Over the last year it’s felt like the biggest thing you hear about in the media has been things about immigration. One perspective of immigration that’s been getting a lot of attention lately is the side that believes that we should have heavily restricted immigration and be working really hard to keep out illegal immigrants. A perspective that doesn’t get a lot of media attention is the one that completely disagrees with the first perspective, the side that believes that immigration should be completely unrestricted by the government. What seems to be the biggest group that believes in unrestricted immigration is actually religious groups who believe in natural law, a belief that natural human behavior shouldn’t be controlled by the government
…show more content…
In this case that side would be people against immigration and/or want there to be a lot of laws and restrictions on immigration in this country. One person who believes that immigration, legal and illegal, is bad for the United States is Howard Foster. In his article “Why More Immigration is Bad for America” he discusses some of the reasons why he believes immigration is bad for the United States and why we just don’t need it. One of his biggest points is jobs, he states that “Employers want cheap labor. They benefit tremendously from legal and illegal immigration in the current slow-growth economy. We have a million legal immigrants per year, and the vast majority of them enter the labor market competing with Americans for scarce job opportunities.” (Paragraph 1). Not only does he and people who agree with him believe that immigrants coming here is hurting our employment rates, but he also says that the United States is helping them to do this by making so many laws that makes it easier for them to come here. In his article he says, “And they have essentially written U.S. immigration law for a very long time. The primary type of immigration is for ‘family reunification.’ That means a U.S. citizen can sponsor their immediate relatives for permanent residency and then citizenship. This sounds like a perfectly reasonable basis on which to base an immigration policy. But …show more content…
The middle ground perspective in all topics tends to be hard to write about because there are so many different views that can be considered “middle ground”, but the most well known middle ground group would seem to be a large part of the Democratic Party. Many of the people on this side of immigration follow the Democratic Party’s perspectives on immigration which is that they “…want to secure the border with Mexico, but they differ with their partisan counterparts (Republicans) by favoring a guest-worker or path-to-residency status for illegal immigrants” (White, 219). According to Abe Kwok, author of “There IS Middle Ground on Immigration”, the hardest part of the immigration debate seems to be “what to do with the millions who are already here illegally, and how to minimize the risks of letting in those who may with to do us harm.” (Paragraph 4). This perspective tries to show that heavily restricted immigration is right in some ways because we need some way to deal with the illegal immigration and we still need a plan for protecting United States citizens. But, this perspective also agrees with some thoughts from the unrestricted immigration such as needing to help people by letting them come here. Kwok also says in his article
In this case that side would be people against immigration and/or want there to be a lot of laws and restrictions on immigration in this country. One person who believes that immigration, legal and illegal, is bad for the United States is Howard Foster. In his article “Why More Immigration is Bad for America” he discusses some of the reasons why he believes immigration is bad for the United States and why we just don’t need it. One of his biggest points is jobs, he states that “Employers want cheap labor. They benefit tremendously from legal and illegal immigration in the current slow-growth economy. We have a million legal immigrants per year, and the vast majority of them enter the labor market competing with Americans for scarce job opportunities.” (Paragraph 1). Not only does he and people who agree with him believe that immigrants coming here is hurting our employment rates, but he also says that the United States is helping them to do this by making so many laws that makes it easier for them to come here. In his article he says, “And they have essentially written U.S. immigration law for a very long time. The primary type of immigration is for ‘family reunification.’ That means a U.S. citizen can sponsor their immediate relatives for permanent residency and then citizenship. This sounds like a perfectly reasonable basis on which to base an immigration policy. But …show more content…
The middle ground perspective in all topics tends to be hard to write about because there are so many different views that can be considered “middle ground”, but the most well known middle ground group would seem to be a large part of the Democratic Party. Many of the people on this side of immigration follow the Democratic Party’s perspectives on immigration which is that they “…want to secure the border with Mexico, but they differ with their partisan counterparts (Republicans) by favoring a guest-worker or path-to-residency status for illegal immigrants” (White, 219). According to Abe Kwok, author of “There IS Middle Ground on Immigration”, the hardest part of the immigration debate seems to be “what to do with the millions who are already here illegally, and how to minimize the risks of letting in those who may with to do us harm.” (Paragraph 4). This perspective tries to show that heavily restricted immigration is right in some ways because we need some way to deal with the illegal immigration and we still need a plan for protecting United States citizens. But, this perspective also agrees with some thoughts from the unrestricted immigration such as needing to help people by letting them come here. Kwok also says in his article