History of Immigration from 1965-2014. Citizenship and its removal process. Opinion about the American Criminal Justice System and definition of Justice.

1. Immigration: History, Citizenship Process and Removal
Many immigrants to the United States have been refugees from War, famine, and
religious or political persecution, including its earliest European colonists. According to
George Washington, America has long been eager to receive, the bosom of America is
open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and
persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all
our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the
enjoyment (Maddex, 2008).
History
• From the Quota System to the Preference System
The year 1965 was a watershed for immigration legislation in the United States. The
Immigration and Nationality Act amended the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act by completely
dismantling the quota system and replacing it with a preference system of immigrant visa
allocation. It eliminated origin, race, gender, and ancestry as a determinant of
immigration to the United States. Some of the most important sociocultural factors that
influenced these measurements were: the Civil Rights movement, and an eloquent plea
for equality; and the Black Nationalist movement, which was a response to racism and
repression (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The new law established an immigration cap of 20,000 persons per country. The
preference system listed the following seven preferences in order of importance: (1)
unmarried children of U.S. citizens; (2) spouses and unmarried children of permanent

2. residents; (3) professionals of exceptional ability; (4) married children of U.S. citizens;
(5) siblings of U.S. citizens; (6) skilled and unskilled workers in short supply; and
(7) refugees. Moreover, the amendments established two categories of immigrants that
would not be subject to numerical restrictions: (1) immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
and (2) special immigrants, such as certain ministers of religions, and former U.S.
government employees. The amendments also attempted to address a traditional
grievance of labor, claiming that immigrants took away jobs from U.S. citizens. Under
the new laws, aliens seeking employment in the United States would have to show that
they would not replace an American worker nor affect the working conditions and wages
of Americans (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The 1965 changes opened the door to a new wave of immigration to the United States.
Within a decade of its passage, the new immigration laws increased immigration by 60
percent, with immigrants from many Asian countries. During the 1970s, other legislation
made immigration requirements easier for special immigrants by introducing new rules
on permanent residency and reducing the requirement for acquiring citizenship. Another
significant change, in 1976, concerned the status of refugees. Many of these refugees in
the 1970s came from Southeast Asia, and the government created a special category of
immigrants for those who helped the United States during its presence in the region, and
immigrants who faced reprisals or danger from their compatriots when the U.S. forces
were withdrawn. this period was passed in October 1976, titled Immigration and
Nationality Act Amendments, which modified the previous changes to the INA. These
amendments set the same limits on countries (depending on the hemisphere) and making

3. it harder for immigrants from the Americas to come to the United States (Akis
Kalaitzidis, 2009).
• The Growing Immigration Debate in the 1980s and 1990s
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act led to an upsurge in immigration and, by the
1980s, domestic policymakers were under pressure to stem the flow of immigration due
to rising numbers and a slowing economy. Politicians faced several tough issues,
beginning with the nature of immigration to the United States. Not all immigrants were
economic immigrants, which created a bifurcated policy, one for economic immigrants
and one for refugees (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The U.S. Congress addressed this issue of past refugee admissions with the 1980 Refugee
Act, in which, with a limit of 5,000 people, they decided what types of people were
considered refugees and who were invited to the United States, as well as how to deal
with them when they got here. However, the refugee problem did not go away. Asylum
seekers came from Central America (due to civil war and political persecution) and from
the former Soviet and Eastern European region, where people fled from numerous local
conflicts and civil wars spurred by the collapse of the Soviet Union (Akis Kalaitzidis,
2009).
The numbers of undocumented economic immigrants mainly from the Western
Hemisphere increased throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Suzan Gonzales Baker notes, ‘‘In
the mid-1970s, the INS began issuing estimates of resident illegal immigrant populations

4. on the order of 12 million. By the time the 1980 census figures substituted these estimates
with more reasonable alternatives of 2 million to 4 million, the social construction of a
nation losing control of its borders was well entrenched in the public sentiment, making
border control a popular policy theme and amnesty a very hard political sell’’ (Gonzales
Baker 1997).
In 1986 the U.S. Congress created the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA),
offering amnesty to the existing unauthorized aliens in the country and allowed for more
legal immigration based on occupational criteria (special immigrants) while increasing
the funding for border enforcement to $35 million dollars. The new law gave an
opportunity to people who had entered the United States illegally before 1982 to adjust
their status and become legal. It also gave the opportunity for those who worked as
agricultural workers for ninety days, between May 1, 1985, and May 1, 1986, to gain
legal status. In addition, the law criminalized the hiring of illegal workers, established
penalties for such practices, and created the I-9 form, which employers used to ensure
workers are in the United States legally and that their rights were protected against unfair
labor practices and discrimination. The law included, upon California’s request, a
temporary worker authorization system mainly for agricultural workers and increases in
the quota for U.S. territories from 600 to 5,000 persons. The law addressed the issue of
immigration costs, especially costs associated with incarceration of undocumented
immigrants convicted of felonies, and made provisions for the deportation of such violent
offenders (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).

5. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed a new immigration act (IMMACT) which reorganized
the bureaucracy dealing with naturalization by placing the authority with the U.S.
attorney general instead of the courts. Revised the categories of non-immigrant visas and
amended the requirements for naturalization. Congress also included new guidelines and
new personnel for border enforcement and a whole new list of criteria for exclusion and
deportation. It also broadened the definition of aggravated felony, which made
immigrants eligible for deportation (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the
Federal Law restricted most social provisions for unauthorized immigrants, such as
federal grants, loans, licenses, and all benefits (e.g., retirement unemployment) with the
exception of public school lunches. Furthermore, the law restricted the ability of legal
residents from receiving any state or federal benefits for five years, with the exception of
refugees and asylees. While the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act authorized the doubling of border agents and an additional 900 INS
agents to investigate smuggling, harboring, and employing illegal immigrants. The law
authorized construction of a border fence between the United States and Mexico. Both
laws did not impact stem the flow of immigration to United States. By the end of the
1990s, the United States had by all accounts a large number of undocumented immigrants
(Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
• The Response to Immigration after September 11, 2001
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, immigration became a front-and-center

6. issue in the United States. The immigration question became inexorably linked to
America’s security. Never before had Americans felt as vulnerable as they did when
hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York and into the Pentagon in
Washington, D.C. The hijackers were not American; all were foreigners from Middle
Eastern countries who were present in the United States on student visas. The attacks
invariably led to questions over how visitors and students from abroad can be better
monitored, how entry visas are to be issued, and how America’s borders can be better
protected (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
In October 26, 2001, the PATRIOT Act expands funding dramatically for counter
terrorism agency abilities, enhancing law enforcement powers, and granting new powers
to the Treasury to track terrorist related money laundering. Domestic agencies such as the
FBI could look easier into financial, library, and medical records and to monitor Internet
activity; the biggest controversy with this Act was the fact that law enforcement could
investigate terrorism with few restrictions, allowing police to more easily use wiretaps,
searches, seizures, and interrogations with little oversight. Adding to that the fact that
anyone who was accused of association of any kind with terrorist organizations would be
barred from entering or remaining in the country and foreign students studying in the
United States were going to be monitored (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The PATRIOT Act also gives more investigative powers directly to the attorney general’s
office, and it gave the Department of State and INS more access to criminal background
information databases of other departments. The PATRIOT Act was criticized not only by

7. civil liberties groups but also by many state and local governments. Hundreds of
governments across the country passed ‘‘Anti-PATRIOT Act’’ resolutions to protect civil
liberties when no evidence of wrongdoing by a person exists (Burns and Peterson 2005,
177).
The terrorist attacks prompted American policy makers to think about how to more
effectively organize and coordinate all immigration, intelligence, and law enforcement
agencies of the executive branch. The United States Congress put together the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 and DHS, which began to operate in January 1, 2003 (Akis
Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The immigration and border controls were completely overhauled. Immigration and
Naturalization Services (INS) and the United States Customs Service were replaced by
new agencies: the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS), and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Another agency created to help protect air travel was the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). Homeland Security also incorporated the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the Coast Guard. While there was talk of bringing the
FBI and CIA into DHS, it was decided that these intelligence agencies should stay
outside the new department, nevertheless, close coordination was expected (Akis
Kalaitzidis, 2009).
DHS launched programs that use new technologies to monitor entry of aliens into the

8. country, including the US-Visit program, begun in 2004, requiring non-U.S. citizens or
residents entering the country to give eye scans and fingerprints that will be fed into a
DHS database. Another initiative is the no-fly list to prevent potential terrorists from
boarding flights. The programs are meant to prevent entry of people who may pose
security risks into the United States, but they have attracted criticism because they have
also entrapped innocent individuals on occasion (Akis Kalaitzidis, 2009).
Another law that was conformed was the 2005 McCain-Kennedy bill, which included a
guest worker program with H-5A visas and offered a path to legalization of
undocumented workers. Anti-immigrant critics seized upon the provision in the bill that
would offer a path to legalization for undocumented workers and called it ‘‘amnesty.’’
They further argued that granting amnesty to these workers would encourage millions of
others to come and weaken, not strengthen American border security, that's when anti-immigrant
groups mobilized over immigration reform both in Congress and in the streets.
In the House of Representatives, a strongly worded anti-immigrant measure was passed,
which offered no guest worker program, no path to legalization, and extra money to
complete a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border (Kalaitzidis, 2009).
The Facts on Immigration Today
The past decade saw a large increase in the foreign-born population, between 2000
and 2011 there was a 30 percent increase in the foreign-born population. The immigrant
population grew from 31.1 million to 40.04 million, whereas the immigrant population in
1960 was 9.7 million. Broken down by immigration status, the foreign-born population in

