Immigration in the United States - Essay Example

Immigration in America: A Greener Pasture or an Unpromising Future? I. Introduction At the closing stages of the twentieth century, immigrants are pouring in to the United States in populations witnessed only on one occasion before, at the advent of the century. In earlier periods, majority of the immigrants were Caucasians or white Europeans; nowadays most of the immigrants are Latino or Asians (King, 2005). Immigration is the most evident manifestation of the developing relations between the United States and developing nations. The torrent of these new immigrants is creating a repercussion of resistance, for the justifications that are economic and cultural alike. The repercussion is dealt with in turn with a strong-willed defense of immigration. As time goes by, the debate becomes more intense; immigration will perhaps be a foremost issue in the politics of the near future and the next generation. Some contestants in the debate dispute that immigration is an economic advantage to the nation but a catastrophe in cultural implications, that the latter dimension is more essential than the former; hence immigration should be trimmed down (Loveless, 1996). I have a different assessment. Persistent soaring immigration is likely to generate economic problems for the nation but as well provide key social opportunities, and because of this, immigration will contribute constructively to the nation. Some of the contestants in the debate believe that it is just a waste of time to argue about the implication of immigration to the United States and whether it should be supported or thwarted. Immigration is an enormous reality of human existence, they assume, and nothing can be done to prevent the surge of newcomers even if a cutback were intended. What must be disputed, they claim, is the treatment granted to the immigrants, specifically the human rights and political privileges bestowed upon them. The point of view taken in this essay is dissimilar. Even though the laws of the nation cannot absolutely regulate the population of immigrants into the United States, they still have a remarkable impact. The recent dramatic increase in immigration has occurred in reaction to a major transformation in immigration law in 1965, and that law might be amended once again, in so doing altering the pattern of immigration (Loveless, 1996). II. Statement of the Problem This essay focuses on the concerns of the number of immigrants and types of immigrants that should be welcomed into the United States. In this essay I will defend immigration. Even though I take critical consideration of the several reasons put forth for criticizing immigration, I conclude that these immigrants actually contribute encouragingly to the value of American life and that immigration corresponds to the moral virtues that Americans uphold. III. Review of Related Literature A. The Debate Immigration has turned out to be one of the most controversial issues of debate in the United States. Well, it is not unexpected. In 1965, the Congress decided to amend the immigration law of the land, abolishing the system of quotas founded on national histories that had been institutionalized since the 1920s. The originators of the 1965 act aimed to wipe out what they observed as racial discrimination in the immigration legislation of the nation. They did not anticipate, nevertheless, that the new legislation would result in to a dramatic transition in either the population or the national histories of the nation’s immigrants. But since 1965, a significant adjustment has taken place in both. The extent of immigration has attained levels witnessed only once previously, at the advent of the new century. The United States at present welcomes more immigrants than the total of other nations combined (Haines & Mortland, 2001, 38). The primary causes of immigration have altered entirely, from Europe with its Caucasian citizens to the developing nations of Latin America and Asia. The demands for immigration from overseas countries have increased more rapidly than the legal entries have been unlocking and opening, so the quantity of illegal immigrants has grown as well. As immigration has dramatically increased, resistances and opposition to it has intensified as well. The nation in inundated with recommendations to trim down the flow of immigrants, to alter the priority groups, to constrict regulations at the border and to deal severely with immigrants, both legal and illegal. The Commission on Immigration Reform, led by Barbara Jordan of Texas, proposed in 1995 that immigration be reduced by at least one-third, and President Clinton sanctioned the proposal. The opposition is parallel to the resistance that was initiated against the increasing influx of immigrants at the advent of the new century (Haines & Mortland, 2001, 38). Public opinion in opposition to the wave became exceptionally influential that Congress submitted a chain of acts in the 1920s sternly limiting the number of immigrants. Contemporary detractors of immigration would like to witness the same kind of policy action. Advocates of increased immigration charge their adversaries of racial prejudice and nativism. The latter at times charge the former of promoting national disintegration or, otherwise, of being bigotries themselves since they ignore the wellbeing of impoverished and ethnic minority groups living in America, favoring instead inexpensive labor and grand corporate revenues (Chavez, 2001). It is complicated to organize the debate, since conservatives, progressives and liberals can be located on every side. Conservative advocates often mention the benefit that businesses in the United States gain from inexpensive labor