HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Act of 2005 was approved by the House of Representatives of the United States on December 16, 2005 (:2005). This Act is also called HR 4437 and also known as “Sensenbrenner.” This bill has been the reason behind the U.S. immigrant rights protest. The past years have been remarkable changes in how the United States governs immigrant admissions and rights. Initially, American policymakers focused their attention in these years on a problem that seemed to highlight the extent to which national borders had become porous and inadequately regulated: illegal immigration (:2005). By the close of the millennium, however, the entire structure of U.S. immigration and of refugee and immigrant policies had been recast by significant federal legislation, independent executive actions, and judicial rulings. Sweeping policy changes of this period were achieved in both good and bad economic times, always during divided government, and despite the fact that congressional and White House officials dreaded the issue because of the contentious and unpredictable politics it routinely inspired. The House of Representatives cleared that they understood that something which speaks to so many basic concerns such as jobs, health, crime, racial fairness, civil liberties, trade, foreign relations.
Illegal immigration has always been an issue in the U.S. and statistically, brought hundreds of thousands of additional newcomers to U.S. soil. Moreover, the major policy changes adopted by national political actors in 2005 were not only less restrictive than originally expected, but they dramatically increased immigration opportunities (:2006). To be sure, national immigration law and administration in this period were unkind to particular foreigners, including persons infected with the AIDS virus and asylum-seekers fleeing Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other noncommunist countries. This was not a new open-door era indeed, there never was such a time in our national development. But in historical comparison to earlier policy regimes, the immigration controls established from 1980 to 1990 were decidedly expansive for alien admissions and rights. U.S. efforts to govern international migration in this period capture this trend well (2006).
There is a military collaboration with the border patrol in the U.S.-Mexico for the implementation of HR 4437 (:2005). The military's geographic focus extends beyond the border and it now works with a plethora of police bodies throughout the U.S. on immigration enforcement. Such ongoing military involvement in domestic police matters is unique in post-Reconstruction U.S. history. The more militaristic elements of that collaboration and support, however, have focused primarily on the border (2006). Such support gave rise to the tragic killing in 1997 of a U.S. citizen by a Marine during a border-area ground surveillance mission conducted for the Border Patrol. Since then, military collaboration has decreased and has changed at the level of formal policy.
The human rights repercussions of the involvement of the military police is based on the theoretical guiding principles since the significance of the human rights is a nation-state issue.
The issues and conflicts of human rights is that extra-governmental and have traditionally been used to work against the repressive capacity of states (2006). The government is responsible for human rights violation and that bureaucracy that tends to undermine the human rights of the “truly disadvantaged” through a process of “social triage” that sacrifices the general well-being and dignity, and repression of immigrants in the U.S. HR 4437 has sacrificed the human rights of these subordinated groups and it is just right to say that both the military and the government is responsible for the human rights abuse connected to the border enforcement, such as the killing of a Mexican-American teenager in Redord, Texas .
In this case of oppression, military behavior was sated with gross confusions by soldiers and their unwarranted growth of the use of force. The unsuitable corresponding of military troops in opposition to nonmilitary threats show the danger leap up in border enforcement, because they are trained to respond with deadly force to perceived threats, regardless of the objective situation
0 comments:
Post a Comment