Introduction
Several controversies have arisen in response to the American migration policy, with the recent one protesting that involved hundreds of people. There have been protests reflecting on the anger of the "zero-tolerance" immigration policies with campaigns advocating for the togetherness of families that are being disrupted by the immigration policy. Under the administration of President Trump, the American has also embraced several controversial measures to limit immigration into the United States. For instance, the federal government has established a policy that has been criticized for separating minors from their parents in case they are found illegally entering the United States (Kates, 2018). Despite the public outcry against the policy, there are still complaints of inhumane treatment of families. The administration faced controversy from concerned Americans who came in unity for opposition ranging from the public officials, immigrant rights advocates, and even international organizations.
Another immigration policy system is dealing with immigrants applying for asylum, which was announced as a new protocol by the Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The following immigration policy is intended to eliminate domestic and gang violence as a valid ground for immigrants to receive asylum protection. However, the administration has faced controversy from immigrant rights and advocates of human rights, just like family separation. The migrant rights advocates have extensively condemned the new set of asylum criteria claiming that fleeing domestic or gang violence is not sufficient reason to receive asylum in the United States. Moreover, there has also been a controversy that the asylum policy is not a general hardship statute because several victims of such circumstances seek refuge from a devastating situation (Kates, 2018). However, countries have an obligation under international law to offer protection to people who flee violent situations hence leaving question by critics whether the United States is living up to the commitment by implementing the asylum immigration policy.
The concept of systematic power refers to the capacity to access and control the institutions that are sanctioned by the state. Therefore, the relationship between systematic power and the idea of immigration policy can be examined in the way the federal government has been able to influence institutions such as the judiciary led by the Attorney General to implement the asylum immigration policy (Nicki, 2019). Also, the institutions in charge of border control are under an obligation of the powers of the state to enhance the immigration policy of family separation. Moreover, the implementation of the immigration policies is an exercise of systematic power, given how it intends to exclude immigrants in a way that seems more like segregation. Hence, under the administration of President Trump, the American government is applying systematic power to create significant consequences for the immigrants. Therefore, the correlation of systematic power to immigration policy's topic can be evaluated based on the results of the power imbalance.
Also, the relationship between systematic power and immigration policy can be examined in the light of systematic racism, which explains why the United States has imposed stringent immigration policies on immigrants, mainly from Mexico. Generally, systematic racism involves a diverse combination of practices that intend to humiliate blacks besides the inequalities of economic resources and other social facilities (Nicki, 2019). Therefore, the government is taking part in perpetuating systematic racism that negatively impacts the families and lives of black immigrants. For instance, children separated from their parents are put in custody in facilities with substandard child care before they are given to their closest relatives in the United States to assume charge. Also, at the border, the immigrants are locked up in a cage, which is a criterion that seems inhumane. Hence, the impact of systematic power on immigration policies is centered based on systematic racism.
As an individual, I can recognize power imbalances in the way people are inhumanely treated without considering human rights or welfare. For instance, the immigrants are confined in cages, and the implementation of zero-tolerance immigration policy causes families to separate. I can also recognize power imbalances in the implementation of stringent measures like the asylum immigration policy that has resulted in the detention of immigrants fleeing their country from violence. The power imbalance can also be recognized in the lack of familiarity in the principles communicated. However, challenging power imbalances would demand standing up to advocate for the undermined privileges as a result of the power imbalances. Moreover, challenging power imbalances would imply enhancing self-interest in a particular concept to improve the shift of power from the stronger opponent.
Conclusion
Summarily, some controversies that have been examined in this essay regarding the systems of immigration policies are the critics by advocates of migrant rights and even other Americans ranging from public officials to members of international organizations. Moreover, systematic power implies the capacity to access and control the institutions that are sanctioned by the state, and its relationship to immigrant policies can be examined in regards to how the federal government exercises power over other institutions like the judiciary to implement immigration policies. Lastly, identification and challenge of power imbalances would imply the recognition of the privileges that are undermined as a result of power imbalances.