and the incentive that immigration provides to economic development. They have a high regard for the entrepreneurial courage of immigrants. Some of them go against border regulations as a needless government incursion on individual liberty and freedom. Conservative oppositionists are at times eager to surrender the argument that immigration is beneficial for businesses; they maintain, nonetheless, that it is negative for taxpayers, who shoulder the brunt of providing health, education, and other social services for the immigrants. It is as well negative, they think, for the social and cultural composition of the population of the United States; it generates disagreements between ethnic groups and to the strength of American ways of life and virtues (Chavez, 2001). Liberal advocates are particularly appreciative of the shifting ethnic blend of immigrants. They give importance to diversity, of race, expression, history, and experience, as enhancing the American landscape. They convey concern for the interest and security and for the human rights of the new entrants. Even though they do not directly promote the claim that immigration is beneficial for businesses, they are vigilant to disprove any proposal that immigration damages the economic security of residents. Liberal detractors are concerned primarily with the effect of immigration on American human resources and on residents of low and average income; they are troubled by the possibility that immigration will lower wage rates and amplify unemployment rate. Even though they have high regard for ethnic diversity, they think that the primary responsibility of the nation is to develop and improve the living standards of marginalized Americans. Liberal detractors as well worry that immigration will cause overpopulation and will then result in to the worsening of the nation’s natural environment (Tichenor, 2002). B. Contemporary Immigrants One means of categorizing contemporary immigrants, based on a proposal by Michael Fix and Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute, is into the groups of ‘conventional, humanitarian and unauthorized’ (King, 2005, 73). The largest population of conventional immigrants is permitted entry for the reason of family reunification. Direct family members of a citizen of U.S. such as parents, spouses and children, are given admission with no restriction. Other family classifications have statistical constraints and are given importance as follows (King, 2005): 1) unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens, 2) immediate family members of legal permanent residents, 3) married children of U.S. citizens and 4) siblings of adult U.S. citizens. Slots that are not used in a priority category revert to the next highest category (73). A second group of conventional immigration is associated to employment. Candidates are granted admittance in priority classifications depending on the demands of the American labor market. A third conventional kind associates to what is referred to as ‘diversity’; it is projected to make available for immigration from nations whose citizens would otherwise have negligible or no access (King, 2005). The humanitarian class is composed of primarily refugees, individuals who are incapable to go back to their homelands due to a reasonable fear of maltreatment (King, 2005). Two classes of unauthorized immigrants are present that are not, apparently, acknowledged by law: individuals who crossed the border without undergoing inspection, and individuals who crossed the border with authorization but in a nonimmigrant position and then extended their visas (King, 2005). C. Why Immigrants Come? Why do immigrants come to the United States? The answer is quite apparent. They migrate to improve their lots, to acquire better employment, to earn good income, to improve their standard of living, and to grant more promising future for their children. The basic answer is indeed accurate. The appeal of the United States to immigrants is at its bare minimum, prosperity; given that the United States is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it will definitely attract millions of immigrants. The basic answer nonetheless is not the entire answer. If the comparative affluence of the United States were the single source of immigration, the inflow always would have been enormous from the impoverished nations. It has not been the case. When Great Britain was the richest nation in the world, for instance, it supplied most of the settlers to the United States. When other nations of Europe started to develop economically and cope with England in at some point in the nineteenth century, they replaced England as the primary reserve of immigrants to the United States (Tichenor, 2002). Therefore, the question of why immigrants come to the United States is quite more complex than it seems. IV. Concerns and Principles in Immigration Policy The immigration policy of the United States is a mixture of multiple regulations, the outcome of political agreements among limited interest groups. If one were to attempt to distinguish the objectives of the nation’s immigration policy through interpreting the significant legislation and through evaluating the statistical document, one would assume that the primary objective of America in the region of immigration is family reunification. Even though Americans are sympathetic to family reunification, they have several other urgent concerns associated to immigration such as employment, economic development, public finance, cultural enrichment, language acquisition, obligation to expatriates, even justice. However, these concerns are rendered into policy either vaguely or even not at all (Chavez, 2001). The two frameworks, national