FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY BRIEF

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY BRIEF

            While some people view whistle blowing as “snitching,” from a positive point of view it’s an action of bravery and curtailing from loyalty to ethics. All the organizations desire to have honesty and transparent employees which in turn ensures a complete dedication towards the attainment of an organization’s vision and mission. When a culture of whistle blowing is encouraged in an organization, it promotes transparency, effectiveness and clear communication within an organization (Chiu, 2013). More importantly, the culture whistle blowing within an organization can protect its clients. For instance, a hospital which recruits negligent officials, other employees who are ethically inclined would need air out such issues for the attention of the hospital management, protecting such an organization from potential lawsuits associated with unqualified staff in a hospital setting. Now, a dilemma arises in cases where certain officials are sure that they are protected from whistle blowers by a certain law as they are likely to take that advantage and act in unethical ways (Hwang, Staley, Chen, & Lan, 2015).

One of the outlines of the CS/HB 9: Federal Immigration Enforcement bill was to provide whistle-blower protection for certain officials. Scrutinizing this approach deeply, it is likely to result to more harm compared to if it had not been passed. First of all, all human beings are just the same regardless of the position they occupy in an organization. And secondly, power corrupts the minds of people. Considering these two facts, it comes out clear that protecting certain officials from whistle blowers it’s likely to encouraging them to act unethically in most of their endeavors (Meissner, Kerwin, Chishti, & Bergeron, 2013).

It is understandable that touching some of critical organization officials may hit an organization severely, but protecting them from whistle blowers is yet another disaster of almost equal measure. However, the options are not the only ways the issue can be approached. I recommend the issue to be approached in such a way that the whistle blowers protection is withdrawn but then the procedure of whistle blowing to be put under restricted settings which will allow the issue to be looked keenly by a committee before exposure. This will ensure that the allegations are valid (Meissner, Kerwin, Chishti, & Bergeron, 2013).

The stakeholders in this policy are the organization managers who bear the blame of the organization whenever unethical events like corruption and embezzlement of funds take place within an organization. The policy is important to them as it will help in mitigating some of the unethical occurrences which may take place as a result of the protection of certain organization officials from the whistle blowers.

Other than the organization management, this policy will also affect the whistle blowers within the organization. Implementation of this policy will empower them as far as exposing evil deeds within an organization is concerned as evil within an organization will have taken a new trend where it will be treated equally regardless of the person who commits it.

For a fact, this policy will face objections bearing in mind that it touches on senior officials in government institutions. Its implementation won’t be a walk in a plateau as the opposition will be overwhelming. For that matter, coming up with a committee to empower whistle blowers first is the approach which can bear fruits.

The likelihood of this policy getting passed is very limited. This is in consideration to the fact that it touches on senior officials who can easily influence the congress for their serve their self-interests (Motomura, 2011). However, it also has a considerable potential to succeed as it will have support from the organization managers who are also influential enough.

In conclusion, it is understandable that touching some of critical organization officials may hit an organization severely, but protecting them from whistle blowers is yet another disaster of almost equal measure. I recommend the issue to be approached in such a way that the whistle blowers protection is withdrawn but then the procedure of whistle blowing to be put under restricted settings which will allow the issue to be looked keenly by a committee before being exposed.

References

Chiu, R. K. (2013). Ethical judgment and whistleblowing intention: Examining the moderating role of          locus of control. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1-2), 65-74.

Hwang, D., Staley, B., Te Chen, Y., & Lan, J. S. (2015). Confucian culture and whistle-blowing by professional accountants: An exploratory study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(5), 504-526.

Meissner, D. M., Kerwin, D. M., Chishti, M., & Bergeron, C. (2013). Immigration enforcement in the           United States: The rise of a formidable machinery. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Motomura, H. (2011). The discretion that matters: Federal immigration enforcement, state and local             arrests, and the civil-criminal line. Immigr. & Nat’lity L. Rev., 32, 167.