Analysis of Articles about Immigration - Book Report/Review Example

Review Michael Kinsley (2007) in his article "Kidding Ourselves about Immigration" argues about the uselessness of the argument surrounding immigration. According to Kinsley immigration has always been a sore in the side of politicians. In a country made largely of immigrants it is hard to oppose immigration so what most people actually argue about is 'illegal immigration'. Here again Kinsley lifts the veil and shows why opposing 'illegal immigration' is useless. He equates the debate with the opposition people have for the use of marijuana or illegal speeding. We all oppose it but so do we all at one time or another become part of it. As per Kinsley the actual problem is we do not know what the limits of immigration should be. Democrats in one form or another oppose immigration because of the economic impact it has on 'unions' and some support it because of the cultural dimensions it offers. The fact is our forefathers were immigrants and there are so many diverse groups in America that one would find it hard to oppose immigration as a whole without seeming to be against the US foundation itself. The Republicans on the other hand oppose immigration for the very opposite reasons. As Kinsley (2007) writes, "Among Republicans, support for immigration was economic (corporations), while opposition was cultural (nativists)." There is actually no basis of debate for or against immigration. However, today maybe due to the political unrest only one part of society, the entrepreneurs; the business minded people and President George Bush [the writer states tongue in cheek] support immigration, the rest oppose it. The opposition maybe arising from the fact that immigration is actually damaging the social and economic structure of the US society or it may be just a trend. Whatever, the reason immigration has to have a limit that's not the topic of debate. The debate is should there be immigration The writer does not want anyone to argue under false assumptions. He rips off the veil from the substandard arguments presented very cheerfully and logically. He states that when opponents of immigration state they want to limit immigration because there are too many immigrants in the country, they really do not have any statistics. Are they referring to the newest immigrants or the immigrants of our forefather's time When opponents talk about illegal immigration are they willing to consider raising legal immigration The question is not whether legal or illegal immigration is opposed the question is do we as a nation oppose immigration The answer can only be through a democratic decision but as a nation of immigrants the author as a supporter of immigration asks about the immigrant community and what it gives back to the society. He questions the US citizens, (Kinsley, 2007) "But who loves the U.S. most On average, probably, the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals, doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction, getting thrown out and returning again and again." Kinsley creates an argument that is simple. He uses sarcasm and logic, cynicism and facts to create a sense of reality that is false. In order to satisfy our conscience when we create scenarios around the depth and affect of immigration but without the facts we fails to give credit to the immigrants who have made our country, who we are actually a part off. Review 2: In another article Steven Malanga (2007) writes that Hilary Clinton in the Presidential Election was responsible for bringing the debate of immigration to the forefront. While the debate focuses on illegal immigration and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed a drivers license for an ID, Malanga believes, there is more to the debate then being argued about. The debate should not be focused on the immigrants rather the focus should be on the immigration system. The immigration system we have today is a fallback to the mid-1960 when the quota system was replaced by the visa preferences for applicants with family in the US and the broader hemispheric quotas. It was suggested at the time the new policy would limit immigration. However, the new policy increased legal immigration by 60% and after the first decade the shift of immigrants took place as the new face of immigration became the immigrants hailing from countries of political unrest, people with little education and job training and those who could not afford to live in the US. This caused the economic mobility to become slower. Malanga cites a research by the economists from Harvard, George Boras and Lawrence Katz, who studied Mexican immigrants coming to the US in the 1970's. Twenty years in the country they still earn about 40% less than US born workers. This suggests that the problem is not immigrants coming to the country but rather the demographics of the immigrants and the quality of skills they bring. Various other Western countries have revised their immigration policies to accommodate this discrepancy in immigrant demographics and most favor the educated immigrants or immigrants that have skills to offer their nation. Like Australia, which conducts employment surveys so that job categories of particular skills can be identified and immigrants allowed in accordingly. Canada on the other hand bases its immigration policy on the education level rather than job category or skills. Other countries like Ireland allow employers to apply for visas on part of the needed worker and thus, work immigration takes place. The Congress in the US has tried various times to create reforms in the immigration system but there has been no solution as of yet. The problem is the US is not sure what the debate is. Is the debate about immigration, illegal immigration or legal immigration Unless we sort out exactly what sort of reforms we are looking for there can be no solution. The new candidates for President still lack a firm policy. Barak Obama backs preserving the family which means little reform. The Republicans back educated immigrants for the Silicon Valley but again that is a narrow ground and the immigrant policy has to be more diverse. About 1 million people are allowed in the US as legal immigrants every year so the debate is more about how to limit the type of immigration than how illegal immigration should be curbed. Conclusion: As a supporter of immigration I find both the articles illuminating and worthwhile. However, Malanga (2007) creates a more logical debate and brings the issue of immigration into perspective while Kinsley (2007) was more emotional in his arguments. Emotions always spark a lot of opinions but usually never allow a solution to be created. As a nation of immigrants I agree with Kinsley in the fact that we cannot oppose immigration for the mere fact that we are all part of the immigration process, present or past. However, I do oppose his notion that we have to allow immigration, with the notion of numbers rather than a more selective policy as suggested by Malanga. Malanga (2007) steers the debate of immigration in a more positive direction. The fact is the illegal immigrants regardless of their emotional appeal, are a drain on our economic system. US citizens are finding it hard pressed to survive in this near economic recession so how can we sympathize with the illegal immigrants. Yes, they do form a segment of our society but can we afford them The answer is a resounding no. Like other industrialized countries we have to create an immigration system that is more precise and segmented. We do need immigrants and they will enter the country, so why not create a system where we get demography of immigrants that are an asset rather than a drain to the system Why can't the politicians take this issue seriously and create reforms that make sense rather than simple controversies Most Americans are against immigration mainly because of the fact that they believe most immigrants are on social welfare (Simon, 2005) if the stakes are raised and it is proven that an educated and/or skilled immigrant group can actually prove an asset to the economy and improve economical growth, most Americans without doubt would opt for immigration. The US is a country of immigrants and the diversity of its population is what makes the nation strong. So the actual debate is not whether we should have immigration as Kinsley suggests, but rather 'how can the immigration policy be improved to allow a more useful demography of immigrants' as suggested by Malanga. References: 1. Kinsley, M (2007, December 6) Kidding Ourselves About Immigration. Time Magazine retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692059,00.html 2. Malanga, S (2007, November 15) Why Illegal Immigration Alone Doesn't Matter Washington Post retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402047.html September 16, 2008 3. Simon, J. (1995) Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts (Washington, DC: The Cato Institute and the National Immigration Forum. retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html Read More