Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for immigration
Arguments for immigration
Arguments for immigration
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments for immigration
Illegal immigrants are a fragment of a immense and controversial group. They are also known as being illegal aliens, irregular migrants, undocumented workers, or as the French call them, Sans Papiers. Over the years, questions and concerns have been raised as to rather society should have to provide and promote to meet their healthcare needs. A group that is called the nationalist argue “no”, because they have no right to be in the country they reside, they have no rights to the country’s benefits. Meanwhile, an opposing side called humanists say “yes” to providing them with healthcare benefits. The reason they suggested being basic human rights, or all people are entitled to all access to healthcare. Then, there is the author James F. Dwyer who has his own method. Dwyer thinks that both the nationalists and humanists are absurd. Humanist focus too much on what we owe people based on what rules and formal citizenship states. While nationalists don’t give enough focus to what we owe people as humans in general. Therefore, Dwyer offers his own theological approach where things can meet in the middle and respond to the anomaly of illegal immigration while reflecting on in-depth moral thought. However, it must meet specific criteria such as the following: undocumented workers who work full time, but do …show more content…
Society tries to exclude those they find unwanted or undesirable. With the Athenian Polis, it was about controlling citizenship. They were free to work, study, and trade within Athens, but were left out from the rich politician lifestyle. In modern immigrants, the focus is on Mexicans of the United States or North Africans in France, but as Dwyer noted it is far more diverse and complex than that. The number of illegal immigrants is unknown, with around 35 million in the United States to a third of Europe’s
There are several theories to look into when discussing the morality of borders. I specifically look into Stephen Macedo’s chapter “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy, open borders versus social justice?” in Debating Immigration and Joseph Carens article “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Using political theory back up his argument, Carens uses Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian to support and explain his claims that there is little justification for keeping oppressed people from other countries seeking a better life out of the United States. Macedo also uses similar liberal philosophy referencing Rawlsianism to support the opposing idea of a more restrictionist society, posing the question of cosmopolitanism
Considering the ideas that both authors have brought to the table, I have concluded that in order to make progress in solving the problem of undocumented immigrants, we as a country must decide what’s best for our country. We either look at undocumented immigrants as an asset or a parasite. America is the ‘land of opportunity’ where millions of people want to live there and pursue the ‘American Dream’. We should not let people stop from achieving their dreams. But on the other hand, a quantity of immigrants leave their country because it does not have “stable democracies and free markets” that “ensure economic growth, rising standards of living and thus, lots of jobs”, because the countries of these immigrants “birth rates and native populations fall”.
“Immigration could account for all the yearly increase in population. Should we not at least ask if that is what we want (Hardin, 1974)?” Well! The audacity of Garrett Hardin’s 1974 essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” to ingeniously imply concern for illegal entry, but in all actuality supports partiality to who is advantaged to populates the United States! Thus, Immigration policies in America continuous changes reflects discriminatory processes of past and biased judgement by elected officials.
Some viewpoints assert that if a person is in the United States illegally, he should have no rights and no benefits. Proponents justify this position by blaming illegal immigration for economic hardships, such as increasing health care costs, for the American people. This attitude is simply inaccurate. Many undocumented immigrants do contribute to the economies of the federal, state and local governments through taxes and can stimulate job growth. However, the cost of providing healthcare impacts federal, state, and local governments differently.
With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, most Americans are concerned with their private insurance or the benefits with Medicaid or CHIP. However, there is another population that was left out of the new bill almost entirely: undocumented immigrants. There is an ongoing debate as to whether illegal immigrants should be eligible for public health care benefits presented in ACA. The two viewpoints are obvious: to give illegal immigrants health insurance and allow them to reap the benefits of a public healthcare system or to not. However, the issue is not so simple. There is a large group of people whose lives will forever be affected by the decision made on the issue.
