Right from the time of the primaries up to the moment President Donald Trump was sworn in, there was an aura of resentment towards legal immigrants and illegal immigrants within him; be they Mexican immigrants or immigrants from other parts of the world that are currently in the United States legally or illegally. The president's point of view is that legal immigrants within the United States are part of the reason why some Americans do not have enough resources and jobs. As such, the argument paints immigrants the reason why public goods in the country are challenged with the free-rider problem. In addition to that, immigrants such as Mexicans have been painted as the proponents of crime and violence in the United States. In fact, if the president were asked, America would be a much better place and a land of more opportunities if zero immigrants lived within its borders (Anderson, 2013). This paper is going to give invaluable insights concerning the politics that surround immigration into the United States; what supporters of immigrations say and what those uncomfortable with immigration think.
However immigrant support groups, lobbyists, Human Rights Watch, notable world economists, and critics of the current leadership of the United States of America, in a rejoinder, have deemed the argument against immigration to be selfish and inconsiderate. This is because a large proportion of immigrants have not scooped office jobs for themselves but have taken up jobs such as attending gas stations, waiting in diners, housekeeping, taking care of and nursing the elderly among many other odd jobs that the typical American does not fancy doing. Reason being that supposing the entirety of the immigrant population that works odd jobs is deported, will indigenous White Americans embrace the odd jobs that would have been left behind? With such a disposition, the leaderships argument against immigrant Americans is seen as one without basis and one that seeks selfish means to an end (Hollifield, Martin & Orrenius, 2014).
Concerning the free rider problem and the scarcity of public good as a resource, immigrants cannot be blamed for the current misfortunes that trouble the United States of America. This is because all the immigrants are legal entities; with a majority of them so much assimilated into the system and contributing to the economy through paying taxes. As such, the federal government should go back to the drawing board and make sure there is an equal distribution of resources such that all Americans get to enjoy public goods in equal measure.
The issue of crime in the United States is a serious one; this is because gang affiliations, looting, drug use and trafficking, human trafficking, serial killing, and fraud have been troubling the authorities on a daily basis. Even though some of the criminals involved in the above-mentioned atrocities are immigrants, a large proportion of those involved in crime on U.S. soil are of American descent; evidence of this fact lies in the fact that correctional facilities in the country comprise more than two-thirds of indigenous American people. Imprisoned immigrants are not very many in the country; a reality that gives no party the audacity to peg all the crime that takes place in the United States of America on the immigrant population. (Valentino, Brader & Jardina, 2013).
The presidency and the entirety of Americas leadership which it influences are of the opinion that companies started by immigrants and foreigners alike should be forced to close shop not directly but through denial of business. This would happen if Americans deliberately buy what is made in their own country and ignore foreign brands. Besides, the current leadership looks to discourage American companies such as Ford Motor from opening branches overseas so that they can get away from the high cost of doing business in the United States. In a rebuttal to the current leaderships claim, critics are of the opinion that limiting open trade is never beneficial and in even though in the short term it may be rewarding, the long term effects are devastating economy-wise.
Currently, the incumbent leadership of the United States of America is looking to build a wall that separates the Southern States of the country from Mexico and the entirety of South America. This wall is supposed to act as a barrier and stop any immigrants from travelling north into the United States. Upon completion of the wall, it is the intention of the government that 24/7 surveillance of border patrol security guards will be put into effect to arrest any individuals who attempt illegal immigration and put them into custody. This southern border wall project has received criticism from a lot of concerned parties; terming the move as very lofty on the part of the United States government. Moreover, the move has been criticised by the number of families that the wall is able to separate; some people have even mentioned it to be "similar to the Angel Island scandal that grilled Chinese immigrants and separated them from their families (Hepburn & Zapata-Barrero, 2014).
America is a country that can be seen as a self-proclaimed international police; this is a position the country assumed even without the blessing of the United Nations assembly. Being so, America has a lot of military bases in a majority of countries in the world. If this is the case, and if myriad other countries have welcomed Americans to their respective countries then it beats logic if the United States would refuse to be accommodating to new people of good intention in its midst. The main argument that is operational here revolves around the ethics of equality and fair play. Besides, with consideration to the fact that America boasts of being a civilised nation, then it ought to be first in line concerning considering everyones rights (Fennelly, Pearson & Hackett, 2015).
