Positive Essay On Immigration
The effects that immigration has on the United States are limitless. There have been endless debates over these effects since as early as the colonial times. The economic, fiscal and demographic effects are three major topics that tend to rule these debates. Based on both positive and negative effects immigration has on the economical, fiscal, and demographic sides of the United States, one can conclude that immigration is good, but should be limited.
The effect of immigration on the economy is a major topic discussed among much of the nation. It is said to have both positive and negative effects that cancel each other out. Many agree that immigration brings a gain to the economy. James Smith gives an explanation of how the immigrants increase the economy, yet still may have negative effects for some people:
At the most basic level, immigrants increase the supply of labor and help produce new goods and services. But since they are paid less than the total value of these new goods and services, domestic workers as a group must gain. On the production side, immigration allows domestic workers to be used more productively, specializing in producing goods at which they are relatively more efficient. Specialization in consumption also yields gain. Even when the economy as a whole gains, however, there may be losers as well as gainers among different groups of United States residents. (4)
Some argue that while immigrants help the growth of the United States economy, the effect is very small. According to David Lagesse, a recent study says immigrants contribute as much as $10 billion in economic growth each year, largely because they help keep prices lower. But the effect is small on a United States economy that produces nearly $8 trillion (1). It has also been argued that the poverty rate of the United States has been negatively effected by immigration. Peter Brimelow agrees, saying, because many immigrants are relatively unskilled, their poverty rate is significantly higher at 18 percent, compared to the 12.1 percent poverty rate for the native-born (11).
Immigrant workers also play a role in the economy. There has been a debate within the last few years involving the computer industry and immigrants. Many companies feel that there are not enough skilled people in the United States to fill the demand for computer programmers. They also argue that these companies do not give Americans the chance to work in these positions, and are unwilling to retrain older programmers. They want only people trained with the latest computer skills, and look to foreigners to fill these demands. Roy Beck explains that industry officials counter that American programmers often don t have the specific skill needed for a new task and that companies like to be able to scout the whole world for somebody who can step right in and do the job (141). Beck also argues that for other businesses, the preference for foreign workers is no accident; they are looking for people who will work for less money and put up with worse working conditions (142). Only in areas with high concentrations of low-skilled, low-paid immigrants are state and local taxpayers paying more on average to support the publicly funded services that these immigrants use (Lagesse). While the immigration of workers does have its downside, it mainly has a positive effect:
The benefits of immigration however are manifold. Immigrants are highly entrepreneurial. Their rate of business start-ups and self employment tend to be higher than that of United States born citizens. Immigrants contribute to the global competitiveness of US corporations, particularly in high technology industries. Perhaps the most important benefit is that immigrants come to the United States with critically needed talents, energies that serve as an engine for economic progress (Kposowa 78).
The benefits and downfalls of the immigration workers both play a big part in today s debate over immigration. It is clear that each side of the debate has both good and bad points.
A second aspect of immigration that has been debated is the fiscal effect of immigration on the United States. The fiscal effects of immigration vary widely, causing it to be another no-win debate. According to Smith, the difference between taxes from households of immigrants, and the cost of government services for that household help measure the fiscal results of immigration (8). The fiscal impact is different at each level. Normally, the fiscal impact is positive at the federal level, and negative at the state level. Because the negative state impacts are concentrated in the few states that receive the majority of immigrants, some states experience fiscal burdens from immigrants (Smith 12). The age of the children of immigrants plays a role in the fiscal impacts of immigrant households. Households headed by immigrants include the native-born school-age children of immigrants, who incur high costs of public education, but do not include the native-born children of immigrants, who have a positive fiscal impact. For this reason, current fiscal impacts estimated for immigrant-headed households are biased towards negative numbers (Smith 352). The long-term fiscal contributions that immigrants make, however, will vary depending on such factors as education and age of arrival to the United States. Immigrants with higher levels of education will pay more taxes in the long term because they have higher incomes. But immigrants who don't have high school educations and those who are age 50 or older on arrival may receive more benefits than they pay in taxes (Lagesse).
