Essay Sample on Proposal Argument on Immigration

The debate on immigration has raised a lot of questions that are both negative and positive. According to the US Census, most immigrants that went to America did this for many years. Fourteen years later, the number of people increased from 23 million to 28 million (Lepoutre 312). Most Americans complained because of overpopulation, cultural identity, and loss of jobs, which led to inequality because of historical understanding and background. Considering such issues, the paper will focus on the problem of immigration, the cons and pros, and their consequences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The first part to talk about is inequality. It is a fact that a few nations have big companies high foreign workers because they are paid a low salary (American Immigration Council n.p). Due to this, unemployment to domestic workers rises because of discrimination. An excellent example is Disney World. The company fired 250 people and recruited more immigrants so long as they had visas (Lepoutre 319). As a result, the locals felt unequal and resentful when compared to foreign employees.

A good question to ask is that is it fair for the local workers to be employed under similar conditions with the foreigners. Yet, they are mistreated despite having abilities ad talents? It is vital then to point out that the kind of jobs the immigrants would do the native workers cannot do because some of them are difficult, dangerous, and dirty work. In this case, unemployment should not be a debate (Lepoutre 324).

The next issue to elaborate is overpopulation. One reason why the UK quit the European Union is because of the flow of foreigners. Such movement meant that the UK had to use the same resources between its citizens and foreigners. The same case is the reason that decreased development in Great Britain because of 51% involved foreigners (Lepoutre 331). A few journalists have claimed that the problem does not lie in immigration but illegal immigration because of the adverse effects it causes.

Research has also shown that approximately 5,000 HIV positive foreigners are allowed in America every year (Lepoutre 334). Indeed, despite the unlawful immigration issues that people experience, the concern about HIV should be a worrying issue (Lepoutre 339). Due to this, many people get infected daily, and not everyone is aware that they are affected. America, in this case, is considered one of the countries that have many people living with HIV, and this is a reason that should worry the government.

Today the same issues concerning immigration arise from Latin America and Asia. Yet the critics on immigration are wrong similar to the counterparts discussed in the past. However, the best way to consider this point from other views is that for many years, immigrants play a vital role in the countries they visit (American Immigration Council n.p). Even though immigration systems suppress the benefits gained and the contribution of immigrants, the best way is to look at it positively.

Conclusion

It is best to say that immigration restrictions may cost a country a lot of money and end up not being effective. Also, people need to realize that in the immigration world, many countries prefer working with foreigners even if they are in the country illegally. Despite all this, when the discussion of immigration is raised, it is essential to realize that the move can be beneficial or cause adverse effects. The best way of tackling this debate is that people should continue believing, developing, and learning because many nations are built with the effort of immigrants.

Works Cited

American Immigration Council. “How the United States Immigration System Works.” American Immigration Council, 5 Mar. 2020, www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works.

Lepoutre, Maxime. “Immigration Controls: Why the self-determination argument is self-defeating.” Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 47, no. 3, 2016, pp. 309–331., doi:10.1111/josp.12156.