ACE

Tag: Immigration

  • Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Background: What are Congressional Term Limits?

    While members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms and U.S. Senators serve six-year terms, all Congresspeople are eligible for re-election indefinitely. As of 2023, U.S. Representatives served an average term of 8.5 years, while U.S. Senators served an average term of 11.2 years. 

    Congressional term limits are a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the number of terms a member of Congress can legally serve. Under Article V, the Constitution can be amended by either (1) a two-thirds vote of support in both chambers of Congress, or (2) a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states and ratified by three-fourths of all states. Term limits reached their highest level of political salience in the 1990s. In 1992, Arkansas voters attempted to impose term limits on their state’s federal congresspeople via an amendment to their state constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court decided that this amendment was unconstitutional and that states cannot impose term limits on their own federal delegation; the only way to impose congressional term limits is to amend the U.S. Constitution. 

    Current Attempts to Impose Congressional Term Limits

    In 2024, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and enact a three-term limit for Representatives and a two-term limit for Senators. The resolution died in committee. In January 2025, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced a resolution with the same provisions. Their proposed amendment was co-sponsored by 17 senators, all of whom are Republicans. 

    While the constitution has never been amended through a constitutional convention, some states are also taking that approach to impose congressional term limits due to limited success of prior joint resolutions in Congress. Indiana’s State Senate recently voted to approve a resolution calling for a convention to consider term limits. If the Indiana House passes the resolution, Indiana will become the tenth state to call for a constitutional convention, joining Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

    Arguments In Favor of Congressional Term Limits

    The case for congressional term limits centers on the following arguments: (1) Term limits motivate politicians to get more done while in office, (2) Congressional turnover eliminates the incumbent funding advantage, (3) Term limits reduce careerism in politics, and (4) Congressional term limits have widespread support.

    One common argument in favor of congressional term limits is that the policy will incentivize politicians to act more efficiently and effectively during their term given the knowledge that they cannot serve indefinitely. Some argue that today, legislators avoid taking immediate action on hot-button issues like immigration and healthcare because they know those issues drive voters to the polls. These proponents argue that congressional term limits would help shift lawmakers’ core objective from winning re-election to creating effective, long-term policy solutions. 

    Advocates for congressional term limits also express concern that members of Congress are unrepresentative of their constituents, especially in terms of economic status. They highlight that funding has become a barrier to becoming an elected official and that incumbency is often linked with disproportionately high campaign funds, making it difficult for newcomer candidates to win against an incumbent. Proponents of term limits say the policy would reduce this incumbent advantage, leveling the funding playing field every two or three terms so that candidates have more of an equal financial footing heading into their race. Supporters also suggest that term limits could indirectly decrease the role of corporate funders in politics by deterring companies from making major investments in lawmakers who will only hold power for a short period. 

    Other proponents of congressional term limits argue that the policy would limit careerism in Congress by making room for people with more real-world expertise to service. They highlight that the average duration of time served in Congress has been steadily increasing from 8.9 years to 11 years, arguing this demonstrates that congressional office is viewed as a career plan instead of a post of service. In the absence of indefinite congressional roles, proponents argue, everyday Americans with more recent connections to the job market would have more opportunities than career politicians who are “insulated from the communities they represent.”

    Finally, proponents of congressional term limits highlight that the majority of Americans support the policy. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 87% of respondents favored limiting the number of terms one person can serve in congress. A different 2023 study from the Maryland School of Public Policy found support for congressional term limits transcended political party, with 86% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents in favor of the policy.

    Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits

    The arguments against congressional term limits are primarily built around the three subarguments: (1) Term limits fail to address political corruption, (2) Term limits ignore the value of the incumbency and institutional knowledge, and (3) Frequent congressional turnover shifts power away from the legislative branch. 

