How does Immigration Affect the Economy?

Immigration is among the most debated issues in the United States of America today, more so because the public has divided opinions concerning the issue at hand. Most people have different understandings concerning its impacts on the fiscal and economic situation of the country, and these two problems are raised more concerning dividing the public with divergent views concerning ways in which immigration should be handled. Moreover, the issue of immigration tends to reach more into the rates of employment for immigrants, the methods and extent of their tax payment as well as the benefits they receive and their level of contribution to the innovation of the economy.

The issues concerning immigration are debated differently in various countries, and the views concerning immigration continue to depict the history of the country, as well as its experience with immigration. In spite of this, the issue rather reflects increased anxiety amongst the public as of now. Nevertheless, it is important to install a new immigration policy that focuses on ensuring that the country benefits from the stay of immigrants since this is their new residential country.

It is evident that immigration has an influence on the economy of the country; nevertheless, it is a compound job determining this impact, more so considering that for over fifty years now, immigrants have significantly affected the economies of OECD countries on a neutral level. The implication of the statement is that every cost the immigrants caused in the country, they had covered through their paid taxes. In the areas in which immigrants have had an economic influence on the economy of the country, the effect rarely goes above or below 0.5 percent of the GDP. Despite the influence of the immigrants on the economy being neutral, its favorability in comparison to native-born Americans is minimal. The implication herein is that in spite of them not being a significant burden on the spending part of the economy of the country, they are, similarly, not an elixir of the improvement of the same (Ortega, Francesc, and Giovanni Peri 52).

Nonetheless, immigration results in the best benefits for the country, more so in areas such as labor. Amongst the immigrants, the employment rate therein substantially determines the influence that immigration has on the country’s economy (Ortega, Francesc, and Giovanni Peri 52). The importance of immigration concerns its positive impact on the country’s economy because of the increasingly many people who have come to America to work and focus on their employment. On the other hand, immigration can be detrimental if the numbers of immigrants in the country are those not seeking labor. Another negative factor arises when a larger number of immigrants earn lower salaries and, therefore, pay lower taxes. Such immigrants tend to live dependently on the social benefits that they receive, and this has a negative impact. To this effect, there is a greater need to ensure that the rates of employment for immigrants in the country, where applicable, reach par with that of the locals to allow immigrants to reach their goals and positively drive the economy of the country.

The state has entailed different ways that allow valuable skilled immigrants to enter the country and seek work. These various forms include a temporary basis as well as a permanent one. The current law that needs to be changed is the law based on the employment immigration of immigrants, more so, the temporary classifications of visas. Work-based on a provisional classification of a visa allows an employer not only to hire but also to also petition for the migrant a national stay for a particular limited time for working. Through this law, immigrants whose employers request them have no limited options of employment since they must work for the said business, and if their visa status expires or if the employer terminates their employment, they must leave the country. Such a law serves only to send crippling effects throughout those surrounding communities, as, in essence, we have provided free OJT while reaping no benefits. The loss of work, even minutely, affects the economy of the country since the economy experiences a loss in productivity. Additionally, the state also loses a chance to ensure the development of the economy since, as mentioned earlier on, the contributions of these individuals add to the economy under the right environment and conditions.

Current Debate on the Topic

Americans are currently divided concerning the immigration debate going on since the presidential campaigns were underweight (Faber, Daniel, et al. 7). The issue of immigration policies has seen both the most powerful and influential people in the country as well as the least influential persons therein either join forces in support of the immigration policies of banning immigrants or in opposition of the same. It follows that these issues, despite being a topic of debate previously, had not heated up as it has now. Some people are for the banning of migrants and deporting those illegally in the country, while others see these as a rejection of the longstanding beliefs that have bonded America for a long. Those for the idea are focused on the arguments concerning the economic implications of immigrants in the country as well as other factors such as the safety of America and its people. On the other hand, those against the idea argue that many of the immigrants are innocent and should, therefore, not be allowed the suffering of paying for the mistakes of others and that immigrants are not a burden to the country (Hagan, Jacqueline, Karl Eschbach, and Nestor 72). Moreover, the view pertains that these policies are inhumane because of their extreme nature, and therefore, there is doubt about the level of their legality.

As mentioned earlier on, the ban on immigration has resulted in mixed differences of opinion on the issue. The primary responses, however, have been criticism concerning the prohibition placed on the seven countries. The responses to the issue vary from their tonalities to their mild rebukes and stern denunciations of the same (Berman, Ron, et al.). These reactions depict the mixed feelings and opinions that people have concerning banning immigration. Moreover, some counties and states have retaliated against the orders and have decided and embarked on offering themselves to immigrants as a haven for them to live in without being asked of or having to endure questions about their immigration status therein. Such moves have annoyed many, while many have come out in support of the sanctuary cities idea (Anonymous). Despite all these, the policy options that should have been put in place concerning the issue pertain to instituting further measures that would ensure that immigration occurs yes, but on an adjusted basis. Such measures could involve visas to the United States, among other things. Moreover, the policies should focus on ensuring that the immigrants migrating to the United States offer substantive information and reasons for their migration. Therefore, the best thing would be to tighten the regulatory measures instead of issuing a ban.

The President has already signed the executive order, which is focused on restricting immigration severely from occurring from seven countries. Moreover, through the executive order, the President suspended the admission of refugees for 120 days, and he also barred all Syrian refugees indefinitely. The seven countries under severe restriction were Islamic countries (Chacko, Priya, and Kanishka 4). After the executive order had been signed into effect, many people with legal documentation at airports were detained. However, all the legal challenges made against the detention succeeded. The executive order does several things that affect different people. For instance, those affected by the law are those without citizenship, and therefore, those not affected here include everyone with U.S. citizenship, whether the individual was born in the United States or not (Silva).

Additionally, as mentioned above, the order barred refugee entry into the country for 120 days, even for those seeking to resettle in the country. The seven countries banned include Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. People from these seven mentioned countries, according to the order, cannot enter the country by the use of any visa (Calamur). The other thing that the law does is put into deeper scrutiny green-card holders, more so, those traveling for the sole purposes of work or visiting their families. The scrutiny that these people will undergo according to the order is a one-by-one-case investigation. Nevertheless, there has been a miscommunication in this area because the law does not clearly offer any stipulation pertaining to those with green cards.

Works Cited

1. Anonymous. “Texas governor threatens Austin sheriff for ‘sanctuary city’ policies.” R.T., R.T. Jan 26, 2017, https://www.rt.com/usa/374980-texas-austin-sanctuary-city-sheriff-hernandez/
2. Berman, Ron, et al. ‘Make America Tweet Again: A Dynamic Analysis of Micro-Blogging During the 2016 U.S. Republican Primary Debates.’ (2017).
3. Chacko, Priya, and Kanishka Jayasuriya. ‘Trump, the authoritarian populist revolt and the future of the rules-based order in Asia.’ Australian Journal of International Affairs (2017): 1-7.
4. Calamur, Krishnadev. “What Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration Does—and Doesn’t Do.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Jan 30, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/
5. Faber, Daniel, et al. ‘Trump’s Electoral Triumph: Class, Race, Gender, and the Hegemony of the Polluter-Industrial Complex.’ (2017): 1-15.
6. Hagan, Jacqueline, Karl Eschbach, and Nestor Rodriguez. ‘U.S. deportation policy, family separation, and circular migration.’ International Migration Review 42.1 (2008): 64-88.
7. Ortega, Francesc, and Giovanni Peri. ‘The effect of income and immigration policies on international migration.’ Migration Studies 1.1 (2013): 47-74.
8. Silva, Mark. ‘Issue: The Trump Agenda the Trum

Did you like this example?

330

14