Social Change: Legalization of Drugs and Limitation of Immigrant Rights - Essay Example

Social Change Should drugs be legalized Drugs have been one of the major problems of the society for decades and many countries have passed legislation banning the illegal use and trade of drugs and amended laws in the area. Every now and then news roll on the television illegal drug possession from the youngsters and being sent to rehab centre. Government of various countries have banned drug abuse and passed certain legislations which strictly prohibit drug use. But drug addict find out some way or the other to the banned substance resulting in violence and crime. Husak (2002:67) mentions the reasons why drug is criminalized and mentions strong argument from the parent's point of view those seeking to punish the drug users in order to protect their children but in contrast their children will also be sent to jail under the policy if they use drugs. Therefore certain sections find it useful to legalize the use of drug to some extent so that policies could be reformulated with regard to minimizing the violence and crime.1 Hyde and Setaro (2003:75) mentioned that people from all over the world use drugs often leading to violence and crime far beyond users. Drug trafficking is a big business and fighting over drugs has led to numerous crimes in the United States, political factions fighting over drug cultivation and trafficking including many turf wars which include the use of guns leading to death of people.2 Hanson et al (2005:110) stated that the persistence of drug abuse problem and high cost in dollars and frustration of waging the 'War on drugs' have energized the ongoing debate on legalizing the use of drugs. The debate is further supported by various arguments from individuals and groups stating that violence and crime would become less frequent if the drugs were legalized.3 Inciardi (1999:55) mentioned the argument of antilegalization camps that violent crime would not necessarily decline in a legalized drug market and might actually increase for three reasons i.e. removing the criminal sanctions against the possession and distribution of illegal drugs, increase in the use of drugs resulting in a greater number of dysfunctional addicts and more users would result in more violence association with ingestion of drugs.4 Further it is pertinent to mention that violent behavior caused due to drug intake would not stop automatically and the number of crimes will increase as the number of drug users will also increase due to the legalization of drugs. Legalization proponents however ignore the fact that the people committing violent crimes are habitual offenders and career criminals who will not stop them from doing illegal activities if drugs are legalized, but will find new ways of creating revenues (Gargaro, 1999)5. However Jeffrey Miron, economist at Harvard University has different opinion about the legalization and states that prohibition creates violence and paves the path for underground market and favors right policy to legalize drugs while using regulations and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior6. In spite of advocacy by some observers that marijuana should be legalized while the ban on other harmful drugs should not be lifted due to its violent nature. However it is suggested that drugs should not be legalized as the legalization may lead to easy access to banned substance by the vulnerable thus leading to inevitable. Drugs should not be legalized as the addictive nature of substance may lead to crime and other harmful actions to the society. Should the welfare rights of recent immigrants be limited The forces of globalization have resulted in huge wave of immigration and relationship between globalization and immigration has been examined various researchers to study the impact of globalization on the immigration (www.thefreelibrary.com)7. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) was established to manage the migration crisis that has been occurring all over the world with increasing trend in migration where people are moving from country to country in search of employment and better living facilities (Entzinger et al, 2004:13)8. According to United Nations statistics, the number of persons living abroad has increased from 75 million in 1960 to 191 million in 2005 (Great Britain: Home Office, 2007:6)9. It is revealed from the above figures that the migration trend in on increase in spite of stringent policies and measures to curb the illegal migration. The migration has become a greater and greater phenomenon both numerically and in terms of its global scope, both the sheer scale of migration and international pressures to establish and defend universal human rights based on personhood and not on national belonging have lead to the development of new forms of post-national citizenship (Freedman, 2004:20). Anyhow various governments are taking steps rehabilitate the immigrants from different countries those coming in search for work and employment through appropriate welfare measures like providing employment, citizenship after certain period of time, shelter, etc. Every year the various governments have to face the problem of immigrants entering their border illegally. It is pertinent to mention that governments have the primary responsibility to provide welfare rights to its primary citizens through various schemes and laws. And therefore it is necessary to keep the recent immigrants in abeyance of the fullest welfare rights as is eligible for the earlier immigrant people. However, certain sections of society argue that welfare rights to the immigrants should be limited which was also found during the opinion poll in The Guardian which focused on asylum seekers' right to social security (Dwyer, 2000:199).10 While some have argued that control on immigration welfare schemes are vital for the maintenance of the welfare state of the nation. There are cases from the countries where legal differentiation was created between health and social benefits and care that different groups of residents were entitled to, under the law. The people without legal residence were entitled to only emergency medical aid whereas those who had been residing for three years or less were entitled to lesser medical facilities (Freedman, 2004:102).11 The reason why above arguments were raised because immigrants contributed more than they received welfare assistance. Recent studies have examined the high welfare dependency of immigrants as noted by Brucker et al (cited in Baldwin-Edwards, 2002:3) where 9% of the population had a representation of 24% of welfare recipients in Germany and various research have concluded that higher welfare dependency is wholly attributable to immigrants socio - economic characteristics such as educational level, younger heads of household, larger number of children.12 Cohen et al (2002:22) stated that the link between immigration control and access to welfare has been a feature of immigration controls in Britain since the Aliens Act which was aimed at preventing the recent immigrants from receiving all the benefits of welfare schemes available in the country.13 Ancheta (2006:162) presents the view of opponents of immigration and affirmative action, in Asian American context, who proposed public policies to limit or dismantle both, immigration and affirmative action, whereas conservative writers have stated several arguments that immigrants are not entitled