The fiscal impacts of immigration are obviously very dependent on several different factors, and hard to classify as either good or bad.
The Demographics of the United States is a third point commonly discussed in the debate over immigration. With the continuation of immigration to the United States comes higher populations and changing of the percentage of different races within each city. This major change has caused major controversy within these cities. Immigrants are starting to settle in more and more states than before, and taking some towns by surprise. Some greet them with open arms, and welcome a new culture into their area. Others feel invaded and fight the sudden increase in population and race differences within their area. The sudden change in population within these cities has formed a need for bilingual teachers, policemen, and general servicemen (Bustos 1). While some see this as a threat, it can also be viewed as a positive step towards bringing down the boundaries between culture, race, and countries.
One can see that limited immigration is good based on the good and bad results immigration has on the economical, fiscal, and demographic positions of the United States. The positive and negative effects that immigration in general and workers have on the economy cancel each other out. Many factors influence the United States fiscal situation, including age, causing the federal fiscal level to generally be positive, while the state level is normally negative. The fact that so many factors influence the fiscal situation proves that one can never determine whether immigration has a good or bad effect on the United States. The increase in population caused by immigration is also causing both good and bad problems in the United States, causing some people to feel threatened, while others feel a sense of togetherness. Without immigration the United States would not be what it is today. Almost everything in life has both good and bad qualities, but with a little regulation and control they can turn out to be positive. Immigration is one of those instances in life where with a little regulation immigration can be a great push towards a better future.
America is neither less safe because of immigration nor is it worse off economically. In fact, in the regions where immigrants have settled in the past two decades, crime has gone down, cities have grown, poor urban neighborhoods have been rebuilt, and small towns that were once on life support are springing back.
Scholars can’t say for sure that immigration caused these positive developments, but we know enough to debunk the notion that immigrants worsen social ills.
For example, in rural counties that experienced an influx of immigrants in the 1980s and ’90s, crime rates dropped by more than they did in rural counties that did not see high immigrant growth. Higher immigration was associated with reductions in homicide rates for white, black and Latino victims. In both Hazleton, Pa., which has a recent history of hostility toward immigration, and St. James, Minn., a much more welcoming community, migrants have also bolstered dwindling populations and helped to reverse economic decline.
In large gateway cities, immigration has been associated not only with a decrease in crime but also with economic revitalization and reductions in concentrated poverty. Data from the 2005 American Community Survey showed, for example, that the income of blacks in the New York City borough of Queens surpassed that of whites for the first time, a development driven largely by immigration from the West Indies.
Scholars found that immigrant youths in Los Angeles were involved in less crime and violence than their native-born peers in similar economic circumstances. Research also has shown that an increase in immigration in cities like San Antonio and Miami did not produce an increase in the homicide rate. Furthermore, social scientists found that people in immigrant communities in New York were less cynical about the law than were people in less diverse communities; they were also more likely to indicate that they would cooperate with the police.
If migration has had such beneficial effects, why, then, has there been such a persistent backlash?
Part of the answer surely lies in the social changes — language, political attitudes, religious mores — that immigrants bring, in addition to the effects of the recession. The leveling-off of migration, especially from Mexico, may bring a sense of relief to opponents of these social changes, but if the new research is any guide, the consequences of the slowdown may be the opposite of what the critics intend.
Comprehensive immigration reform — last attempted during the second term of President George W. Bush — should be a priority for whoever wins in November. Mr. Obama’s decision to exempt undocumented children who were brought to the United States by their parents from harsh deportation rules is an overdue, but welcome, first step.
Establishing a clear path to citizenship for undocumented adults, creating a more permissive guest-worker program, reducing unwarranted police stops of immigrants and preserving families rather than separating them through deportation are controversial ideas, but they deserve a hearing.Continue reading the main story