the children and young adults from a Cosmopolitanism viewpoint. Hopefully one day we can come to an answer that benefits everyone involved!
Fifty Shades of Ethics 
While reading the essay by Stephen Macedo, I believe that he is an anti-cosmopolitan, not a cosmopolitan. He argues against a cosmopolitan position and argues for distributive justice. Macedo believes that we have a duty to our own citizens that outweigh the duty we have to non citizens. In his essay, he argues “that if high levels of immigration have a detrimental impact on our least well-off fellow citizens, that is a reason to limit immigration.” (283) I also lean toward more of an anti-cosmopolitan view on this issue. I believe that allowing anyone to enter our country, without restrictions or policies in place, will have detrimental effects on our country. What should we do if people are actively seeking refuge from their own country and want to come to the United States? Should we allow those people? Some people argue that we need to allow immigrants in who are seeking refuge from their own country. I agree with Christopher Wellman from our textbook, when he mentions military action might be an option for these people seeking refuge. He states, “one can intervene, militarily if necessary, in an unjust political environment to ensure that those currently vulnerable to the state are made safe in their own homelands.” (320). Overall, I believe we should have more of a closed -borders policy and have policies and restrictions in place for future immigrants in our country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I was reading it, I felt that he was a Cosmopolitan. But when you bring that quote to attention by Macedo on page 283, it does sound like he is an Anticosmopolitan. While reading over it the first time, I thought that he meant that if the immigrants were just as poor as our own poor citizens then the government should create a policy or something to help those immigrants. Now that I see it from your eyes, it meant that if we have too many immigrants affecting and taking away from our own poor citizens then we should put an end to immigration, which would mean that I was wrong and that Macedo is an Anticosmopolitan. I still do hold my own Anticosmopolitan view because we should not allow just anybody to enter our country without restrictions like you said but then again my view on this is not fair to the young adults and children involved. We need something better than the DACA program though because the age 31 is too old and people that are over the age of 18 are considered adults. They should be held to the same standard as “adults” and face the same consequences as a normal U.S. citizen would face at 18 years old. I do not what they will make next, but they need a better policy/system. Thanks for pointing that out Nicole!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have to agree with Nicole, Macedo is an anti-cosmopolitan, he argues against the idea that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality. He argues that we should worry about our own citizens not anyone else. He supports the idea that every country is responsible for their own citizens. I do think their should be ways of maintaining and limiting immigration outbreaks. I don’t think allowing immigrants to flood the United States is a smart idea, I think limitations as to certain circumstances as to when immigrants can safely reside in the united states.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have to agree that he is an anti-cosmopolitan but like David, when you see it through someone else’s perspective it can make you think differently. But he was very firm on believing that you take care of your own people before others and I am not so sure that is a bad thing. I agree with you that the 31 year age law is ridiculous because you are breaking the law but if you were brought here illegally by your parents then that is not fair to you. You can not help what they do when you are a child. I think that we have to have limitations and laws so that everyone can not just come and invade everything. I like that he believes that we have to take care of our own selves before someone else because if we do not, then we will be falling apart while trying to help others and then it is one big mess. But this blog was very well written because it put us in your shoes and I could see it through another way of thinking.
LikeLike
Much like yourself, I was a little confused at first if Macedo was a cosmopolitan or an anti-cosmopolitan. After really reading the chapter and understanding what his argument was, it became clear that he states that our country should be more focused on its own citizens rather than the citizens of other countries. This undoubtedly points to him being an anti-cosmopolitan. He claims that having an excess amount of immigrants over here will eventually begin robbing from our poor citizens that already live here and once this becomes a big issue, we should ultimately end immigration altogether. My argument is that I am completely for someone coming to the United States to better themselves and better their lives, as long as it is done legally and they play their part by paying taxes, finding a job, etc. I think restrictions are a must and that policies must be met in order for any immigrant to ever have citizenship here. I can also agree with everyone that the age of 31 is a bit ridiculous. I think they should be treated as any other adult that is 18 years of age and face the same consequences that any other United States citizen is required to face.
LikeLike
I am not sure how I feel on the Dream Act simply because of the age requirement. If there was a younger age requirement (say 25 and younger) then it would be more acceptable. If I honestly had to make the decision, I don’t think it would be as easy for me to be as bias. I don’t believe in tearing someone away from the life they have worked hard to sneak over and get. Although yes, they are illegal and should have tried to become citizens first, if it was you, you would want to be given a chance to fix a wrong decision. As for the kids and their parents, if the children and their parents speak English, and have been I the U.S. for longer than a year, then why destroy a parent’s dream for giving their child everything they couldn’t gain themselves?
LikeLike
I do not agree with the Dream Act. I do not believe that just because someone has come to our country and has lived here for a few consecutive years should be given citizenship. If however, this Act got passed by Congress, I believe that the age requirement should be lowered. As a few people above have stated, 35 is a bit old. However, I do not agree with DACA. Why should they be allowed to ask for an extended 2 years before being deported? What rights do they have? They are here illegally and I do not believe that they should be able to ask for an extended vacation while they continue to not pay taxes and suck off our government.
LikeLike
I agree with you completely on this. I understand the process is long to become a citizen and it’s hard, but it’s like that ever where. If I wanted to move to Ireland and become a permanent resident there would be laws and procedures I would have to follow in order to do so.
I also agree with you on the DACA program. I don’t think if you come over here illegally you should be granted 2 more years. That’s not fair to other who are going about it the right way and trying to make a living. That’s wonderful that people feel like coming to America would be a better life style for them and want what’s best for their family, but that doesn’t mean the United States should just allow anyone to come here and stay. They need to go through the immigration process just like everyone else.
In regards to a young child being brought here illegally and growing up here. That’s a tough one. I’m a little stumped on it. I believe when they are of age and can understand how to go about becoming a citizen then at that point they should do so. Yes they might have been brought here at a young age by family, but they shouldn’t get a free pass either. I’m not sure what the age limit would be for something like this, like I said it’s a tough one and I’m a little on the line with it. I don’t think you should just deport a young person, age 18 or younger, and definitely not a child if their families were the ones who brought them here. But once again if we granted every young person, who was brought here at a young age and continued to live here illegally, a free stay in American we would have a huge problem. Families would rely on that fact and bring their young ones here with no intention at all to help them become a permanent resident.
And to answer your question you posed, I to think its okay to deport the parents but keep the children on the DACA program. The parents know and understand what they are doing when they come here. If they choose to go about the right or wrong way is up to them, but they need to know there could be consequences to whatever they choose. Being deported could also be one of those consequences regardless of if they have young children or not.
I like what Theresa said above. If you came here illegally what rights do you have? You don’t. And I also agree that if the government were to pass the Dream Act that the age requirement should be lowered quite a bit.
LikeLike