Ngai even focuses on the humanity of legalization of the undocumented in her main claim. In her seventh paragraph she approves of the current laws slightly because of the vast improvement over the blatantly discriminatory national-origins quota. When Ngai offered her solution she made sure to incorporate the interests of immigrants in hopes that it will support family unification and existing ties in immigrant countries in the United States. When Ngai concludes her article she hopes for principle that are both “flexible and
It is often said that the United States of America is a country of immigrants, also referred to as a melting pot. In fact, majority of people today can say that they are children of immigrants. Every year, countless of people arrive from their native land to America, with the hopes of rebuilding a better life and future for themselves and their family. Are they to blame? It is even stated in the national anthem, which is always sung with great pride and passion, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”. But how free is this country? Free enough to enter at will? For years, immigration laws have remained a problem in the United States, as the government tries to reform such policies in order to control the growth of the population, especially that of the “undocumented” populace. Although illegal immigrants provide many services needed in this country, they have also created a huge financial burden to American taxpayers in areas such as education, emergency medical care, and welfare costs (Tolle, 2012). In using moral knowledge to analyze and investigate the ethical questions surrounding the issues of immigration, we will look at two different sources: scripture and experience.
Being discriminated, singled out, and not included is commonly seen or experienced in today’s society. Those that have seen or experienced it understand the true meaning of the “other”. The “other” can mean not human, unprivileged, and seen as a minority. In the poem “Immigrants in Our Own Land” by Jimmy Santiago Baca, a concept of the other is displayed. In the poem, the “other” are the prisoners along with the speaker. Baca makes a connection with the prisoners as ther “other” by displaying the mistreatment and suffering they are put through. In “Immigrants in Our Own Land” Jimmy Santiago Baca builds the other through diction, imagery, and metaphors.
Wellman, Christopher, and Phillip Cole. Debating the Ethics of Immigration is There a Right ti Exclude?. New York : Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Just like racism, the root of immigrantism involves a rapacious greed to gain the highest possible profits by the dominant capitalists at the expense of human labor (Alessio, 2011). In contrast to racism which considers a group’s physical unchangeable characteristics as the symbolic representation of their inferiority, which can be psychosocial stability or intellectual capacity (Alessio, 2011), immigrantism recognizes a group’s cultural and economic attribute as an embodiment of weakness. Immigrantism is also different from ethnocentrism as the latter involves uncommonality of social and cultural background, but an immigrant also includes a legal obstacle to belong and remain in his or her host country which most of the time is determined by his or her economic contribution (Alessio,
Many individuals have ambivalent feelings concerning the escalation of immigrants into the U. S every year. However, despite all those ambivalent feelings some individuals heavily believe immigrants should not be admitted as a vital part of society, and there are those who think that they should. One individual who believes that immigrants are an essential part of society is Debra Miller who
Immigrants leave their countries in search for a better life and improvement of their situation. There is no singular reason for immigration; motivations range from better economic prospects to political safety. As of late, the number of immigrants living in the United States is an estimated 11 million. Those who immigrate are expected to contribute to the United States culturally, politically, and economically. Yet, full assimilation becomes difficult to achieve when the immigrant is made into “the other” by the country of reception.
On contemporary society, immigration reform is enjoying an increasingly high voice among people. American immigration system is broken. Too many employers take advantage of the system by hiring undocumented workers which currently are estimated at 11 million. This is not good for the economy nor the country. Imaging a day without these undocumented workers in United States. No bus driver, farm worker, cooker, nurse, construction worker, waiter, house keeper, gardener or nanny can be found. Nobody drive bus, pick fruit, wash dishes, build houses, clean offices or take care of babies. It is not difficult for us to imagine that because these low skill workers have vanished. Chaos and tragedy ensue. The question about whether all nations should open their borders and so we could roam freely, or we should enhance immigration controls is a sophisticated issue. According to the journal article "The new common sense", the author Teresa Hayter declared that the freedom of movement should be the new common sense for immigrants to make big contributions to the wealth and prosperity of the countries they go to. People should have their own right to move freely. The abolition of immigration controls would mean increase in freedom, prosperity and opportunities for all of us.
A topic crucial to the world today is illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is when people live in a country without permission from the government, nor have any legal documentation. As more and more illegal immigrants enter the United States, it either upsets some people, or others feel like they should just grant them ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness because that is what the Constitution says. Some people feel that illegal immigrants should be protected by the same rights and laws as American citizens. On the other hand, many people believe that this is a horrible mistake. They feel that the rights of citizenship should be earned and not extended to people who haven broken the law just by being in the United States.
“We are nation of immigrants. Some came here willingly, some unwillingly. Nonetheless, we are immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, one, and all. Even the natives came from somewhere else, originally. All of the people who come to this country come for freedom, or for some product of that extraordinary, illusory condition. That is what we offer here—freedom and opportunity in a land of relative plenty.” (Middletown Journal 2005)