    Some opponents argue that congressional term limits fail to curtail political corruption, and may even worsen the problem. They hold that imposing term limits will cause lawmakers to work more closely with lobbyists for two reasons. First, given that term limits will cause a sharp increase in the number of “freshmen” lawmakers with limited legislative experience, critics argue that more politicians will rely more closely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write or recommend laws to “fill [lawmakers’] own informational and policy gaps.” Second, critics warn that term limits will only exacerbate the “revolving door” phenomenon in which retired legislators seek to maintain political influence by securing careers as lobbyists or private sector government affairs consultants. They cite a 2023 study that found that state governments with term limits saw an increase in the frequency of political corruption events. The study observed a “penultimate effect”, where state legislators under a term limitation devoted more of their last term to securing their personal power than to passing policy. Given that the frequency of last terms will increase significantly under term limit policy, opponents worry about an accompanying increase in political corruption. 

    Opponents of term limits also argue that the values of political incumbency in the legislative process are taken for granted. They argue that policymaking is a specialized skill that must be developed over time, highlighting examples of how bills with loopholes and contradictions – the result of unskilled policymaking – harm the American public. They hold that incumbency’s value is its ability to maintain legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge. Given that federal policymaking is a skill that can only be learned on-the-job, critics say incumbency gives lawmakers the opportunity to become the specialized professionals their constituents deserve. They also argue that bipartisan partnerships among lawmakers take years to cultivate, and that term limits would hinder cross-party collaboration. 

    The third core criticism of term limits is that the policy would shift power to the executive and the private sector at the detriment of democracy. As lawmakers are denied longer tenures, opponents argue, lobbyists and staffers become the primary voice of experience in the legislature. Additionally, critics suggest that a decrease in experienced legislators with cross-aisle relationships will further hinder Congress’ ability to efficiently pass legislation, catalyzing an increase in executive orders and other executive branch actions. This will create hurdles to the traditional system of checks and balances. 

    Conclusion 

    The debate over congressional term limits is longstanding and complex. While proponents argue that the policy will increase legislative efficacy, decrease corruption, and represent the will of the people, critics worry that it could have a counteractive effect. As the debate continues, countless questions linger. How much do we value incumbency? How are money and careerism intertwined? Is the legislature representative enough? Is legislative efficiency worth risking? After all of those questions have been asked, there is only one question left: Should Americans be for or against congressional term limits?

  • President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    On March 15th, Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in order to speed up the deportations of Venezuelan immigrants, specifically targeting the Tren de Aragua prison gang. Under this Act, the president has the authority to “detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile” during wartime without needing to appear before an immigration or federal court judge.

    What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?

    The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is the last remaining law of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It gives the president broad power over noncitizens and can be invoked only during periods of declared war or invasion. The Acts were originally used by President John Adams, who, in preparation for a war with France, aimed to limit public criticism of the U.S. government out of fear that “aliens” in the United States would sympathize with France. The Acts faced criticism for being an overreach of federal power that violated the First Amendment, and all except for the Alien Enemies Act were subsequently repealed or allowed to expire. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has only been invoked sparingly in times of major conflict: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. 

    Read more about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 here

    Who are the Tren de Aragua?

    The Tren de Aragua (otherwise known as TdA) originated as a Venezuelan prison gang that later branched into what the Biden administration labeled a “transnational crime organization”, operating in the United States where the gang is suspected of committing a spree of robberies and the high profile shootings of a New York police officer and former Venezuelan police officer in Florida. Alleged gang members have been arrested and charged with crimes ranging from murder to kidnapping in Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. 

    How Has Trump Used the Act?

    Trump is invoking the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan citizens considered to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In his proclamation, President Trump states that Venezuela has ceded control of territory to gangs, including the Tren de Aragua, and that the Tren de Aragua is a “criminal state perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The proclamation argues that the migration of Venezuelan citizens associated with the gang “demonstrates that the Tren de Aragua has invaded the United States.” Using the language of “invasion,” the administration asserts that the gang’s actions constitute “irregular warfare,” arguing that this gives the President grounds to invoke the Alien Enemies Act outside of a wartime context. 

    The Current State of the Act

    A few hours after President Trump initiated the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily barred the Trump administration from carrying out the deportations. The block came after the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit claiming that the Alien Enemies Act only applied to “warlike actions” and “cannot be used here against nationals of a country” outside of declared war. Judge Boasberg agreed with this argument, stating that “invasion” relates to “hostile acts perpetrated by enemy nations” rather than individuals or gang activity. He also stated that delaying migrants’ removal “does not cause the government any harm,” as they will remain in government custody upon their continued stay in the United States. 

