The 2016 US Presidential Election will enter history as one of the most polarizing elections in in recent memory. Aside from the frequent and often times vicious attacks between the two candidates this year’s election also represents a stark contrast in policy views. It seems that our country has reached a point of reckoning, which has been significantly amplified by the volatile political atmosphere as we approach November 8. The stakes are high in every major political issue; whether it be foreign policy, the economy, or immigration, the individual who takes office on January 20, 2017 will determine the trajectory of our nation for years to come. Thus, for voters and citizens, understanding each candidate’s position on the issues, as well as the potential repercussions of each outlook, is critical.
As a law firm devoted to successfully guiding our clients through the United States immigration law and processes, the outcome of this election is especially monumental. One candidate represents a continuation of the expansionist trend promulgated by the Obama Administration; the other represents a reactionary and restrictive immigration policy. This dichotomy is particularly obvious; we have all heard the rhetoric of Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton in relation to immigration. In this blog, we will juxtapose each candidate’s detailed proposals for our country’s complex and ever-changing immigration system.
Donald Trump on Immigration
Mr. Trump has proposed a ten-point plan to realize his immigration goals summarized below:
A Trump presidency would reverse the Obama administration’s trend toward loosening the many restrictions that prevent legal immigration, as well as institute drastic measures to combat illegal migration and remove those who are illegally present in the U.S. He has promised to rescind all the executive actions enacted within the last eight years. Thus, millions of individuals whose removal from the U.S. have been deferred under DACA will be faced with the specter of deportation. He promises they will be apprehended, detained and deported.
As for legal immigration programs, a Trump presidency would also spell doom. In items six through ten of his proposed plan, he enumerates his intentions to widen the moat around this country. Point six directly threatens the country’s refugee and asylum programs; point nine is ambiguous and not clear whether it is referring to the programs geared toward employment visas, such as H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, and even NAFTA related work authorizations; point ten ensures that rather than expanding the number of visas available per year to meet demand, the number will remain constant or be reduced. Overall, Mr. Trump’s proposals represent a regression from President Obama’s efforts toward an inclusive immigration system.
Hillary Clinton on Immigration
Hillary Clinton has expressed ambitions to perpetuate and expand the trends established in the last eight years. Most immediately, Mrs. Clinton has promised to protect DACA and DAPA executive actions against attacks. Thus, millions individuals living without status and countless families threatened by deportation would have the opportunity to live and work in the country while awaiting Congressional action on immigration reform
Mrs. Clinton proposes to introduce legislation for comprehensive immigration reform in the first 100 days of her presidency. Much of these proposals are predicated on protecting the rights of immigrants—legal and otherwise—and affording more opportunity to thrive in this country. Accordingly, she has expresses intentions to end 3 and 10 year bars, expand visa availability, and reform our methods of enforcing immigration law. She has also promoted the idea of expanded avenues to citizenship, although has not introduced a detailed plan to do so. Hillary’s proposals would make legal immigration easier and available to many more individuals, as well as provide expanded relief for those present illegally. But her aspirations for reform do not end there; she has advocated for the allocation of federal resources to fund inclusion programs and initiatives for immigrants, which include expanded English classes, US civics courses, and a general emphasis on citizenship education. Essentially, a Clinton presidency would treat immigrants as a demographic to be invested in and embraced.
Below is a general outline of Clinton’s immigration policies :
The major difference between each candidate’s immigration proposals stems from their viewpoint of immigrants themselves. On one hand, Donald Trump and his constituents have depicted them as burdens to society and a threat to American life; they are a group to be feared, both for economic and social reasons. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has portrayed them as hardworking, law-abiding families looking for opportunity; they are a group to be valued and invested in. The disparities in each point of their policies stem from this profound dichotomy. Therefore, no matter one’s stance on the other issues or view of the candidates, a vote for one or the other has major implications.