Illegal Immigrants of American Society Essay -- essays research papers

Illegal Immigrants of American SocietyA Realistic ApproachAt present, the U.S. in-migration dodge is burdened both by policy and implementation challenges. It is barely able to meet the commitments required by law and policy and is ill-prepared to address new challenges and mandates. placement that the system is broken may be the only point of consensus among many diverse stakeholders. The Task Force believes that immigration laws and policies are broken in quadruple ways. There is an increasing disconnection between law and reality that undermines the rule of law, breeds disrespect for American values and institutions, and makes it more difficult to garner house servant support for immigration and advance U.S. values overseas. . Some immigration policies hamper rather than encourage stinting growth, impeding responses to global economic changes and cyclical manufacturing needs. . Immigration policies have not adequately addressed threats to national security. . Immigration inte gration policy is nearly nonexistent, especially at the federal level, leaving solid ground and local governments to absorb the consequences of federally established immigration policy. According to Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, immigrants long have been part of the American landscape, reflecting our farmings values and traditions. During the experience decade the Midwest has seen a resurgence of its long-established tradition of immigration. Nine of twelve Midwest states had foreign-born populations that grew faster than the national average during the 1990s. These immigrants are preventing population decline, reinvigorating economic growth, and contributing to cultural diversity. Unfortunately, most immigration discussions tend to overlook the heartland of the country and our long and continuing experience with immigrants. Some in the Midwest believe that immigration here, important in itself, also is a microcosm for what is occurring across the country. They thus belie ve that observations, conclusions, and recommendations resonate nationwide. As I found on www.dallasfed.org, meat packing force thousands of immigrants to the Midwest, and poultry processing did the same in the South Atlantic states. Jobs in these two industries exemplify the type of jobs new immigrants commonly filllow-skill, blue-collar jobs. This is because a large percentage of immigrants have less than a high... ...t is evident, however in the instance that our country allows amnesty and allows the immigrants to pay legal taxes, our system may not be so burdened by these citizens.English first. Legislation that establishes English as the required and preeminent language throughout the unify States. Public and reclusive sectors cannot be required to provide services in alternative languages.We need to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States. I believe that making English the official language will help immigrants assimilate and take fu ll advantage of the economic, occupational and educational opportunities in the United States, where English is the common language. I do not believe that other countries would be teaching us their language if we moved to their country.. In conclusion, I experience that if we allow amnesty or guest worker programs in our country with chances of citizenship, I feel that we will not see increased illegal immigrants in the future because we allow them to come over legally and in a control system. I see the future role of LEGAL immigrants as assets to our country and not just burdens to our society.

The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and Specif

The Theory and Testing of the Reconceptualization of General and limited DeterrenceIn the May 1993 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, the introduction of the reconceptualized bullying system was presented, explaining that general and specific deterrence are both functions of crime. strike off C. Stafford, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Rural Sociologist at Washington State University, and Mark Warr, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas in Austin, introduced this theory. They argued that there is no footing to have multiple theories for general and specific deterrence. Rather, a single theory is possible that centers on indirect fuck with legal punishment and punishment shunning and direct experience with legal punishment and avoidance.1 General deterrence includes the knowledge of criminal behaves performed by others and the consequences or absence of consequences from the activity. Specific deterrence reli es upon personal experience of punishment and the avoidance of punishment for a criminal activity previously committed. Both Stafford and Warr theorized that people are overt to both types of deterrents, with some people exposed to more of one type than the other. In addition both general and specific deterrence set up may coincide with each other and act as reinforcement.In the May 1995 issue of the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency a preliminary test was conducted on Stafford and Warrs deterrence theory. Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, both professors in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, attempted to elaborate on Stafford and Warrs original findings. They, Paternoster and Piquero, argued that although they could find some support for the base features of the deterrence theory, there was still a significant component that Paternoster and Piquero could not address. Without being able to measure the consequences of th e illegal behavior of their respondents peers, they could not separate the effects of indirect punishment avoidance from indirect punishment.2 Furthermore, they claimed that the personal experience of punishment had a definite role in substance abuse, as well as leading to additional criminal activities because of formal sanctions.&nbs... ...eory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it will provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding essential issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance.1 Mark Stafford and Mark Warr, A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993) 133.2 Raymond Paternoster and Alex Piquero, Reconceptualizing Deterrence An Empirical Test of Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32 (1995) 281.3 Stafford and Warr 123.4 R.F. Mei er and W.T. Johnson, Deterrence as a Social Control The Legal and Extra Legal Production of Conformity, American Sociological Review 42 (1977) 294-95.5 Stafford and Warr 125.6 Stafford and Warr 126.7 Stafford and Warr 128.8 Stafford and Warr 128.9 Stafford and Warr 133.10 Paternoster and Piquero 261.11 Paternoster and Piquero 263.12 Paternoster and Piquero 263.13 Paternoster and Piquero 264.14 Paternoster and Piquero 284.15 Paternoster and Piquero 272.16 Paternoster and Piquero 278.17 Paternoster and Piquero 276.