Mr. Editor, you have requested I analyze the supplied article, “Reforming Immigration for Good” by Mae M. Ngai, and determine if it should be published in The Shorthorn. After reading this article and thoughtfully considering it I can say unequivocally this article would be great to include in the paper. It properly establishes a foundation of information for the reader, exposes immigration for the problem which it is, and proposes a possible solution to the reader. Furthermore Ms. Ngai’s writing style will be easy to digest for college students: she directly articulates an idea with effective and not overly flamboyant speech. This article, based solely off of the writing style and level of information contained within it, is a great fit
…show more content…
She supports this claim with facts about how we have fruitlessly spent billions of dollars on border control and shows how “only the Great Recession was able to reduce the net flow of …illegal immigration to …zero” (Ngai, 1). She conjects: economic trends and the state of the labor market are the only true controlling factors for immigration. Under the implication of illegal immigration being a result of our poor legal immigration system, Ngai shows how unfair our immigration system can be. She reveals how our current system can force people to wait for what can be years to gain admittance to this country and how it is not practical for today’s …show more content…
She admits our current system has done great things like controlling and maintaining the flow of nearly three million immigrants. She also admits our current system is significantly better than the retired system from the 1920’s which was “blatantly discriminatory” (Ngai, 2) in its very nature. Nowadays, most people in America accept immigration reform as an important and pressing topic. There is a general consensus: our immigration system needs to change; in fact, I have met only a few people who think it is fine the way it is. As such, there was no reason for Ngai to counter argue this and enforce its point, as most Americans already believe it. Ngai does however, employ counter argument in her paper to clarify and focus her point. She evaluates how many people believe a focus towards guest worker programs would help ease our immigration problems, and proceeds to reject the validity of this argument by referencing the past success- or lack thereof- of these programs and how they have led to employer abuse for the past 70
She supports this claim with facts about how we have fruitlessly spent billions of dollars on border control and shows how “only the Great Recession was able to reduce the net flow of …illegal immigration to …zero” (Ngai, 1). She conjects: economic trends and the state of the labor market are the only true controlling factors for immigration. Under the implication of illegal immigration being a result of our poor legal immigration system, Ngai shows how unfair our immigration system can be. She reveals how our current system can force people to wait for what can be years to gain admittance to this country and how it is not practical for today’s …show more content…
She admits our current system has done great things like controlling and maintaining the flow of nearly three million immigrants. She also admits our current system is significantly better than the retired system from the 1920’s which was “blatantly discriminatory” (Ngai, 2) in its very nature. Nowadays, most people in America accept immigration reform as an important and pressing topic. There is a general consensus: our immigration system needs to change; in fact, I have met only a few people who think it is fine the way it is. As such, there was no reason for Ngai to counter argue this and enforce its point, as most Americans already believe it. Ngai does however, employ counter argument in her paper to clarify and focus her point. She evaluates how many people believe a focus towards guest worker programs would help ease our immigration problems, and proceeds to reject the validity of this argument by referencing the past success- or lack thereof- of these programs and how they have led to employer abuse for the past 70