Whythe Proposed Donald Trump’s Immigration Laws Should Not beLegalized
Whythe Proposed Donald Trump’s Immigration Laws Should Not beLegalized
DonaldTrump’s immigration policies are perhaps the most controversial ofall the reforms the new government plans to undertake. One of theelements of the plan is building a wall on the border between theUnited States and Mexico in a bid to stop illegal immigrants fromcrossing into the U.S. Another step would be canceling the executiveorders and enforcing all the criminal laws. For instance, rather thanpardoning illegal immigrants, the proposed immigration laws, ifimplemented, would allow arresting and detaining or deporting them totheir countries of origin immediately. Such policies would allow theimmigrants found to engage themselves in crimes deported and thefunding to the sanctuary cities banned. Moreover, the new strategieswould see the visas of people from countries in which adequatescreening for security is not guaranteed, especially the Muslimcountries that ravaged by terrorist activities such as Syria, Iraq,and Somalia. The issue has elicited a debate on whether theimmigration laws could ever be justified. Certainly, based on socialand economic reasons, the immigration laws should not be legalizedsince they will have far-reaching implication on the society.
ThePerspectives of the Chosen Article
Thearticle by Green (2017) offers perhaps one of the outstandinginsights in support of the President Trump’s immigration policies.The notable stance in the article is that immigration would addressunemployment, crime, and social welfare exploitation issues, all infavor of the United States citizens. In relation to the unemploymentissue, the author argues that a significant part of the unemploymentproblem stems from the immigrants competing and filling the job slotsthat would have otherwise been legitimately been occupied by thecitizens. Therefore, if the immigrant population can be reduced, theUnited States unemployment rate would reduce significantly. Regardingcrimes, the author conceives that immigrants are to blame for variousincidents of the offences affecting the American society. Ideally,the immigrants, upon reaching the United States, turn to crimes as away of survival, yet certain groups of immigrants enter the UnitedStates to accomplish the terrorism motives. In defense of this point,the author mentions the drug gangs along the United States-Mexicoborders and the terror attacks of France and Turkey as the examplesof as the examples of crimes that would be particularly curbed by theTrump’s migration laws. As far as the exploitation of socialwelfare is concerned, the author argues that the United States isspending a large amount of finance on the well-being of theimmigrants, a resource that would have been otherwise been directedto other areas of economic development to benefit the United States.Consequences of refugees are adverse. One of the impacts of refugeespertains to the economic development. As refugees move to the foreignlands, they have to content with various social and economicchallenges. Refugees are often rendered and poor and separated fromthe rest of the family members. Most refugees, especially those indeveloping countries, experience violations of human rights. Moreoften than not, some communities have resorted to torturing,massacring, and expropriating properties while denying the refugeesthe rights and freedoms that they are entitled. The results of theseare that the refugees have to rely on the United States governmentsfor support. Refugees depend on foreign lands for food and medicalsupport. In this regard, substantial amounts of funds are spent incatering for the needs of refugees. The author concludes that, on theoverall, the United States would be strongly justified to enact theTrump laws, and that the opponents do not have a reason to oppose.
Examiningthe Implications of the Trumps Immigration Law
Contraryto the state of the article, Trump’s law, if enacted, will beaccompanied by far-reaching consequences. Firstly, since part of thefocus of the Trump’s legislation is reducing the number ofimmigrants, the United States will most likely lose the economicbenefits often derived from the immigrants. Indeed, the statistics onthe contributions of the immigrants to the country’s economy aredocumented and can be inferred to be significant. According to Costa,Cooper, and Shierholz (2014), for instance, one way of ascertainingthe contribution of the immigrants to the economy is by looking atthe salaries and wages they earn, which altogether happen to besignificant. The immigrants’ total output share is well over 14.7percent, which surpasses the proportion of the number of immigrantsrelative to the country’s total population. Moreover, a significantnumber of immigrants own businesses (Costa, Cooper, and Shierholz2014). Certainly, such a scenario inherently implies immigrants areplaying a crucial role in creating jobs. Besides, Robert and Jason(2013) offer perhaps one of the interesting perspectives for arguingwhy Donald Trump’s immigration laws are misplaced. Many of theimmigrants often undertake jobs that native employees would not byvirtue of the associated low wages and nature of the workingconditions. The examples of jobs immigrants are employed include themanual labor work in the construction industries and a fewwhite-collar jobs that offer little wages (Robert and Jason 2013). Inthis regard, the fact that the immigrants are an active workforceimplies that are significant to the United States economy throughtaxed contribution, too.
Thesecond reason on why the proposed immigration laws should not belegalized is the social and humanitarian premise. Ideally, in thelenses of ethics and morality, agents are obligated to helpindividuals in need, especially when they have the capacity. Part ofthese obligations include helping those in need of refuge andasylums. The humanitarian convention calls upon different countriesto be considerate and accept refugees. In essence, the Trump lawsviolate such convention when it imposes restrictions on refugees fromwar-torn countries such as Syria and Somalia when it can help.Besides, Camarota and Zeigler assert that the United States isessentially an immigrant dominant nation comprising of differentraces such as the Whites Americans who migrated from Europe, theAsian Americans who migrated from the East, and the African Americanswhose origin is Africa. Together, these diverse groups have played acrucial role in founding and determining the course the Americansociety that it is today (Camarota and Zeigler 6). In retrospect, theTrump’s immigration laws negate the very solid principles thatcountry was founded and which could compromise its competitiveadvantage.
Itis worth noting that several reasons have been cited in defense ofthe Trump’s migration laws, many of which are flawed. The notabledefensive arguments have included the views that immigrants are toblame rampant crime rates, native unemployment problems, and highexpenditures. Factually, immigrants do not result in crime rates. Ifonly, the proportion of immigrants engaging in criminal activitieswithin the United States is insignificant (Camarota and Zeigler 3).Instead, the related apprehension essentially has to do with mediaportrayal of the immigrants. The media plays a negative role ofportraying immigrants as criminals, manifested by its tendencies ofoverly focusing and amplifying the few instances of crimesperpetrated by some immigrants through reports while overlooking theexemplary contributions many are making toward enhancing the socialwelfare. Mainly, when immigrants are featured in the popular media,they are often presented as the shabby and needy people who are sodesperate that they must be the kind to engage in crimes forsurvival. Besides, the media has also endeavored in portraying someof the immigrants as terrorists, especially those from the Muslimcountries. The media describes the asylum seekers from the MiddleEast as the extremists who the United States cannot entrust in itsbid to assure state and individual security. The media has made theaudience to believe that terrorism and Islam are related, which isnot the case in reality.
Anotherflawed argument is the view that immigrants often rival the nativeson the limited employment slots. This argument is not valid as manyimmigrants, as earlier highlighted, are employed in low wage andother manual jobs that many natives would not typically accept.Moreover, the immigrants own as many businesses as the citizens,meaning they are likely to create the employment opportunities foreven for the indigenous population. Lastly, the notion thatimmigrants, including refugees, cost the United States a highexpenditure directed at their welfare and that would have beenotherwise channeled to fund other state and federal duties, isinvalid, too (Robert and Jason 2013). Rather, the economic benefitsof the immigrants are so significant that they override anyassociated costs. As earlier discussed, the aliens are activelyinvolved in labor and economic development, running businesses andworking in low-wage jobs, and generating taxes that make the UnitedStates financial reserves.
Asdiscussed, it is indisputable that the proposed Donald Trump’simmigration laws are misinformed and do not merit a legal support. Ifimplemented, they would cause the country to lose competitiveadvantage linked to the economic benefits derived from immigrantoccupations, yet it compromises humanitarian values and themulticulturalism principles the modern United States was founded andthrived. The statistics on the contributions of the immigrants to thecountry economic are documented and are indisputably significant. Theimmigrants are an active labor force, undertaking jobs with low wagesand with unfavorable working conditions that native would otherwisenot accept, and running businesses that create more employmentopportunities for everyone. Their contributions are taxed toreplenish the federal and state financial reserves. Immigrants arenot criminals. Rather, they only happen to wrongly target andportrayed negatively by the media. In this regard, there is the needfor the society to oppose the legalization of Trump’s immigrationlaws. It is worth noting that the immigrants have certain detrimentpoints in the host country, such as straining the social welfarebudgets. However, based on utilitarianisms, the overall contributionof the immigrants on the economy overshadows all detrimental sides.
Camarota,S. & Zeigler, K. (2012). ADrought of Summer Jobs: Immigration and the Long-Term Decline inEmployment Among U.S.-Born Teenagers.Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cis.org/teen-unemployment
Costa,D., Cooper, D. & Shierholz, H. (2014).FactsAbout Immigration and the U.S. Economy.Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://ww.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
Green,E. (2017). The History of Trump`s Policy on Poor Immigrants andPublic Benefits. TheAtlantic. Retrievedfromhttps://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/trump-poor-immigrants-public-charge/515397/
RobertR. & Jason R. (2013). TheFiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Retrievedfrom TaxpayerHeritage Foundation. thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf