United States of America is a land of immigrants as a legacy of the colonial rule prevailing in previous centuries. However, independent since 1776 and a major global power during most of the Twentieth century, the U.S. has witnessed colossal migration from its neighboring countries like Mexico and rest of the world. Unfortunately, illegal migration has occurred consistently along the course of history. The present immigration bill under discussion is an endeavor to set everything right by enacting a new law which seeks to legalize the presently considered illegal population, primarily those of Hispanic ethnicity, to include them as mainstream American citizens (Shear& Parker P1). The bill is a sequel to the poll manifesto of the Democrat President, Barack Obama who was voted to power for a second term. Obama’s interest in the Bill emanates from the contribution made by minority ethnic communities to bring him back to power for a second term in succession. Current population of 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States is pretext enough to settle the matter for once and all, according to Democrat way of thinking. The bill seeks to adjust the backlog and provide a framework for strict future immigration laws in order to prevent the situation from recurring. The Republicans, consisting primarily of conservative elements in American society, vehemently oppose the provisions of the bill, professing it will further jeopardize the already sick U.S. economy due to the additional financial burden on the state in the form of social security obligations to whom they consider as illegal inhabitants. However, some of them reluctantly recognize that the huge population of illegal immigrants is an issue which needs attention as it can lead to further disarray in American politics (Landler & Parker P1). Some Republicans in the Senate have reluctantly agreed to the fact that the demographic shift witnessed in the recent decades necessitates promulgation of a new immigration policy to streamline the ethnic conflict presently rearing its ugly head in the U.S. (Landler & Parker P1). The Republican fear is true, as they have lost the previous two elections exactly due to the tremendous support for the Democrats by people belonging to minority ethnic communities, which have increased their veto power in recent decades due to sheer numerical strength. The isolationist attitude which the Republicans had harbored and succeeded with for so long during America’s international dominance as an economic power is no longer a viable option. An internationalist attitude has become the only viable option under the circumstances as a global shift in economy is occurring due to success of countries like China and India. America therefore needs to set things right within its own borders by passing the immigration bill and enforce stricter border regulations to prevent further illegal migration to the country. This will set right internal unrest on the path to recovery from the present recessionary trends in American economy.
U.S. & the Syrian Crisis
American position with respect to the current Syrian crisis is a dilemma which the Obama administration has to contend with under the shadow of the great financial expenditure U.S. had to bear in its Iraq and Afghanistan military campaigns initiated by previous Republican regimes. The Republican administration under George Bush had displayed an interventionist attitude while deciding upon undertaking campaigns to finish the regimes under dictators which threatened American economic interests in the region.
The Bush administration displayed skepticism towards United Nations and related international bodies by considering them as toothless tigers and taking unilateral decisions, citing American security as a reason for the campaigns in the shadow of the 9/11 attack, which threatened America’s position as a super power. Bush was successful in getting rid of threats to America from terrorist outfits operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the campaigns were not backed upon concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the excuse on the basis of which they were built. The Obama administration is similarly faced with the dilemma of supporting rebels, who ironically belong to the radical Islamist school of thought, which the previous regimes so vehemently opposed (Hubbard 2013). Mere media evidence of chemical weapons being deployed by the Assad regime will serve to strengthen further the international viewpoint that America has hegemonic designs and reacts purely on the basis of concocted evidence as it did in Iraq, to serve its political purpose. Moreover Assad’s regime had received consistent support from Russia, a country which still accepts the leader as the rightfully elected President of Syria, although the support is likely to damage Russian economic interests in the region (Lazareva p1). Administration under Obama is wary of burning American fingers in yet another takeover, with the implications of the Iraqi and Afghanistan military expenditures looming large in the difficult financial environment. On a scale of 1 to 10, Obama’s policy with respect to Syria can be rated as 7, as he has displayed great patience by adopting an isolationist approach. He has however, remained abreast of the situation and delayed reaction by issuing warnings to the Assad regime (Baker et al p1).
Our custom writing service is able to provide you with any kind of papers including even resumes and cover letters. Don’t waste your time in vain. Order your essay now at OrderEssay!