    Those in favor of Trump’s actions such as Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act is within the scope of the President’s power. Ensign points to a Supreme Court decision that allowed former President Truman to detain a German citizen three years after the end of World War II.

    What Comes Next?

    The Justice Department appealed Judge Boasberg’s temporary block against Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and a federal appeals hearing was held on March 24th to determine the status of the block. The appeals court has not yet ruled on the temporary block, but it is expected that regardless of the outcome, the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Introduction

    Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump began introducing sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy. One major change took place on January 21st, 2025, when the Trump administration broadened expedited removal for noncitizens. Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, noncitizens are deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

    Prior to Donald Trump’s second term, immigration officers were permitted to utilize the expedited removal process on undocumented immigrants that were captured by officers within 100 miles of U.S borders, as well as those who had resided in the U.S for less than two weeks. However, under the new expanded policy, any undocumented immigrant in the United States who cannot provide proof of their legal presence in the U.S for more than two years will be subject to expedited removal. 

    There are exceptions to expedited removal, including for individuals who express an intention to apply for asylum, fear returning to their country of origin, or fear of torture or prosecution. In such cases, immigration officers will not remove the individual until they are interviewed by an asylum officer. 

    History of Expedited Removal in the U.S.

    Expedited removal has had a long history in the United States. It was first introduced in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This legislation was enacted with the goal of strengthening U.S immigration control policies, and imposed criminal penalties on individuals who utilize false documentation, engage in racketeering, or participate in smuggling. In addition to introducing expedited removal, the Act also mandated a new intervention for those seeking asylum: credible fear interviews. Credible fear interviews are a process whereby a trained asylum officer within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home country. 

    Originally, the policy of expedited removal was only enforced for noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. via a port of entry. However, in 2002, the policy was expanded to apply to noncitizens who entered by sea without inspection by government officers. It was expanded again two years later to include noncitizens who crossed any land border without inspection, and noncitizens who are found within 100 miles of a U.S. border during the first two weeks of their stay in the U.S. 

    This application of expedited removal remained consistent for over a decade, until President Trump issued an executive order in 2017 that expanded application to all noncitizens in the U.S. and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement new regulations to speed up the removal process. This included conducting credible fear interviews via telephone, which hastened deportations if an asylum seeker’s fears were found incredible. While the Biden administration rescinded this order in 2022, President Trump’s memo to DHS on January 21st reinstated the policies of his first term. 

    Arguments in Favor

    A key argument in favor of expedited removal is that it helps reduce court backlogs. By utilizing expedited removal, fewer immigration cases reach the courts, thereby easing the burden on an overwhelmed immigration court system. At the beginning of 2017, the number of cases pending in U.S. immigration courts was around 534,000, and that number has since increased, reaching 3.6 million cases by the end of 2024. Supporters argue that expedited removal alleviates pressure on immigration courts by streamlining the deportation process. 

    Proponents also argue that expedited removal deters illegal immigration. In 2016, about 267,746 illegal immigrants were apprehended by DHS while trying to cross into the United States, compared to 140,024 in 2017. Supporters attribute this drop to the idea that the quick deportations under Trump’s first-term expedited removal policies discouraged other migrants from attempting to cross the border. 

    Third, advocates highlight the reduction in court costs associated with expedited removal. Because expedited removal bypasses lengthy court proceedings, fewer cases reach immigration courts, resulting in lower expenditures on DHS lawyers, court staff, and detention bed space. As a result, the funds that would be used on these immigration cases can be redirected to other resources and services.

    Arguments against

    One key argument against expedited removal is the matter of family separation. Historically, family unity has been a guiding principle in U.S. immigration policy. Many families in the U.S have mixed legal statuses, meaning some family members may be subject to expedited removal, while others may not. With the current administration’s expansion of expedited removal, family separation is likely to increase, impacting mixed-status families. Opponents argue that this is not only unjust, but also contrary to the principles of the U.S. immigration law. 

    In addition to family separation, critics point to instances where entire families – including vulnerable members such as elderly grandparents and young children – are detained through expedited removal policies. In 2019, 69 mothers detained with their children in South Texas wrote an open letter to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) highlighting the severe physical and psychological effects of detention on their children as they waited for their credible fear interviews. In previous administrations, even infants were subjected to expedited removal along with their mothers who were attempting to seek asylum. 

