The Immigration Controversy

Attempting to join the missing links to the real issue here, it is possible to draw back the actual cause of the massive immigration experienced today mainly as a result of globalization and free trade. When the multinational companies opened their arms wide open to foreign labor while at the same time establishing their enterprises in the foreign countries, and when trade union member countries agreed to lift the limit on the movement of goods, as well as the labor that created them, the home countries started feeling the weight of the wildly flowing immigrants. The numbers went up day in day out, with determined immigrants crossing border after border looking for better lives for themselves and their generations to come. While defining immigration might seem too unsubtle, it is crucial to note that it involves inter-country movements of individuals, and not stately as in the United States. The trends of these immigrations align the pointer to the developed countries and the economic bigwigs, a clear indication that the immigrants do so in search for greener pastures, and thirst quenching springs while at it. To many countries, the enormous moving-in of foreigners grows to be an economic hazard and a security concern. For the black stripes on the zebra, those opposed to that idea draw clear and bold lines between the immigration data and the level of economic growth, while pointing out the equal if not minimal engagement in a crime of the immigrants, and thereby supporting the movements of the individuals. For this paper, I will utilize the term 'foreigner' to refer to the immigrants, not a form of contempt but rather an expression of being in a place they cannot familiarize as home.

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

Order now

The simple movement of individuals from their countries to others countries for academic purposes, business or employment has spurred discussions, controversies and the taking of sides, with some appreciating it as a convenient form of cultural diversity, while others like the US president Donald Trump viewing it as a law and order issue, terming the immigration laws as "broken systems." Immigration does not stir up a monolithic argument, as it is not merely a case of locking them out or letting them in. The issue on illegal immigrants, especially those brought in as children, or the consideration of the immigration policies or perhaps the prioritization policies for those viable to be granted entry all play crucial when to comes to the issue. Should there be improved controls on the borders, an instant halt to the recruitment and placement of illegal immigrants, the re-figuration of visa categories for the legal migrants or the figuring out of the legalization of the illegal immigrants? For decades now, none of these questions have been answered objectively, and to try to get around them, it would be wise first to take a look at what causes these claims.

As the cliche goes, there are always two sides to a story, sometimes even more than that. The immigration controversy takes the famous two sides, the socio-economic and the political aspects. It is an issue that divides nations into the opposition and the averse, democrats and republicans, the foreigner and natives, in-groups and out-groups, and the economists and communists. In 2004, President George Bush used the same term as the current United States president and termed the immigration sector a broken system. His concern was on the economy of the nation, the security of the people and the employment opportunities for the natives as well as the foreigners. According to the Bureau of the census, about 43.3 million immigrants are living in the US, among this number 20.7 are citizens by birth while 22.6 million are noncitizens. The numbers are expected to go up to 78 million in 2065. The United Kingdom on the hand estimates the foreign-born individuals are living within at around 30%. The Britons consider the immigration issue as a "pragmatic matter" that is 'profoundly troubling" (British Academy 6). With such numbers, it is quite direct that there will be competition for social amenities, employment opportunities among other privileges enjoyed by the Americans, and other natives all over the world. To the many who would like to have the entire cake all to themselves, this idea of sharing their fortune with the "undeserving" immigrants doesn't wash well with them.

Because of the intense competition among the limited employment opportunities, the immigrants tend to produce fake professional documents to create a leveled battlefield. They also possess equal or even sometimes more advanced skills as compared to the natives, yet they offer these services and capabilities for cheaper salaries (CReAM 8). Companies always strive to minimize their production cost and elevate their profit margins and comparative advantage, and in light of this motivation, they prefer to hire these talents than the highly prized native labor. This idea holds true in many circumstances and taking the analogy back home; it would be absurd for a foreign child for instance to invades one's house, and win the favor of the family as compared to a son who has always been around, from the time he could articulate that they exist. However, looking at the side of the big foreign elephant in the room, the immigrants often rush for the unattractive jobs that the natives feel too sophisticated, or too off-that-class to engage in. Why should they be infuriated by the poor lad who takes a bite off the bone they have thrown away?

The political side of it lies in the security of the parent nations and the apparent political divide brought about by the existence of the immigrants within a country. In America for instance, the, for example, are passionately opposed to the immigration restrictions enforced by the current president, Donald Trump, while the republicans overemphasize the need to check into the system. With the growing legalization of the immigrants and their freedom to participate in the civil rights and duties as citizens, the political map is bound to experience a shake-up like never before. In 2016 for instance, a vast majority of the Hispanics (79%) and also 79% of the Asian Americans preferred the former senator Hillary Clinton, as compared to the 18 of the Latinos and 17 percent of Asians who favored trump (Centre for American progress 8). With such an impact on the politics of the host countries, to some, the immigrants are threats that must be dealt with, with urgency. Drug dealers, homosexuals and other socially unfit individuals (one can argue the homosexual bit out differently) pause a threat to the security of the host nations necessitates the critical examination of those allowed within the borders.

The economy of the host country, contrary to popular opinions, exhibits great elevation rather than deceleration. When speaking form the immigrant's point of view, the hell they have to go through to get the visas, the hectic immigration office procedures, the isolation and alienation from the natives and the job pressures in their working places makes them feel they do not deserve the title "undeserving." To them, they deserve every coin coming their way, every employment opportunity, promotion and good housing. These immigrants are industrial individuals determined to realize the kind of life they could never have in their homes, and this ambition does not deserve the ugly tags stuck on their backs. To the youth who are through with school, they pay Medicare, social service, and city taxes to the government. They, therefore, deserve to enjoy the social amenities and the cool breeze of success. In 2007, for instance, the White House Council of Economic Advisors reported an annual GDP elevation of thirty-seven billion dollars exclusively realized from the immigrants. The liberals in the United Kingdom referred to the immigrants as "an important motor of more general prosperity" (British Academy 7). Looking at the brighter side, the immigrants are not taking the jobs for the low-skilled natives, but rather elevating the standards for job qualifications, and availing the best skill there is, and in the long run, elevate the quality of labor within the countries they reside in. The skills are not only limited to the labor, but some of the foreign-born individuals have grown and started their own companies. In 2005, a study noted that "Immigrant-founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005." To these ambitious individuals who defy national boundaries, language barrier and the feeling of alienation, their dream is as valid as the American dream, or the Britons dream, and they, like the other individuals favored by geography to exist within the fertile and dream nurturing soils are worth of the fulfillment achieved through the goals.

While immigration profoundly focuses on the voluntary movement to a particular nation, there is also the issue of refugees whom fate has designed the path for them, and if humanity is to be upheld, they should and must be accommodated. The crowding effect of the immigration, over pressurizing the social amenities, grabbing the employment opportunities meant for the natives always stirs up a cold shiver amongst the host government and citizens. However, taking a more in-depth and keener look at the matter indicates a contradicting aspect of their presence within the civil confinements. The elevation of taxes, skilled labor, and general economic growth as a result of these immigrants cools of the criticism hauled their way. The political impact of their presence in the host countries might seem unbearable, and to many, the immigrants must not have a voice whatsoever. Patriotically speaking, it might be a little bit unfair for a host country to be under a government put in position by the foreign individuals, but going by the virtue that these individuals are already within the host nation, everything concerning the political administration affects them directly. And therefore, they have a right to choose the kind of leadership they prefer. As earlier stated, immigration is not a monolithic issue, and treating it as one might spur irreparable damage to both the political, economic and social dimensions of the host nation. Diversity with a bit of moderation might work for both involved parties.

Works Cited

British academy review. Immigration: the state of the debate. February 2015. Pp. 6-8. www.britishacademy.ac.uk/immigrationCenter for American progress and Michael D. Nicholson. The facts on immigration today. 2017.Pp. 1-47. www.americanprogress.orgCenter for research and analysis of migration (CReAM). What do we know about migration? Informing the debate. Pp. 1-29 http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf