Immigration is in the forefront of political rhetoric and cultural consciousness this election cycle. Though not a new topic, actions taken by researchers, students, and politicians are coming to a head in the coming weeks. April is shaping up to be an important month in the struggle for immigration reform and the evolution of immigration rhetoric.
In just two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of President Obama’s executive action on immigration known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. This week, an amicus brief was filed by 43 Senate Republicans and supports the 27 politicians and lawyers challenging the move, which gives immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally before 2010 the ability to file for deferred action. Senate Republicans and other opponents of the action argue that the White House overstepped its boundaries and exerted power not given to the executive branch. Many supporters of the action point to the lack of reform that has been the result of the Republican-led Congress and that action needs to happen now.
RELATED: Corruption unearthed and going viral
Obama’s move relieves the threat of deportation for families who have been living in the United States for half a decade or longer. These immigrants are often integrated into U.S. communities, owning houses and paying taxes.
Meanwhile, in the race for the White House, presidential candidates on both sides have recently made declarations on immigration. First was a claim by Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders blaming NAFTA for the worsening of the illegal-immigration situation. Both Hillary Clinton and Sanders have pledged to expand Obama’s executive action to protect illegal immigrants, but Sanders has targeted NAFTA as a major cause for the increased problem.
His statements were in response to a questionnaire by the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. Clinton said she supports a humane and targeted enforcement system, while Sanders targeted the trade agreement signed into law by President Clinton in the 1990s. Hillary Clinton supported the trade pact at the time, and Sanders has attacked the bill for weakening the economic and political conditions in Latin America, causing an increase in illegal immigration to the United States. No Republican candidate responded to the questionnaire, despite the Hispanic association being a nonpartisan organization. Making headlines on the other side of the political spectrum is someone who, oddly enough, agrees with many stances Sanders takes on U.S. trade policy.
Donald Trump released a two-page memo outlining how he would make good on his promise to build a wall along the southern U.S. boarder financed by Mexico. The memo comes ahead of a scheduled series of speeches on education, military, and the Supreme Court. Despite the momentum Trump has accrued with anti-immigration rhetoric, a recent Pew poll found that more people than ever oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, at 58 percernt. The number who oppose has grown by 14 percentage points since 2006, and the number who support the proposition has fallen by 16 points since 2006. Still, Trump’s success has accelerated conversations about hateful rhetoric and its consequences.
The conversation became action at Dartmouth College, where the student group the Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality, and Dreamers filed to have the term “illegal aliens” replaced with “noncitizens” as a bibliographical term. The Library of Congress has announced the change, calling the new term more precise, as well as citing the pejorative connotations that have grown around the term “illegal alien.”
The Daily Iowan Editorial Board believes new words that are more accurate and circumvent pejorative terms are worth supporting. Political correctness can stifle conversation if left unchecked, but the Library of Congress’ decision to change its terminology is a matter of accuracy and in a subtler way, compassion. Obama’s immigration action was a matter of commonsense compassion for illegal immigrants integrated in American society. If NAFTA increased illegal immigration or if Mexico can build a wall on its northern border are complex questions requiring serious conversations, conversations with a changing, more compassionate and accurate vocabulary.