interest and ethics, are to a certain extent in tension with each other. Those who support their point of views on national interest assume that Americans have a duty solely to themselves. They consider that Americans should deliberate in terms that are more far-reaching than merely their personal motives but that the criteria for reviewing immigration policy must be to improve the wellbeing of every American (Chavez, 2001). From this perspective, the benefit for the prospective settlers has no position; if their admission lends a hand to American citizens, allow them entry; if it damages, prohibit them from entering. I would like to argue, nonetheless, that the standard for reviewing immigration policy should involve not merely wellbeing or interest but also morality. Interest is quite self-centered and self-serving; morality is outward in orientation to the rights and interest of others. To fulfill the national interest can be more ethically justifiable than just to fulfill one’s self interest, yet the national interest holds its moral constraints. It would be an inquisitive ethical mechanism that granted moral value to a number of people and reject it to others basically on the justification whether their official residence is classified within a specific geographical border. V. Projecting the Future When taking into account the concern from the point of view of the future, however, there is insignificant uncertainty that the present wave of immigration is remarkable. It will perhaps persist with no respite, unless the government of the United States implements determined actions to mitigate it. If the current level of immigration keeps on, it will turn out to be the main cause of population explosion in the nation, sooner or later, the single cause. There is hence no question that present immigration is very important in terms of the total U.S. population. It is even more important to the shifting ethnic equilibrium of the population. The percentage of Anglos in the nation has previously started to decline and the percentage of Latinos and Asians to increase. Without future immigration, the Anglo population is predicted to continue declining and the non-Anglo population to continue growing, due to discrepant fertility. These variations will be virtually unassuming, however. They will be sped up by future immigration, to a possibility that Anglos will stop to comprise a mainstream of the population by the middle of the twenty first century (Tichenor, 2002). V. Conclusions As progressively more individuals of various races and cultures settle in the United States and the ethnic diversity of the nation widens, immigration becomes an increasingly forceful debated issue. Some American citizens agree on stricter immigration control and assert that immigrants deprive American citizens of employment opportunities, use up social services, and oppose learning English. On the other hand, others point to the historic vow of America to immigration and consider that immigrants strengthen the nation, are economically spirited and resourceful, and culturally rich. The concern of whether the doors of America should be open or closed will remain to be one of the most intensely debated issues in the Congress, in courts, and in communities of immigrants. In my point of view, I believe that yes we should have stricter immigrant laws due to the rising incidences of terrorism such as the 9/11, but I do not believe or agree with extraditing illegal immigrants except if they have harmed or brought damaged to our nation. Majority of these illegal immigrants settled here on the same hope that carried the immigrants on the oceans a long time ago, and they built this nation of the beliefs and values that later on became deeply American. Immigrants to the United States at present appear to have a more convenient time getting jobs as well as social security services. Nevertheless, the difficulties of recognition as a citizen remain unreachable for many. The United States welcome particular immigrants into the country every year and I believe that our country is now more prosperous due to the rich diversity that we have today. Even though I am certain that it remains difficult to abandon one’s family and settle to a foreign land and begin a brand new life, I would have to think that it is much easier at present on the basis of the fact that individuals are more literate, educated and appear to be more appreciative of change and diversity. Colleges for instance, take advantage of the opportunity to admit a student who is not purely American. There are as well several immigrants who are the cream of the crop at their chosen fields. One simple example is the action star turned into Governor of the state of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is not a 100% U.S. citizen. Immigration is an exceptionally fundamental part of the historical narrative of the United States and remains so today. Immigrants in the twentieth century had confronted many difficulties and at times the ‘golden land’ was really not that golden in reality. Many immigrants had grand hopes about their future in the United States, and regrettably hardly any have achieved those grand hopes of a great life. References Chavez, L. R. (2001). Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Haines, D. W. & Mortland, C.A. (2001). Manifest Destinies: Americanizing Immigrants and Internationalizing Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. King, D. (2005). The Liberty of Strangers: Making the American Nation. New York: Oxford University Press. Loveless, S. C. et al. (1996). Immigration and its Impact on American Cities. New York: Praeger Publishers. Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Read More