Complete the question in the screen shot, base on the contemporary issue immigration

Information background:

Perhaps the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign was his promise to have a strong crackdown on immigration, legal and illegal. From very early, he spoke of a “wall,” meaning a physical barrier that he wanted constructed from California to Texas for 2000 miles. He argued that this wall would be built not with US funds but by Mexico. Once he was elected, however, the Mexican government made clear that it had no intention of building or paying for a war across its northern frontier. In turn, a Congress controlled by his own party had no appetite for spending the billions that would be necessary to build such a wall. Therefore, the Trump administration has tried to crackdown on illegal and legal immigration in a variety of other ways. So far, the administration has had some success restricting immigration from Muslim countries; it has now concentrated more of its efforts on immigration across the southern border.

One policy that Trump has implemented, called “Zero Tolerance,” is to discourage access through the 27 legal entry stations along the southern border and then incarcerate, try and deport anyone found to cross illegally between these stations. Presently, the flow of economic migration from Mexico is in reverse; that is, more Mexicans are returning to their home country than coming across the border to America. The substantial recent flow has been more from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and it has been mostly asylum migration.

The national governments of these countries are unable to maintain law and order because they are overrun by drug gangs, many of which are sustained with the profits of drug money that comes from the US. In these countries, children as young as 10 have been kidnapped and forced to work for these gangs, very young girls have been raped and forced into prostitution, and those families that resist often see family members murdered. Many may be qualified to seek asylum in the US, but first they have to be standing on American soil at a legal entry station, and the Zero Tolerance policy may be preventing them from doing so. Many do not have the option or ability to return to their country of origin, so they take the risk of crossing illegally and are arrested and detained. In many recent cases, their children have been taken from them and held in a separate facility, sometimes for months.

There has been a lot of outcry about the administration’s new Zero Tolerance policy on immigration. But one of the issues that Trump wants to challenge is whether illegal or legal immigrants should have civil rights like American citizens. In the 19th century, this matter was handled both by Congress and the Supreme Court. In the 14th Amendment, Congress stated that all “people,” not just citizens, were entitled to due process of the laws and therefore the privileges of the Bill of Rights. In the wake of the freeing of the slaves, Congress was concerned that the southern states might simply deport former slaves, and passed the amendment to protect them. In 1886, the Supreme Court further interpreted the 14th Amendment and decided in Yick Wo v. Hopkins that an immigrant, legal or illegal, was a “person” and was entitled to due process and equal protection under the law as specified in the 14th Amendment. Over 150 Supreme Court decisions have been decided using the Yick Wo decision.

President Trump is now questioning the reasoning of this fundamental principle of American law, that all people in the US for whatever reason, not just citizens, are entitled to equal protection of the law. He has stated that he, as president and the official responsible for execution of immigration laws in the US, should be able to deport immediately anyone who has entered the US illegally, no matter the cause for their immigration. No entrants would be entitled to a court hearing or representation. It is likely that at some point in the next few years that the Trump administration will try to test this idea in the courts.

Introduction

We live in a world whereby contemporary issues tend to arise, thus affecting certain individuals or populations. What is striking is that politics plays a major role in influencing major decisions globally. A good instance can be noted by the changes made on immigration rights by the Trump administration. The American government has been developing or introducing proposals on a wide variety of undocumented immigration since assuming office, concentrating on everything from citizenship to enforcement proposals, asylum seekers, and arrivals from some Islamic states. Among the measures introduced by the Trump presidency are: systematic and large-scale expulsions of illegal immigrants, including naturalized citizens with alleged criminal prosecution crimes; drastic declines in almost all segments of resident and non-immigrant permits, particularly H-1B as well as other visa applications, student visas, and group reunion visa applications (Kaba pg. 320).

Considerable decrease in the number of migrants admitted throughout the United States; formal exclusion of immigration from identified Muslim countries; strict screening of all persons applying for all categories of visa requirements; rejection of different aspects of applications without presenting proof or intention to reject them.  The American government has not only expanded the ability of federal immigration officials to apprehend undocumented persons far beyond individuals who have taken part in criminal activities. The law has established a national structure for recognizing undocumented migrants detained by the police department and relied on conventional support from local police departments to keep immigrants. 

History

Over the past couple of years, the United States parliament has debated several immigrant measures deemed comprehensive, and others considered to be incremental. Major immigration changes apply to the omnibus policy, aiming to address the immigration problems, including capital accumulation, citizenship standing of the unregistered persons residing in the nation, border surveillance, and institutional compliance. The last discourse policy makers came near to a significant immigrant adjustment had been within 2013, once the liberal-led Congress endorsed substantive policy legislation, which might have made illegal individuals' reforms to get American citizenry and strict surveillance protection regulations (Felter, Claire, et al.). On multiple occasions, the Trump administration has limited asylum, causing debate and court proceedings.