Top 25 Topics For A Persuasive Essay About Illegal Immigration
Illegal migration or the movement of people across national borders without any proper document, is considered as a serious crime by many countries. Today there are lot of illegal immigrants in most of the countries, even rich countries like USA. The belief of the migrants that they can get better living standard in another country increases the amount of illegal migrants today.
Persuasive essay on illegal immigration
Persuasive essay is a piece of writing which try to convince the reader about any of the author’s idea. Every persuasive essay will try to justify the author’s idea by presenting specific evidence supporting it. Proper researching is very important when writing persuasive essay. Illegal immigration being a hot topics with a lot to talk on is a perfect topic for a persuasive essay. Here are the best 25 topics you can consider for a persuasive essay on illegal immigration
- The increase in illegal immigration is due to poverty.
- The strict rules against illegal immigration is sometimes irrelevant.
- Slavery is associated with illegal immigration.
- Prostitution is associated with illegal immigration.
- Illegal immigration can promote terrorism.
- Illegally immigrated kids should be given citizenship.
- Border rules in countries like USA is irrelevant.
- The death of illegal immigrants is increasing.
- The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make changes in rules.
- Rehabilitation facilities should be given to old illegal immigrants.
- Proper border security can stop illegal immigrations.
- Refugees should be considered legal rather than illegal immigrants.
- Access to public system should be given to kids of illegal migrants.
- A system should be developed to send back illegal immigrants.
- The cost of immigration should be reduced in order to reduce illegal immigrations.
- Document checking should be made strict for employees.
- Companies should possess all important immigration documents of their employees.
- There should be special council to take decision on illegal immigration cases.
- Civil wars are the main reason for increased illegal immigrations.
- Government or the UN should provide enough facilities for citizens of countries facing war’s to stop them from choosing to immigrate illegally.
- Illegal immigration is high in rich countries.
- Illegal immigrants may cause danger to their life.
- There are people stuck as illegal migrants as someone cheats them.
- All people born on national territory should be given citizenship.
- Refugees escaped from war or repression should not be considered an illegal migrant.
The refusal of some major contractors to provide access to contraception or abortion, even in rape cases, has put federal officials in a bind. Catholic agencies, many of them working under the umbrella of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have a long history of providing high-quality care to immigrant and refugee children.
And federal immigrant programs have been stretched as the number of unaccompanied migrant children captured at the border soared in the 2014 fiscal year to 57,496, more than double the previous year. It fell to 33,726 in 2015, but has recently surged again, according to Border Patrol data. About one-third of the children are girls.
The number of migrant girls who arrive pregnant, or become so while in federal custody — and how many of those go into the care of Catholic or evangelical Christian groups that oppose abortion — is not publicly known. Federal officials have not responded to requests for such information.
In 2016, the government awarded grants to care for undocumented minors to over 30 private agencies, according to congressional testimony. Of these, at least 11 were affiliated with the Conference of Catholic Bishops or are otherwise known to oppose contraception and abortion, according to the A.C.L.U.
Drawing on thousands of internal documents and emails, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the A.C.L.U. complaint provides sketchy details of about two dozen cases over the last five years in which pregnant girls, many of whom said they had been raped, requested abortions. In several cases, according to the complaint, the girls had to be transferred to a different caregiver, eventually obtaining abortions.
A 17-year-old said she had been raped by a guide in Mexico and threatened to commit suicide, the suit says. She was ejected from the Catholic-affiliated shelter where she had initially been placed and was refused by a second one before officials located an amenable agency — “away from the social workers and other shelter support staff who constituted her only support system in this country,” according to the complaint.
Another girl, 14, was discovered to be pregnant after her capture at the border, the documents said, and requested an abortion. Officials wanted to send her to an agency in Florida near family members who could offer support and an eventual home. But an email from a federal official said that “both of the shelters in Florida are faith-based and will not take the child to have this procedure.”
Placement decisions “should be based on what is in the best interests of the child,” said Brigitte Amiri, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U. “We think it’s impermissible to allow the religious beliefs of the care providers to determine where the children are placed.”
Some pregnancies and requests for abortion, especially if they do not involve claims of rape, may never be reported to federal officials, immigration experts said. Caregiving agencies may apply to the federal office for payment for an abortion only if pregnancy results from rape or incest. Otherwise, it is illegal to use federal money for the procedure, though agencies can use private funds.
The legal obligation of contracted agencies to provide a full range of reproductive health services stems from a 1997 court settlement and from later federal regulations, the lawsuit contends. The 1997 settlement requires the government to provide young immigrants with medical care including “family planning services and emergency health care services.”
In the more recent regulations, unaccompanied minors who have been sexually abused in federal custody must have “unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment.” They must also be offered a pregnancy test and receive “timely and comprehensive information about all lawful pregnancy-related medical services.”
But the bishops’ conference and allied groups, in a statement last year, said they could not help people gain access to care that is contrary to their religious beliefs. They also objected to accommodations offered by the federal authorities — that they team up with agencies that do not share the religious constraints, or notify officials when a young migrant wants forbidden services so the client can be transferred — “a referral which would in itself be objectionable,” the statement said.
Douglas Laycock, an expert on religion and law at the University of Virginia, agreed that the constitutional argument, if it is upheld, would override the claim for a religious exemption. But in his view, the constitutional argument, based on the A.C.L.U.’s claim that taxpayer dollars are being spent illegally, is weak, in part because there are precedents in which federal agencies granted exemptions in spending programs.
But in 2012, a Federal District Court in Massachusetts, in a similar case involving care of sex-trafficking victims, found that federal grants to the Catholic bishops in that context violated the establishment clause. The decision was later vacated when the contract lapsed and it does not serve as a legal precedent.Continue reading the main story