    Critics of expedited removal also argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Under other immigration policies, individuals facing deportation are entitled to a full immigration court hearing. In these hearings, the individual can present evidence, call witnesses, and have legal representation. Afterward, an immigration judge will evaluate the case and may provide an opportunity for appeal. Because expedited removal bypasses formal court proceedings, immigrants facing deportation are not given the opportunity to speak to an attorney or have their case reviewed by a judge. Opponents argue that this increases the risk of mistakenly detaining or deporting individuals who may have legal status.

    Finally, critics argue that the expansion of expedited removal fosters fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. As a result, individuals may be less inclined to seek out assistance or report crimes to authorities due to fear of being detained and deported. 

    Future Prospects

    The debate surrounding expedited removal reflects a broader conversation about immigration reform in the United States. Supporters emphasize the efficiency, cost savings, and deterrent effects of expedited removal, while critics stress the risks of family separation, lack of due process, and increased fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. Given the Trump administration’s recent renewal of its first-term expedited removal policies, it is likely that the number of immigrants deported via expedited removal will increase over the next four years. Immigration policy remains divisive, so it is likely for the Trump administration’s expedited removal policies to face continued debate.

  • Pros and Cons of Texas Senate Bill No. 4

    Pros and Cons of Texas Senate Bill No. 4

    Introduction

    Texas Senate Bill No. 4 (SB4), passed in 2023, aims to address illegal border crossings into Texas. The bill created new state-level criminal offenses for unauthorized entry and non-compliance with removal orders, giving local law enforcement the power to detain suspected undocumented individuals. It also provided legal protection for officers who act in accordance with the law. While SB4 is a state-level bill, it sparked national debate on issues of immigration, human rights, and federalism. Supporters of SB4 believe the bill is necessary to protect Texas residents and secure state borders. However, critics argue that the bill could lead to racial profiling and harm immigrant communities, many of whom are fleeing dire circumstances in their home countries. 

    What are SB4’s Main Provisions?

    SB4 gives police officers the power to arrest and detain individuals who are under suspicion of having illegally entered the country. The bill restricts law enforcement from making immigration-related arrests in places that are not designated ports of entry, such as elementary and high schools, hospitals, places of worship, and forensic medical facilities. This provision intends to create safe havens where individuals can seek help without being detained for their suspected status. Arrests on college and university campuses are permitted under SB4.

    Under SB4, judges can also issue orders for non-citizens to return to their home countries under specific conditions. The non-citizen will not receive a criminal charge if they meet the following conditions: have no prior criminal record, are not facing severe charges unrelated to immigration, and are willing to provide biometric measures including fingerprints. The biometric measures will be cross-referenced with local, state, and federal criminal databases.

    SB4 has harsh penalties for those who enter Texas without using official ports of entry and those who re-enter after being deported. Those who refuse to leave the United States under court-ordered returns may face felony charges. Inmates convicted under SB4 have limited eligibility for parole, meaning they are less likely to be released early. 

    SB4 also includes strong legal protections for law enforcement officers and officials involved in immigration enforcement. To give officers the confidence to enforce the bill without fear of being sued, the bill grants officers immunity from lawsuits as long as they act in good faith.  

    Legal Battles

    Texas SB4 is at the heart of an ongoing legal battle, highlighting the tensions between state and federal powers over immigration. Initially passed in 2017, the bill faced pushback from civil rights groups and local governments. After some revisions, Texas reintroduced SB4 in December 2023, but it quickly came under fire again. In January 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, claiming the revised bill violated constitutional rights. By February 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a ruling temporarily blocking SB4 from going into effect. However, in March 2024, the Supreme Court briefly allowed it to take effect, only for it to be blocked again by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. SB4 remains on hold as the Department of Justice’s lawsuit is pending. The case’s outcome could shape immigration policy nationwide, reflecting the struggle to balance state power with federal oversight. 