to affirmative action and should be denied access, affirmative action is failure and should be ended as it favors immigrants rather than blacks, and finally immigration should be limited because it undermines the basic goals of affirmative action.14 The restriction to certain welfare rights shall compel the immigrant resident to undergo government procedure and avail for permanent citizenship of the country after the stipulated time which would be of great help to both the immigrant and country in tackling and combating various social and criminal issues. Therefore in an era of large scale migration, issues of membership or citizenship have become increasingly complex. The migration makes host societies culturally and socially more diverse and makes the legal status among members more differentiated and states with increasing migration trend are facing new and difficult questions regarding the time frame to extend citizenship to new immigrants, issue of dual nationality, which rights and opportunities should be limited that provide a greater range of rights, duties, and legal protections than that of aliens (Alexander et al, 2002:2)15. Similarly Daniel Tichenor (cited in Cornelius, 2004:77) mentioned in relation to United States policy that despite the restrictionist elements, the dominant tendency of US immigration policy has been to more liberal or admissionist over the past years. Further, it is also mentioned that before the enactment of PRWORA, there were debates over number of issues pertaining to rights and welfare of the immigrants over their increasing number of populace and access to welfare rights. Immigrants accounted to almost 10 to 15 percent of the recipients of benefits under most federally funded welfare programs which included Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. But contrast to arguments made under various studies concluding with reforms to cut down the welfare rights of recent immigrants, President Bush government in United States provided eligibility to immigrants for food stamps, Medicaid to legal immigrant children and pregnant women because immigrants were spreading fast out to more states in United States and more were naturalizing.16 However it is important to mention here that United States was more inclined towards providing welfare rights to immigrant who legally residing and not to recent immigrants. Most of the nations are using controlling measures to restrict excessive immigration by rolling back the rights of foreigners and abandoning some aspects of the negative freedom and the minimalist state. The whole range of welfare benefits from education to health care and pensions has become a target for those wishing to restrict the rights of foreigners as a way of controlling immigration. Infringing individual and group rights or tampering with the social contract, the constitution and national identity for controlling immigration are fraught with danger for liberal and republican states (Bommes and Geddes, 2000)17. Jacobson (2009:233) mentioned that immigrants rights are problematic and extended arguments about the dangers of the use of human rights standards by international and national courts (Dunn, 2009)18. According to Joppke (2010:90) there is a need to make the immigration authority the watchdog of welfare state as limiting welfare benefits to the recent immigrants may appear blatantly discriminatory. It is further mentioned that social rights granted to immigrants look rather different from the social rights that have crowned the civilization making citizenship evolution.19 Debates about immigration mainly focused on welfare and welfare eligibility or social rights and by excluding some rights, welfare states have sought to welcome some forms of migration while rejecting others (www.thefreelibrary.com). The globalization is increasing year upon year and migration trend is on the same path as is the globalization making countries borderless. It is evident from the above literature that various governments are formulating and reformulating immigrant policies and also welfare policies associated with them so that their primary citizens are not deprived of their welfare schemes which they are legally entitled to. However it is pertinent to mention here that though it is necessary under the purview of human rights to provide welfare rights to all human, it is necessary on part of the welfare state to control immigration to an extent. It is necessary to provide welfare rights to all immigrants but limited access to certain rights might tend the recent immigrants to return back to their origin and also save huge funds for the welfare state for their citizens. It is understood that if the welfare rights of recent immigrants are limited, the immigration trend may end on decline. Therefore it is an agreed phenomenon that welfare rights to recent immigrants should be limited to an extent so that the welfare schemes are passed on to the citizens staying in the country for longer period than that of recent arrivals. References 1. Alexander, T.A., and Klusmeyer, D.B (2002) Citizenship policies for an age of migration, Carnegie Endowment, US 2. Ancheta A.N., (2006) Race, rights, and the Asian American experience, Ed,.2, Rutgers University Press, USA 3. Baldwin- Edward,. M (2002) Immigration and the Welfare State: A European Challenge to American Mythology, MMO Working Paper No.4, UEHR Working Papers, http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/mmo_working_papers/MMO_WP4.pdf 4. Bommes M and Geddes A (2000) Immigration and Welfare: Challenging the Borders of the Welfare State, Routledge, US 5. Cohen S, Humphires B and Mynott E (2002) From immigration controls to welfare controls, Routledge, US 6. Cornelius, A. (2004) Controlling immigration: a global perspective, Ed. 2, Stanford University Press, US 7. Dunn T.J. (2009) Blockading the border and human rights: the El Paso operation that remade immigration enforcement, University of Texas Press, US 8. Dwyer, P (2000) Welfare rights and responsibilities: contesting social citizenship, The Policy Press, UK 9. Entzinger, H.B., Martiniello M, and Wenden C,.W. (2004) Migration between states and markets, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, UK 10. Freedman, J (2004) Immigration and insecurity in France, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.,UK 11. Gargaro, C (1999) Drugs, Gargaro.com, http://www.gargaro.com/drugs.html Globalization, immigration and the welfare state: a cross-national comparison, The Free Library, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Globalization,+immigration+and+the+welfare+state:+a+cross-national...-a0164557864 12. Great Britain; Home Office (2007) The economic and fiscal impact of immigration: a cross-departmental submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, The Stationery Office, UK 13. Hanson, G.R., Venturelli, P.J, and Fleckenstein, A.E. (2005) Drugs and Society, Ed. 9, Jones & Bartlett Learning, US 14. Husak D.N. (2002) Legalize this!: the case for decriminalizing drugs, Verso, United States 15. Hyde M.O and Setaro J.F (2003) Drugs 101: An Overview for Teens, Twenty-First Century Books, USA 16. Inciardi J.A. (1999) The drug legalization debate, Ed.2, Sage Publication, US. 17. Jeffery A Miron (2009) Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence, Special to CNN, CNN, Politics, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html 18. Joppke. C (2010) Citizenship and Immigration, Polity, US Read More