U.S. Republicans are in disarray. Kevin McCarthy’s House leadership bid. After Trump, things may become worse. With a new president, Congress can repair the two biggest issues with the American system. First, the system needs to be more relaxed, leading to illicit behaviour by immigrants who do not fulfil the qualifications, lengthy wait times for immigrants who do and lost benefits for Americans who want to engage with both groups. Second, the system’s rigidity makes it hard to adapt to changing economic and social conditions, worsening regional or local concerns. Fifty-two reform suggestions address these two core issues: a lack of effective penalties for immigration law breaches and a lack of progress toward a more open and adaptive legal immigration system. The tale revolves around their interaction. A user-friendly and adaptable system benefits immigrants and native-born Americans (Richards, 2018). Enforcing immigration laws allows the U.S. to maximize immigrant contributions. Thus, U.S. immigration enforcement must find remedies to unlawful behaviour. To reduce enforcement violations, non-violent immigrants should be steered into legal pathways for entry, residence, and jobs. Agents should report breaches to make adjustments, not punish. Punishment over rehabilitation encourages lawbreakers to hide their activity rather than admitting guilt and facing the consequences. A fair process would encourage immigrants to follow the law.
Over two-thirds of the 10 million illegal immigrants living and working in the U.S. have been here for over ten years. Congress should legalize all non-violent illegal immigrants. This would enable Congress to build a better system without the old system’s limitations. Instead of a cookie-cutter approach, Congress should provide illegal immigrants seeking legal status a choice between a challenging road to citizenship and an easy one to permanent residency without U.S. citizenship. The Senate-passed 2013 immigration reform measure created a new temporary status that required a $1,000 fine, obligatory English-language lessons, a 13-year wait to petition for citizenship, and a yearly income of 125 per cent of the poverty level or no unemployment for more than 60 days (Richards, 2018). This technique is appropriate to assist ex-legal immigrants to become legal citizens, but Congress should also provide a cheaper and easier route to permanent status without citizenship. Thus, they might work lawfully, avoid deportation, and seek citizenship later at a greater expense. Despite one-time legalization, immigration violations will persist. Congress must also recognize that infractions will occur despite its best efforts and that immigrants need ways to report and correct them. In 1996, Congress made it harder for illegal immigrants who qualified for a green card but with more than six months of unlawful presence to get one unless they left the U.S. for three years. Unauthorized presence adds ten years to the sentence (Richards, 2018). The “3- and 10-year restrictions” encourage illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. and break the law rather than return home and apply for visas. Congress should abolish 3- and 10-year limitations to boost legal immigration.
The 2021 John R. Lewis Voting Rights Improvement Act honours civil rights martyr John Lewis. The measure would reinstate and enhance the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires certain jurisdictions to receive federal approval before changing their voting methods. The 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder overturned the system by which the Court selected counties to comply with that obligation, prompting this statute. The U.S. House passed the measure 219-212 on August 24, 2021 (Clayton, 2018). November 3, 2021 saw no Senate cloture. Since cloture was not called on January 19, 2022, a combined bill comprising the Freedom to Vote Act was filibustered. Congress should promote the right to boost legislative support.
The U.S. should disaggregate global health statistics by sex, race/ethnicity, age, and other nation or region-specific demographics to protect women’s reproductive and racial rights. To understand how racism impacts SRHR, especially for disadvantaged groups, fund research that accounts for racial, ethnic, and religious variations. Qualitative data and an R.J. perspective are needed to evaluate the effects of SRHR beyond family planning fully. U.S. SRHR funding should be adequate, with $1.74 billion for family planning and $116 million for UNFPA (Ross & Solinger, 2017). SRHR groups need greater financing to grow beyond family planning and address less-discussed issues like infertility.
Moreover, the United States government should increase funding for women’s rights, youth, and comprehensive SRHR initiatives. Decision-making: Federal and legislative action should end harmful policies. The Helms Amendment, which bans foreign and domestic abortion funding, should be repealed, and yearly appropriations bills should eliminate similar prohibitions. The Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice must be prioritized. The U.S. should promote racial and reproductive justice in all international forums, including the U.N., the Human Rights Council, the Conference on Population and Development, the Commission on the Status of Women, the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, the Generation Equality Forum, the Group of Seven, the Group of Twenty, and any other global decision-making bodies or opportunities. The U.N. should raise SRHR and justice in bilateral talks with countries worldwide to show global leadership. Convenings: Community-led conversations should set SRHR service priorities. USAID’s localization should include women’s rights, youth, and SRHR organizations.
Since the Republican Party of the United States typically bases its platform on American conservatism, in contrast to the contemporary liberalism of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party of the United States is unqualified to lead the people of the United States. There has been a gradual shift in Republican Party policy. The party’s current economic conservatism includes advocating for less government spending, fewer regulations placed on businesses, fewer protections for workers’ rights, and fewer limits on the right to strike (Singh, 2017). The party’s social conservatism includes prohibitions on abortion and protections for gun owners as defined in the Second Amendment. Conservatives advocate for more government expenditure on defence and oppose multilateralism regarding foreign policy. The Republican Party also advocates for school choice while opposing drug legalization, immigration limitations, and open borders.
Finally, leadership must come from the top down. This a motivating, easily understood, and personally relevant proverb. It gives staff the tools they need to hold management to account and shines a light on executives’ abilities to initiate positive change (Abrahms & Mierau, 2017). Leadership is the key to success. Without a strong leader at the helm, a group will inevitably struggle to make choices, fight amongst themselves, have poor morale, produce fewer results, and have a hard time achieving their goals.
References
Richards, T. J. (2018). Immigration reform and farm labour markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(4), 1050–1071.
Clayton, D. M. (2018). Black lives matter and the civil rights movement: A comparative analysis of two social movements in the United States. Journal of Black Studies, 49(5), 448–480.
Ross, L., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.
Singh, R. (2017). ‘I, the people’: a deflationary interpretation of populism, Trump and the United States constitution. Economy and Society, 46(1), 20–42.
Abrahms, M., & Mierau, J. (2017). Leadership matters: The effects of targeted killings on militant group tactics. Terrorism and Political Violence, 29(5), 830-851.
write