The necessary evil of immigration
Composition 2
Nickolas Cunningham Immigration defies, divides, and unites us as Americans. Very few American citizens can trace their heritage back without finding at some point or another their ancestors integrated into the United States in some shape or form. Throughout our history immigration has brought out strong opinions from within our country, today I will be taking a closer look through the writing of Robert J. Samuelson entitled “The Hard Truth of Immigration” and the writing of David Cole entitled “Five Myths about Immigration”. Both well respected authors give contrasting opinions on the subject of immigration in the United States, providing statistical evidence along with strong opinions throughout …show more content…
Samuelson in “Five Myths about Immigrations”. He debunks some of the most widely used arguments about immigrants in the United States of America, while positive referencing statistical evidence in most of his claims. His strongest argument is against the claim that immigrants impose harsh costs on societal resources. Many of us have heard this claim from those that have staunch resentment of immigration, although when looking closely at the claim you may find on the contrary immigrants in fact have positive net effect on societal resources. Mr. Cole refers to 1994 Urban Institute report that states “immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received.” Another report completed by the Council of Economic Advisors likewise found in 1986 that immigrants “have a favorable effect on the overall standard of living.” This claim backed by many of other respected institutions points to one clear fact that most immigrants cannot apply for several government backed social programs. Social security which many working Americans depend on for retirement later in life is a program immigrants can’t receive. However immigrants while paying taxes pay into this program and others similar to it. American citizens in fact cause a net loss due to these programs, while immigrants provide a surplus into programs by paying in without receiving. The only programs immigrants are eligible to receive relate to …show more content…
Both essays refer to statistics that at best refer to reports or events that are a decade old. The timeless parts of both essays are age old sentiments, that immigrants are undereducated and are burdens on societies. There’s evidence for both sides of these claims found in each one of these articles making my decision on which argued there positions better on the issue of immigration that much more difficult to justify. My opinion comes down to who presented there stats more favorably to their cause. So without further ado my claim is David Cole presented his arguments in “Five Myths about Immigration” better than Robert J. Samuelson did in “The Hard Truth of Immigration”. My primary reasoning is Mr. Samuelson inadvertently backfired on one of his stats that I referred to in my second paragraph. His glass half empty outlook on a glass that most would agree was more half full doomed his argument in this
Composition 2
Nickolas Cunningham Immigration defies, divides, and unites us as Americans. Very few American citizens can trace their heritage back without finding at some point or another their ancestors integrated into the United States in some shape or form. Throughout our history immigration has brought out strong opinions from within our country, today I will be taking a closer look through the writing of Robert J. Samuelson entitled “The Hard Truth of Immigration” and the writing of David Cole entitled “Five Myths about Immigration”. Both well respected authors give contrasting opinions on the subject of immigration in the United States, providing statistical evidence along with strong opinions throughout …show more content…
Samuelson in “Five Myths about Immigrations”. He debunks some of the most widely used arguments about immigrants in the United States of America, while positive referencing statistical evidence in most of his claims. His strongest argument is against the claim that immigrants impose harsh costs on societal resources. Many of us have heard this claim from those that have staunch resentment of immigration, although when looking closely at the claim you may find on the contrary immigrants in fact have positive net effect on societal resources. Mr. Cole refers to 1994 Urban Institute report that states “immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received.” Another report completed by the Council of Economic Advisors likewise found in 1986 that immigrants “have a favorable effect on the overall standard of living.” This claim backed by many of other respected institutions points to one clear fact that most immigrants cannot apply for several government backed social programs. Social security which many working Americans depend on for retirement later in life is a program immigrants can’t receive. However immigrants while paying taxes pay into this program and others similar to it. American citizens in fact cause a net loss due to these programs, while immigrants provide a surplus into programs by paying in without receiving. The only programs immigrants are eligible to receive relate to …show more content…
Both essays refer to statistics that at best refer to reports or events that are a decade old. The timeless parts of both essays are age old sentiments, that immigrants are undereducated and are burdens on societies. There’s evidence for both sides of these claims found in each one of these articles making my decision on which argued there positions better on the issue of immigration that much more difficult to justify. My opinion comes down to who presented there stats more favorably to their cause. So without further ado my claim is David Cole presented his arguments in “Five Myths about Immigration” better than Robert J. Samuelson did in “The Hard Truth of Immigration”. My primary reasoning is Mr. Samuelson inadvertently backfired on one of his stats that I referred to in my second paragraph. His glass half empty outlook on a glass that most would agree was more half full doomed his argument in this