9. 2011 was composed of 15.5 million naturalized U.S. citizens, 13.1 million legal
permanent residents, and 11.1 million unauthorized migrants (Altman, 2014).
Fast forward to 2014, Barack Obama has been faced with issues concerning
immigration and his approach has been to weigh whether to postpone a self-imposed
deadline U.S. immigration laws as the midterm elections draw near. The President is
weighing using his executive power to grant work permits and deportation relief for
several million undocumented immigrants, perhaps through expanding a 2012 program,
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Obama may also decide to reform
immigration enforcement priorities, as well as to offer special protections for specific
groups of workers, as business groups have sought (Altman, 2014).
I personally believe that America has long surpassed the limit of acceptance towards
Immigrants, no matter how much they try to control it, they make one step forward and
one step back, the laws applied to them are torn between benefiting them (Non American
Citizens) and keeping them out. My biggest issue right now is with allowing minors stay
within American territory, since most of them do have families that have left them to
pursue a better life here, but what about the wrong doers? Which come in any age?.
Citizenship Process
There are two ways in order to become an American citizen: a) by birth or b) through
naturalization (Services, 2013).
To become a citizen at birth, you must have been born in the United States or certain

10. territories of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; or had
a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad)
and meet other requirements; to become a citizen after birth, you must apply for derived
for recquired citizenship through parents (Services, 2012)
Those who do it through Naturalization, must fill the “Application for Naturalization”
(Form N-400). If you want to apply for citizenship for a child who is under 18 years old,
you should use the “Application for Certificate of Citizenship” (Form N-600 (Services,
2013)). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has divided the
Naturalization process into the following steps (Services, 2012):
Preparing to Apply
• Read A Guide to Naturalization.
• Complete the Naturalization Eligibility Worksheet.
• Get an “Application for Naturalization” (Form N-400).
• Visit our website at www.uscis.gov.
Completing Your Application and Getting Photographed
• Complete your application.
• Get two passport-style photographs taken.
• Collect the necessary documents.

11. • Send your application, passport-style photographs, documents, and fee to the
appropriate Lockbox Facility or Service Center.
・ Keep a copy of everything you send to USCIS.
Getting Fingerprinted
• Receive an appointment letter from USCIS.
• Go to the fingerprinting location.
• Get your fingerprints taken.
• Mail additional documents if USCIS requests them.
・ Wait for USCIS to schedule your interview.
Being Interviewed
• Receive an appointment for your interview.
• Go to your local USCIS office at the specified time.
• Bring state-issued identification, Permanent Resident Card, and any
additional documents specific to your case.
• Answer questions about your application and background.
• Take the English and civics tests.
• Receive case status.

12. Taking the Oath
Receive a ceremony date.
• Check in at the ceremony.
• Return your Permanent Resident Card.
• Answer questions about what you have done since your interview.
• Take the Oath of Allegiance.
• Receive your Certificate of Naturalization.
Removal process
Also known as Denaturalization, is how the US government revokes or cancels your US
citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen, such as
Concealing facts or lying to the immigration officials ( not listing a criminal convictions
or giving fale information); refusing to testify before the US Congress ( When the
congress is trying to investigate your participation in subversive activities); joining
certain organizations ( such as communist and terrorists groups), and receiving certain
military discharges ( dishonorably discharged before you've served five years honorably)
(Lawyers, 2014).
For a naturalized citizen, U.S. Citizenship can be revoked only through a judicial action,
that is, a suit filed in court. Generally, these suits are filed in a federal district court.