    Arguments in Favor of Texas SB4

    For supporters, SB4 is a crucial deterrent against what they see as unchecked illegal immigration that threatens the safety and stability of their communities. Many Texans live in border towns and worry about issues like drug trafficking and crime. They see SB4 as a step toward restoring order. Without SB4, state authorities are only able to arrest migrants for criminal trespass near the border with landowner permission. SB4 would allow them to prosecute illegal entry and reentry without landowner permission. Proponents hold that this provision drastically increases the efficiency of immigration law enforcement.

    Defenders of the bill also point out that it explicitly targets illegal border crossing and does not institute mass deportations. They say SB4 does not apply to those living in Texas without legal status. Instead, it focuses on areas close to the border where illegal entry is most common. Near the border, a magistrate must determine that there is enough evidence to make an arrest, which means the law has a more limited impact on communities further from the border. Supporters also emphasize that legal residents of Texas who are detained will have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Additionally, proponents of SB4 argue that the bill helps create consistency between state and federal enforcement efforts. They say the current system leaves too many gaps, with federal policies often shifting based on political changes in D.C. They cite the United States Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, which states that states may protect themselves from an “invasion” or imminent danger. For Texans in support of the bill, unauthorized immigration poses an “invasion” and impending threat to their state. According to them, Texas has the constitutional authority to do as it sees fit to protect its constituents in the face of the federal government’s failures. 

    Arguments Against Texas SB4

    According to critics, SB4 has the potential to increase civil rights abuses. They hold that the bill’s broad language and increased powers for local law enforcement open the door to racial profiling, especially against Latino and Hispanic residents, who make up 65% of Texas’s population. By granting extensive authority to local law enforcement to detain individuals based on suspected immigration violations, they say SB4 may lead to biased practices. They argue it will lead to the erosion of trust between Texas’s immigrant community and law enforcement, rendering it more difficult for law enforcement to maintain public safety. 

    Opponents also highlight legal concerns, arguing that SB4 oversteps the bounds of state authority. The Supremacy Clause of the American Constitution establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws, and immigration enforcement is traditionally a federal responsibility. In the case Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against a similar state law, limiting the role states could play in immigration enforcement. Critics argue that SB4 ignores this precedent.

    Critics also emphasize that SB4 will harm vulnerable immigrant populations, including refugees fleeing danger who have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law. SB4 does not create exceptions for these individuals and may lead to the deportation of people who qualify for asylum or other protections. Critics argue that by treating all undocumented individuals as criminals, the bill risks inflicting harm on families and children who are seeking safety. Moreover, critics emphasize that refugees and immigrants contribute positively to Texas’s economy through self-made businesses and taxes like other Americans, and forcing them to leave will cause more economic harm than good. 

    Conclusion

    Texas Senate Bill No. 4 reflects the broader national debate over immigration. Some see SB4 as a necessary step to protect Texas communities from the perceived chaos of border crossings. In contrast, others see it as an overreach that endangers the rights and well-being of immigrants seeking refuge. As the legal battle unfolds, Texas will grapple with balancing the principles of federalism, border control, and human rights. 

  • Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Introduction

    In recent years, the idea of a merit-based immigration system has gained traction in the United States. Unlike the more familiar family reunification approach to immigration, a merit-based system would focus on ranking immigrants’ skills, qualifications, and potential contributions to the nation. One model of this approach, a points-based system, assigns candidates scores based on factors like education, work experience, and language skills. The higher the score, the better the chance of an immigrant’s admission. 

    Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia currently use points-based systems. In the United States, the RAISE Act of 2017 proposed adopting a similar model by reducing family-based admissions in favor of skills-based rankings. The bill did not pass; however, its introduction highlighted a shift in thinking about immigration reform. The debate around merit-based systems persists today. Supporters of a merit-based system say it will strengthen the economy, but critics argue it could distance the U.S. from its long-held values of offering refuge and opportunity to those in need. The tension between economic benefits and social ideals sits at the heart of the ongoing debate about the future of American immigration policy. 

