This website, as a website advocating human rights across the world, naturally appears to be pro-immigration, and in this case, an entire report has been written out explaining in detail the Latin-American immigration issue, specifically Mexico, in this case.
The organisation that runs the website, WOLA, or the Washington Office in Latin America, was founded in 1974 by a series of church leaders, who's ulterior mission was, in their own words, "not to 'represent' Latin Americans but to give them access in the United States to those making the policies that had such a profound impact on their lives". Arguably, that mission is still going on today, but WOLA itself has changed. It is now "a leading research and advocacy organisation advancing human rights in Latin America", and one area it seems to be focussing on in this day and age is the ever-recurring topic of Latino immigration.
The report goes into great detail about the intricacies of Latino immigration, specifically in the area of El Paso. Many figures are provided as evidence for the report's reasoning, and a few of the most important figures are as follows:
- In 2016, 408,870 migrants were apprehended at the US border, showing a marked decrease in overall undocumented migration, to the point where undocumented migration levels are at a similar level to what they were in the 1970s.
- Furthering the above point, overall numbers of Mexican migrants have fallen to 1970s levels, and between 2004 and 2015, each subsequent year had fewer migrants than the year that preceded it.
- The violent crime rate at the border has decreased to the point where it is the lowest in the nation, and the crime rate on the Mexican side of the border has decreased similarly.
The report itself does its best to be non-biased, however by focussing on making the Mexican immigration issues not as bad as Americans think they are (which is true if the figures aren't lying), the report follows the trend of the rest of the website by promoting an idea of pro-Latino-immigration, and a generally more open, tolerant mind-set to approaching Latino/American relations. However, despite leaning more towards pro-immigration, the report, and the website as a whole, provide plenty of points, backed up with sources, for the upsides to increased immigration, making it an effective advocacy website.
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149
This article, in a not too dissimilar fashion to the WOLA report, attempts to remain as non-biased as possible, going into detail regarding the issues surrounding immigration, the history of the debate, and the many facts and figures which make up the US immigration debate.
The CFR, or Council on Foreign Relations, labels itself as an 'independent, nonpartisan membership organisation, think tank and publisher'. Like WOLA, the CFR (supposedly) has links with US politicians and other world leaders, and informing the public of national foreign policy. Formed in 1921, the CFR's diverse range of accomplishments, ranging from publishing Foreign Affairs, a leading journal of international policy and US foreign policy, to convening meetings with various high-level politicians from the US and across the globe to ensure important political matters are discussed and resolved.
The article goes on to talk about the issues presented by immigration, talking about the immigrant population, how the American public feels about immigration, legal or otherwise, and how various political figures and authorities have acted (or failed to act) on what the CFR presents to them. Such facts include:
- After the 2008 economic crisis, the undocumented population lessened from 11 million, and the crisis discouraged others from going into the United States.
- Immigrants and their US-born children make up around 27% of the population of the United States.
- In a 2016 Gallop poll, a surprising 72% of the American population found immigration to be a benefit to the United States, with 84% saying that undocumented immigrants could be let in if they meet certain requirements.
Although this article is almost completely non-biased, in my opinion it leans both pro and anti-immigration, seemingly favouring the anti-immigration stance. This is because it makes heavy reference to Trump and his nigh-radical policies regarding immigration, particularly Mexican immigration, and the article also suggests that something needs to be done about the current immigration situation, even going so far as to suggest a reform. This implies that CFR believes that immigration is getting out of control and needs to be limited, although not necessarily stopped.
No comments:
Post a Comment