Even though groups of people were pouring into the United States since the 1700s, immigration became a …show more content…
The three options that I narrowed down to are either the most popular or the most possible. The first option is to expand foreign aid and trade benefits to help governments in the developing world to strengthen their economies and reduce the flow of immigration to the United States. The idea behind this is that we as a people must accept that the problems affecting other countries are America’s problems as well. If the United States develop well-crafted programs of foreign aid and trade benefits they can help more. The arguments against the first option is that it possibly doesn’t solve any our problems, that by pushing money into new foreign aid, programs will come at the expense of addressing other, more pressing needs. A second option is to strengthen border control by tripling the number of Border Patrol agents, constructing impassable barriers at major cross points along the U.S.-Mexican border, and swiftly deporting foreigners who overstay their visas. The idea behind this is that America has given so much already and that we as a country have the right to perceive the American culture we have built. The advocates claim that reducing immigration will allow the United States to hold down spending for education, health care, and other social services. They also claim it will open up U.S. labor markets by making more jobs available for American workers. The arguments against the second option of building a wall is that fencing off our neighbors to the south and restricting immigration from abroad will fuel anti-American sentiment. If we did close the door, we risk being accused of discrimination and also creating a society that lacks a solid understanding of the world. The third option is a comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship. This includes ending family detention, closing private immigrant detention centers, and