    Arguments in Favor of Points-Based Systems

    Proponents of a merit-based immigration system argue that the policy prioritizes skilled workers who can positively contribute to the economy. They claim that by focusing on applicants with valuable assets, the United States could address labor shortages in critical sectors and select individuals whose skills match its needs. Proponents emphasize that this ability to fill economic gaps will enhance the nation’s innovation and competitiveness on a global scale by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains and prioritizing the hiring of documented American workers. They add that merit-based immigration could more effectively diversify the professional workforce than family-based policies, since prioritized applicants will be of appropriate age and skill level to enter certain vocations. 

    Additionally, proponents argue that a merit-based system will speed up the U.S. immigration process. Proponents point to the fact that when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand shifted to points-based systems, they did not have to expand their immigration departments because the system was less resource-intensive. The new points-based systems elicited a decrease in family-based visa applications, requiring less government personnel and time expenditures on screenings and interviews. Supporters add that the ranking component of points-based systems discourages unqualified applicants from submitting applications in the first place. They say this allows the government to cut down the time required to screen applications and invest that saved time in supporting new immigrants once they arrive. 

    Supporters also contend that a merit-based system would be more just than family-based immigration because it rewards individual achievements rather than personal connections. They argue that merit-based systems create a more transparent and objective process in which immigrants are chosen based on their potential contributions to society. 

    Finally, supporters argue that merit-based systems are more adaptable and flexible than family-based systems because point categories can change based on the country’s needs. For instance, as industries grow or decline, the criteria for earning points can adjust to attract the necessary talent or skills. This adaptability allows the government to respond quickly to labor shortages and emerging economic sectors, ensuring that immigration policy aligns with national interests. 

    Arguments Against Points-Based Systems

    Opponents of a merit-based immigration system raise concerns about discrimination and inequity. They argue that points-based systems favor immigrants from wealthier regions with access to higher education and professional development opportunities. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign proposed several measures for a merit-based immigration framework, one of which involved ideological screening as a step in issuing green cards. Critics criticized this step in the ranking process, saying it will discriminate against immigrants with diverse political beliefs. 

    Another primary concern with merit-based systems is that they overlook essential workers in the agriculture, construction, and service industries. These fields rely on a continuous supply of laborers who may not meet the high educational requirements typically emphasized in merit-based frameworks. Critics hold that by focusing solely on highly-educated immigrants, a merit-based system could create labor shortages in these critical sectors of the American economy, disrupting production and creating economic bottlenecks. For example, in the agriculture sector, labor shortages directly impact food supply and prices, with ripple effects down to consumers. Similarly, the construction industry relies heavily on manual labor, and could face slowed project completion rates and increased labor costs if faced with a shortage in workers. 

    Opponents also argue that the merit-based system’s emphasis on skills undermines family reunification, a core principle of American immigration policy. For many, the ability to bring family members together reflects the fundamental value that family units contribute to resilient communities. Families provide social and economic stability, help preserve cultural traditions, and contribute to the well-being of society. However, a points-based system makes it more difficult for families to stay together or reunite quickly, since not all family members may meet the skill criteria. 

    Finally, critics hold that merit-based systems do not adequately address the needs of refugees or asylum seekers. These categories of immigrants may not meet educational requirements, but require immediate protection from persecution, violence, or conflict. Opponents hold that denying entry to a person fleeing a dangerous environment on the basis of education or skills is deeply unethical. 

    Additionally, opponents disagree with the notion that the American immigration system must choose between increasing economic value and tending to humanitarian needs. They point to research that shows that refugees stimulate their host country’s economy by creating jobs, contributing tax revenue, and driving consumer spending. They emphasize that refugees often fill crucial roles in the healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and education sectors, where labor gaps are common. In 2019, 13% of refugees in the U.S. identified as entrepreneurs and collectively generated $5.1 billion in business income. Critics of points-based systems argue that refugees and asylum seekers also broaden the cultural landscape of society by introducing diverse perspectives, skills, and cultural practices. They contend that limiting their entry disregards ethical imperatives and the long-term benefits of their presence in the U.S.

    Conclusion 

    The debate over whether the United States should adopt a merit-based immigration system raises critical questions about the country’s core values and future economic priorities. While proponents argue that points-based systems offer economic benefits by attracting skilled workers and decreasing processing times, critics warn that they risk widening global inequalities and eroding the humanitarian principles central to American immigration policy. This tension will continue to shape the ongoing debate over the future of American immigration policy.