13. Typically, the suit is filed in the district court where you live or reside. If you aren't living
in the US, the suit can be filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia or in the district court for the area where you last resided (Lawyers, 2014).
You have to be given "notice" of the suit. The US government has to tell you that a
denaturalization action has been filed against you and where the suit was filed. You'll be
given or "served" a copy of the complaint that's been filed with the court, which tells you
why the denaturalization action was filed. Also, the US government must file "affidavit of
good cause" detailing exactly why the government is trying to revoke your citizenship.
You have 60 days to file an answer to the government's complaint, where you can
challenge the government's claims and raise any defenses against revocation. For
example, you may claim that the revocation is based on wrong information, such as that
the government is mistaken about a past Criminal Conviction that it claims you failed to
report on your naturalization application (Lawyers, 2014).
The government must prove its case against you by evidence that is clear, unequivocal,
convincing and doesn't leave any doubt that your citizenship should be revoked. If it's
successful, your certificate of citizenship will be revoked immediately (Lawyers, 2014).
Impact of Immigrants on the American Justice System
As an example of Immigrants on Law Enforcement, we have entities like the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) which inspects people who aren't citizens
of the United States, or aliens, to determine if they could be legally admitted into the
country, either as residents or visitors; judgments regarding requests of aliens for benefits

14. under American immigration law and guarding against illegal entry into the United States
and investigates , aprehends, and deports aliens who were in the country illegally
(Bankston, 2006) .The topic affects courts because they apply immigration laws and
procedures, Lawyers are faced with the cases, in which they are seeking a speedier
process to prevent immigrants from having to wait years for an answer on their asylum or
green card applications (Guardian, 2014). Lastly, the topic affects corrections because
they conform the last part of the deportation process; they are also home of immigrants
who have been faced with serious felonies in which the federal government prefers to
extradite them into an American Correction.
Society's perception of the American Criminal Justice System
The U.S. is not a forgiving country, and most Americans believe in harsh punishment for
serious crimes, but the principle of proportionality really, the very notion of justice in
sentencing seems to have been overthrown. According to a forthcoming report from the
American Civil Liberties Union, 2,074 immates are serving sentences of life
imprisonment without possibility of parole for nonviolent crimes. According to one
recent count, guilty pleas resolve 97 percent of federal cases that are prosecuted to a
conclusion. Instead of bothersome trials, the U.S. has a plea-bargain system in which
prosecutors not only bring the charge but also, in effect, determine guilt and pass
sentence. As this astonishing assault on civil liberty proceeds, judges have allowed
themselves to be turned into rubber stamping functionaries, apparently for reasons of
administrative simplicity (Crook, 2013).
In response to momentary spasms of popular outrage over front-page crimes, Congress

15. has also enacted a raft of mandatory minimum sentences. The express purpose of these
rules is to deny courts the ability to take mitigating circumstances into account. The effect
is to send large numbers of people to prison for unconscionably long periods of time not
because a judge has calculated that justice requires it, but because an immoral rule must
be mechanically applied. Frequently you read of judges deploring the sentence they have
to pass as they deliver it, they do it anyway because the Criminal Justice System depends
on the decency and restraint of prosecutors (Crook, 2013).
Definition of Justice
Justice is concerned with the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens to individuals
in social institutions, and how the rights of various individuals are realized. Justice, it is
fair to say that it is a concept involving fairness, equality, and equitable treatment.
Specifically, Justice involves the application of fairness to individuals in population
groups or communities (Fred M. Feinsod, 2008).
Justice does, indeed involve equality, in which one side will benefit and the other will
rightfully lose against what alledgedly right, I must admit that immigration is a very
delicate subject in which strict laws have to be applied in order to keep order, but I
believe that the United States is divided between being flexible and strict, they both
benefit both sides, but one side is bound to get affected by it.

16. Bibliography

17. Altman, A. (2 de September de 2014). Obama Weighs Risks and Rewards on
Immigration Action. Obama Weighs Risks and Rewards on Immigration Action.
Bankston, C. L. (2006). mmigration and Naturalization Service. En C. L. Bankston,
Immigration in U.S. History (pág. 367). California: Salem Press.
Crook, C. (2013). U.S. Criminal Justice Is a Disgrace. Bloomberg.
Fred M. Feinsod, M. D. (5 de January de 2008). The Ethical Principle of Justice: The
Purveyor of Equality. The Pinon Community Ethics Committee.
Guardian, T. (2014). US immigration courts speeding up hearings for undocumented
children. The Guardian.
Kalaitzidis, A. F. (2009). Immigration : A Documentary and Reference Guide. Westport,
Conn: Greenwood Press.
Lawyers. (07 de September de 2014). Denaturalization: Revoking Your US Citizenship.
Recuperado el 07 de September de 2014, de Lawyers: Your legal solution starts
here.: http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/denaturalization-revoking-your-us-
citizenship.html
Maddex, R. L. (2008). Formulating an Immigration Policy. En R. L. Maddex, The U.S.
Constitution A to Z (pág. 286). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Services, U. S. (March de 2012). A Gudie to Naturalization. Recuperado el 10 de
September de 2014, de United States Immigration and Citizenship Services:
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/M-476.pdf