A lot of moral and ethical questions have been put into consideration with regards to whether the immigrant policies forged by the current leadership have a racist undertone. This is because, in as much as the Muslim community, the Mexicans, the Chinese, and Africans will now have a difficult time getting into the states, immigration to the United States by the British and the Australian does not seem to be much of a hassle. Such a political portrait spurs a lot of debate on a global level. Some of the questions asked to revolve around whether the United States is the true representation of liberty that it claims to be. In addition to that, concerned parties have been concerned as to whether it is even worthy for any one individual to choose to settle in the United States as an immigrant. Are immigrants even treated in the right way upon being granted permission to settle in the country or does it always remain to be a charade of unwantedness, racism, stereotypes and a multitude of uncomfortable situations and settings (Valentino, Brader & Jardina, 2013)?
With the current wave of deportations and denial of entry into the United Sates among legal and illegal immigrants alike, there is a lot of doubt on whether the current state of America is in line with what forefathers such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had intended for the country.
Apart from the cross-border politics of immigration between the United States and Mexicans, the leadership of the country is also tangled on matters of immigration with the entirety of the Muslim community. There is a current stereotype or pseudo-stereotype that has been facing Muslims who may wish to travel to the United States; this is the false conviction that all Muslims are proponents of jihad, terrorism, and myriad other extremist ideologies (Valentino, Brader & Jardina, 2013).
Countries that have been faced by terrorist attacks propagated by Muslim extremists have hailed the current leadership for taking the move to ban any immigration of Muslims into the United States; the same applies to Americans that have either experienced terrorism first hand or are aware of the ills terrorism can cause. All the same, despite the fact that critics have termed the move to ban Muslim immigration as overrated, some government supporters have seen this initiative as a solution to the imminent threat of terror attacks that has always been characteristic within Americas borders (Fennelly, Pearson & Hackett, 2015).
In summary, the politics of immigrations have managed to mash up a debacle that is never ending. Individuals who want to immigrate to the country but have been denied access claim that America is a country that was founded by immigrants ever since back in the day when the Mayflower arrived with pilgrims from Britain. To that effect, the current leadership has been asked to respect immigration because the greatness the country enjoys to this date can only be credited to immigrants. The advent of the current leadership in the United States has brought about a lot of politics both from within the country's borders and in the international scene. From the look of things, there is no knowing as to when America will stop "hardening its heart" and warm up to immigrants and their families. Perhaps that is a story that will be told in the future, either with machinations of the echelons of the current leadership's rule or far into the future.
Conclusively, many peoples' take is that immigrants should be accommodated so long as they do not intend messing up the national security of the United States. In addition to that, deportation should only be limited to individuals who misbehave upon arrival to the states; otherwise illegal immigrants for example ones of a Mexican origin within the United States should not be deported but given a fair chance at survival. America would be a much better place and a land of more opportunities if zero immigrants lived within its borders
Anderson, B. (2013). Us and them?: The dangerous politics of immigration control. OUP Oxford.
Fennelly, K., Pearson, K., & Hackett, S. (2015). The US congressional immigration agenda: Partisan politics, policy stalemate, and political posturing. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(9), 1412-1432.
Hepburn, E., & Zapata-Barrero, R. (Eds.). (2014). The politics of immigration in multi-level states: Governance and political parties. Springer.
Hollifield, J., Martin, P., & Orrenius, P. (2014). Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford University Press.
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among US Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos?. Political Psychology, 34(2), 149-166.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the collegeessaywriter.net website, please click below to request its removal:
- Essay Sample on Why Gun Control Laws Should Be Enacted
- Report Sample of Bio-Psycho-Social Assessment
- Essay Example on Verbal and Non-verbal Communication
- Conflicting Theories: The Positivist Theories and Constructionist Theories - Essay Sample
- Key factors in determining the price of silver using supply and demand analysis
- Essay on the Issue of LGBT Adoption
- Literature Review on Workplace Discrimination