Refutation for immigration policy: Part 3 of 3
There are some major concerns about increased immigration and its implementation, and that has led to various types of objection to the policy. Following the same logic used in favor of immigration, it is possible to discredit these arguments that many people, especially those who have a misunderstanding of the principle of pro-immigration policy frequently use. Commonly cited objections include the risk of increased crime from immigrants, wage depreciation, and increased strain on government social welfare programs.
Abuse of government benefits is many opponents’ primary concern. Undocumented immigrants are technically ineligible for government benefit programs, but many take advantage of them …show more content…
Policy opponents often fear that many immigrants just come to the United States for the infrastructure and will not be contributing members to society. What they may find surprising is that the current legislation governing immigration has a clause against “public charges.” This clause bars visa applicants who are deemed liable to become a public charge, as well as enables deportation of immigrants who become public charges after admission (Immigration and Nationality Act, Simon 95). The problem is that along with other enforcement measures, this clause has been disregarded. Proper immigration policy should increase the amount of immigrants allowed, but also make sure that the only people entering the country are those approved immigrants. Part of that job is thorough screening of prospective immigrants, which ensures the flow of immigrants will benefit both the immigrants and the nation. Potential problems of public charges can be addressed through already established avenues if legislation is enforced properly. Today’s data analytics could be usefully employed to detect liable immigrants during screening. To some, screening for people who are likely to become a drain on society may seem unhumanitarian, but someone who can hold a job (including low wage manual labor) should be able to qualify, and those who try to come to the U.S. due to circumstances in their home country but may be a …show more content…
While some of these arguments are motivated by nativism, most are concerned for the well being of the current citizen population over that of potential citizens, and have these priorities inform their policy opinions. While economic research suggests that immigration has an unequivocally positive effect on native welfare, it is a natural behavioral response to economic troubles. Researchers at Arizona State found that attitudes towards immigrants grew more negative as GDP growth slowed (Diaz 307-10). Other psychologists found that when confronted with economic stress and the prevalence of another people group (immigrants, in this case), natives tend to adopt a “zero-sum” view of the economy (Esses 134). If the national economy was a zero-sum game, then every job filled by an immigrant would be one taken from a native citizen. But the job market and economy in the United States, as outlined in the arguments above, are not zero-sum games: immigrants make goods more affordable which leads to savings for natives, more growth in industry, and job creation. Many economists cite the fact that most immigrants do not compete for the same jobs as natives, as entry level immigrants tend towards manual labor jobs, while established natives tend towards less labor intensive jobs, like jobs in communications (McHenry 35, Ottaviano 27). Immigration can ultimately be seen as
There are some major concerns about increased immigration and its implementation, and that has led to various types of objection to the policy. Following the same logic used in favor of immigration, it is possible to discredit these arguments that many people, especially those who have a misunderstanding of the principle of pro-immigration policy frequently use. Commonly cited objections include the risk of increased crime from immigrants, wage depreciation, and increased strain on government social welfare programs.
Abuse of government benefits is many opponents’ primary concern. Undocumented immigrants are technically ineligible for government benefit programs, but many take advantage of them …show more content…
Policy opponents often fear that many immigrants just come to the United States for the infrastructure and will not be contributing members to society. What they may find surprising is that the current legislation governing immigration has a clause against “public charges.” This clause bars visa applicants who are deemed liable to become a public charge, as well as enables deportation of immigrants who become public charges after admission (Immigration and Nationality Act, Simon 95). The problem is that along with other enforcement measures, this clause has been disregarded. Proper immigration policy should increase the amount of immigrants allowed, but also make sure that the only people entering the country are those approved immigrants. Part of that job is thorough screening of prospective immigrants, which ensures the flow of immigrants will benefit both the immigrants and the nation. Potential problems of public charges can be addressed through already established avenues if legislation is enforced properly. Today’s data analytics could be usefully employed to detect liable immigrants during screening. To some, screening for people who are likely to become a drain on society may seem unhumanitarian, but someone who can hold a job (including low wage manual labor) should be able to qualify, and those who try to come to the U.S. due to circumstances in their home country but may be a …show more content…
While some of these arguments are motivated by nativism, most are concerned for the well being of the current citizen population over that of potential citizens, and have these priorities inform their policy opinions. While economic research suggests that immigration has an unequivocally positive effect on native welfare, it is a natural behavioral response to economic troubles. Researchers at Arizona State found that attitudes towards immigrants grew more negative as GDP growth slowed (Diaz 307-10). Other psychologists found that when confronted with economic stress and the prevalence of another people group (immigrants, in this case), natives tend to adopt a “zero-sum” view of the economy (Esses 134). If the national economy was a zero-sum game, then every job filled by an immigrant would be one taken from a native citizen. But the job market and economy in the United States, as outlined in the arguments above, are not zero-sum games: immigrants make goods more affordable which leads to savings for natives, more growth in industry, and job creation. Many economists cite the fact that most immigrants do not compete for the same jobs as natives, as entry level immigrants tend towards manual labor jobs, while established natives tend towards less labor intensive jobs, like jobs in communications (McHenry 35, Ottaviano 27). Immigration can ultimately be seen as