Salvadoran construction workers are at risk of losing their jobs and being deported because the Trump administration revoked a program that gave them legal immigration status in the United States based on violence and environmental disaster in their native country. Many cities across the national would feel the economic side effects of this decision, but Washington would feel the brunt of it because about a fifth of the construction workers in D.C are in the US because of the program that had been revoked. If steps towards deportation continues, there will be a major labor deficit that will require lengthy and expensive processes to fix. This temporary program did not provide these workers with a pathway to citizenship; however, they never thought they would face deportation because they have been here legally long enough to have made a life for themselves and their families. In my opinion, I believe Trump should have not revoked this program because it not only gave people an opportunity for a better life, but also helped the American economy. Deporting Salvadoran workers will result in a cascade of economic consequences and a work deficit that will be difficult to fill. In addition to labor shortages and rising costs, projects will face long delays. Because immigration is nationally controlled, it will be difficult for states to dispute this new federal policy. State authorities are not required to agree with the federal government, but because of Supremacy, states are not allowed to challenge the national policies.
Many of the Salvadoran workers contribute positively to society by having a job, owning a home, and paying their taxes; do you believe there is adequate reasoning has to why they should be deported?
Do you think there is anything the public or states can do to challenge the revocation of the program?
Do you think the mass deportation of the Salvadoran workforce here in the US on the program that was revoked by Trump will have a large economic impact?
1. I do not think there is adequate reason to deport them, especially when they are positively contributing to the nation's economy and not causing issues. I do think that there should be some opportunity made for these workers to apply to stay in the United States legally, and if this option is given but they refuse, deportation would be justified then. However, as is, the US benefits from having them in the country.
ReplyDelete2. I am not sure if the sanctuary city/sanctuary state idea would extend protections to these workers, but that could be worth a shot. Whether there would be federal opposition to exploiting some sort of loophole like this is another question entirely, and it may not be financially feasible to do this.
I doubt this will have a long-lasting economic impact; there will be hundreds of workers out there, either also immigrants or American workers, who will be willing and able to replace them. There may be short-term labor shortages, but I'm sure this would get resolved eventually.
I don’t think it was a good idea to revoke the program because in the short term it will take a toll on the economy and decrease the efficiency of certain projects, but more importantly, it puts all of those immigrants at risk of losing the life they built here, which is really unfair considering most of them came to the US to escape the poor living conditions they were dealing with. However, because this decision is one that the federal government made, I don’t think there is very much the states can do about it. Additionally, there aren’t very many arguments (that have to do with law) that people can make against this if someone wanted to take it to court because these immigrants are here legally, but not as citizens, so the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to them differently. Nevertheless, I think people should still try to protest against it because these immigrants should have the right to stay here.
ReplyDeleteRevoking the program was probably not the best move in my opinion. There's not much to argue against, as it seems that many points brought up by people supporting this act are based off of personal bias, and tend to look at only evidence that supports their own point of view. As Marisa emphasized, the immigrants usually come to a different country to escape a bad situation in their home country and are simply trying to live a better life. A really good point she brings up is the treatment of immigrants is a difficult issue to deal with because they are not held to the same rights as citizens. In my opinion, they should be given the same rights as long as they are in our country. Revoking this system will definitely have an extremely large impact on our economy, but people can help improve the situation by signing petitions, protesting, or anything that can get the attention of the government so that something can be done to prevent further damage.
ReplyDeleteI oppose revoking the program. Many argue that because it is a “temporary” program, the Salvadoran refugees should never have had any expectations of being able to stay. However, after 20 years of being allowed to stay, this “temporary” program has become a de facto permanent one. It is entirely reasonable for these refugees to have expected to be able to stay forever. Furthermore, many of these people are working hard, raising families, and contributing to the economy. Expelling them would be impractical, regardless of any moral issues. Certainly, some immigrants cause problems and should be deported, just like some citizens cause problems and should be imprisoned. But we should be focusing on those people, not on hard-working, tax-paying people just seeking a better life.
ReplyDeleteIf the Trump administration wishes to wipe out the two decades of progress these people have made in America, they should also refund all they’ve contributed. Refund these 20 years of taxes, all they’ve contributed to the American economy, the entire value of their house, car, and everything in it, and the emotional damages incurred by splitting families. Perhaps when shown the value these people bring, the government will be less willing to send them back.
Based Trump's general attitude toward and statements about immigrants, especially immigrants of color, it is more likely than not that his reasons for deporting them are simply prejudice instead of any valid reasoning. The public can challenge the revocation of this program by emulating California's response to the ICE raids: reinforcing their sanctuary status and providing immigrants with resources about their rights. While this defies federal law, as it stands, there is no way to protect immigrants without defying the federal government. I do believe that this mass deportation will have an economic impact, as any decision which vastly altered the workforce would.
ReplyDelete