Immigration reforms have been very controversial in United States of America. Way back in 1965, the United States made a law on issues of immigration which was aimed at allowing immigrants into United States. It was, however, stated that immigrants with possible skills to bring United States economy more benefits would be highly considered. With time even so, more immigrants began to come to United States with family chains being the main issue of concern. Once an individual is able to obtain United States citizenship, they tend to bring their families with them and thus ending up increasing the number of immigrants in the US. Immigration has been associated with several economic benefits to the United States despite the fact it has resulted into lots of competition within the job sector among the individual United States citizens. The current reforms are being pushed with the main purpose under focus being security issues in United States.The first article used for this paper suggests that the current Immigration reforms may end up backfiring. The United States of America still recognizes the several benefits in which the immigrants bring to their economy.
Immigrants were mainly allowed to come to the USA due to their exemplary skills in certain fields which has been a key contributor towards the United States economy. These immigrants still need their families around them despite the fact the families may not have certain skills directly contributing towards the economy of USA becoming better. Based on this article therefore, the reforms are bound to fail once again just like the 1965 immigration act which has ended up bringing more immigrants than United States required (Tom, n. page). The article brings out a major debate on the possible failure of these reforms while stating that they are not far from what the initial immigration act of 1965 was. Without a major change in this reforms then it is still expected that the US will still experience high immigration levels even after the implementation.
The reforms are seeking to construct social engineering via the immigration laws and this cannot be a simple task as it may lead to other unwanted consequences (Hollifield, Philip and Pia, n. page). The second major article was based on the real problem associated with immigration and the possible solution. The article approaches issues of immigration as very important towards the success of several nations. In fact, United States is given credit for its current success which has been based on being open to immigrants. It compares countries in the Western Europe which are currently falling in terms of their economies as a result of living in great isolation. The article raises security as the major factor behind the immigration problems the United States is undergoing. The problem is thus not people coming to the country, but rather security issues which is brought by illegal immigration and not the legal immigration. The reforms must therefore focus upon solving illegal immigration rather than generalizing the issue of immigration in the United States (Kirk and Tim, n. page).
It is very important to note that immigration plays an important role towards the development of a country’s economy. Insecurity has, however, become a major problem due to illegal immigration. This is one key strength in which the article clearly outlines. As long as United States can still support the large population of immigrants, the reforms should only target illegal immigration which is the main source of insecurity issues associated with immigration (Cornelius, p. 780).
Tom, