Free Paper Example: Politics of Immigration in the United States

Introduction

The issue of immigration has for a long time been a touchstone in the political debates in the United States as the country’s policymakers weigh issues pertaining to security, economics, and administration. For so many decades, Congress has failed to agree on the reforms required on immigration issues and has so far moved some fundamental policy decisions to be determined by the judicial and executive branches of the government, thereby fueling the immigration debate on municipal governments and state halls. President Trump was elected with the hope that he would take appropriate actions in curbing immigration as well as the controversial plan of constructing a wall on the country’s border with Mexico, and deport all “illegal immigrants” back to their respective countries together with a temporary ban on Muslim entry into the United States

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

Order now

While the United States government is tasked with several pressing issues, it is important to note that undocumented immigrants' troubles rank high among the pressing problems faced. Fortunately, some of the highly xenophobic characters and their voices were dumbfounded by Obama's victory, and now by Biden's victory. In this new political dispensation, where hope is seemingly vanquishing fear that was inflicted during the Trump Administration, immigrants living in the United States can hope that the country will embark on the task of establishing some humane and reasonable response to the plight of undocumented immigrants.

It is impossible to measure the size of "illegal people" in the United States. Considering their irregular status, it does not come as a surprise that many of them dodge counting. However, it is roughly estimated that there are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States (Schain, 245). If this figure is something to go by, then the number might be considered fewer than the immigrants who currently enjoy a permanent legal status in the United States. Immigrants, be they undocumented or documented, keep the country running. They build houses, pick crops, and care for the elderly and the sick, and wash bathrooms. In a nutshell, they are always willing to do the tasks that legal Americans consider unworthy of them, yet they are mostly treated like second-class citizens in return.

Whereas undocumented immigrant workers have for a long time suffered extreme exploitation in their workplaces, doing miserable jobs at miserable pay, being subject to arrests and constant raids, barred from forming associations to fight for their rights got exuberated by the aftermath of the 2008/2011 political climate in the country (Schain, 254). In a context mainly characterized by fear and the signals that came out of it, the new Congress had to rethink the country's approaches to border control issues during the Obama administration.

Whereas the undocumented immigrant workers have always received poor treatment, they were also welcomed, even though it was tactical because an expansion of the US economy primarily characterized the period. As it was quoted in Benita Heiskanen's contribution by a commentator, "Undocumented workers are often met by mixed signals: We have two signs posted at our borders,' help Wanted' and 'keep Out" (Schain, 279). The United States economy was doing well; however, there was an insufficient domestic labor supply to go with the ever-increasing demand. This void was filled by immigrant labor.

Framing the Issue

The outlining of the policy-centered issue of movement in the United States has been connected to an intricate history of prejudice; however, it is additionally identified with monetary and geographic extension and developing work market needs. In the early long periods of the Republic, the contention was altogether about outlining the issue. While the government was outlining strategy regarding the populace and declaring arrangements bound to draw in movement from Europe, many accepting states were impacted by citizens' negative responses to workers pulled in by these strategies and were outlining approaches as far as character.

In response to the government outlining populace strategy before the Civil War, at the state level, a development was developing that outlined migration uniquely, as far as a test of American character (Tichenor, 2). On the one hand, during the long-term ascent of the American ("Know-Nothing") Party, the gathering and its allies zeroed in totally on inquiries of character and religion (they were both enemies of movement and hostile to Catholicism). The individuals who contradicted them, especially the Democrats, zeroed in more seriously on settlers as electors and political assets.

In New England, the rising Republican Party was frequently aligned with the Know-Nothings (see beneath), yet in the Midwest, different Republicans were affected by foreign populaces' help. If contemplations of development and extension overwhelmed how movement issues were outlined at the public level, under the American Party's weight, the issues were outlined in character terms in an enormous number of states (King, 3). Toward the finish of the Civil War, there seemed, by all accounts, to be an agreement among party elites at the public level that movement strategy would be outlined as far as the advantages of financial extension and settlement.

Like the political tide that accompanies political competition, this monetary setting is evolving rapidly. In the wake of the 2008 political race, the US Government reported that more than 500,000 positions had been lost in the period of November alone, flooding the joblessness rate to 6.7% (or 10.3 million jobless), a 14-year high (Quinn, 707). Since the beginning of the current downturn (December 2007), over 2.7 million individuals have become jobless; the vast majority of these positions were lost in the three months encompassing the political decision (Jones, 12). As the nation encounters an extreme downturn, the predicament of (and interest in) undocumented migrants turns even more dubious.

This fundamentally new financial and political setting makes way for the new Congress and its work on movement change. At the focal point of its thoughts will be three related issues: the expenses of movement; fringe control and the battle on dread; and the developing impact of Latinos (Baldwin-Edwards, 3). This extraordinary issue focuses on these three significant subjects.

The Economics of Undocumented Immigration

The first, and generally disagreeable, of the foundation that will impact America's future migration strategy, is the foreseen expenses of undocumented migrants. Political discussion in the United States (also a large portion of the created world) is amazingly nearsighted regarding migration. Surely, I was propelled to compose a book because of the huge hole that isolates popular sentiment and scholastic exploration regarding worldwide relocation. In most political settings, it is essentially accepted that undocumented migration comprises a channel of public assets. Yet, this supposition goes against experience and really negates a lot of grants regarding the matter (King, 7). Except if expenses and advantages are determined in an absurdly thin (and economistic) design, networks generally benefit from migration both recorded and undocumented.

Think about the ongoing compositions of three altogether different reporters. A one-time writer for The Economist magazine, Phillipe Legrain, contends in his ongoing (2006) book, Immigrants: "Your country needs them that the free development of individuals is similarly as useful as the free development of merchandise and capital (Tichenor, 5). How odd, at that point, that a nation that has (for such a long time) grasped the free progression of worldwide exchange and capital, and whose own striking economy was worked with the perspiration and prescience of worker work, should today go through such a lot of cash and energy keeping outsider work out!

Additionally, crafted by a World Bank market analyst, Lant Pritchett's Let Their People Come, about how the created world requirements to devise better instruments for supporting and coordinating workers' digestion from the creating scene. For Pritchett: "The rich nations of the world ought to effectively search for approaches to build the portability of incompetent work over their public limits. They ought to do this fundamentally on the grounds that it is the besbecauseunt of the huge likely advantages to individuals who are permitted to move" (Baldwin-Edwards, 7). Finally, Jason Riley, an individual from the Wall Street Journal's publication board, composed Let Them In to show how the absolute most normal contentions against movement are basically, and clearly, wrong. For Riley, an open-fringe strategy isn't just steady with American conventions and mores, but it is additionally in America's best financial premium.

Every one of these three, totally different, creators makes a similar point, however in an unexpected way: it is to America's greatest advantage to open its outskirts to foreigners from the creating scene. In picking these three models, I don't intend to propose that all financial specialists accept that the advantages of more noteworthy migration exceed the expenses (Jones, 15). Business analysts, all things considered, are known for their powerlessness to concur about anything. However, even the most doubtful financial specialists understand that the monetary expenses of movement, if they do, truth be told, exist are minuscule and fluctuate by aggregation level. The expenses related to undocumented migrants are presumably significantly more modest, as these laborers pay nearby and finance charges, yet avoid utilizing huge numbers of the public administrations that these assessments uphold (surely, their segment profile makes them less inclined to depend on open help, as they will, in general, be youthful male specialists, without kids and family) (Quinn, 709). Regardless of whether we acknowledge a little financial expense to migration, there is no motivation to harp these as the political, good, and social additions from the movement are practically overpowering positive.

All things considered, such a nearsighted contention about the monetary expenses of undocumented specialists keeps on overwhelming political conversation, as confirmed in various routes in every one of the three commitments that follow.

Outskirt Control and the War on Terror

Illegal intimidation is one evident standard for any future discussion about US migration change. In a time of Homeland Security, there is a typical discernment that unfamiliar psychological militants misused America's permeable fringes to assault the nation in 2001. Considering this discernment, the nation surrounded its temporary fads: augmenting the checking of its worldwide outskirts and airtight fixing off the remainder of the world. Just an inevitable danger to the nation's security could legitimize the extraordinary expense of quite a (silly) accomplishment (Baldwin-Edwards, 12).

Yet, this dread-based observation will, in general, disregard the way that the greater part of the September 11 fear-based oppressors entered the United States through lawful channels. Surely, existing fringe controls have not been viable at halting different endeavors at psychological oppressor invasion into the US (or different nations, so far as that is concerned) (Baldwin-Edwards, 14). Most presumed fear-monger captures are made by neighborhood police specialists, not fringe watches.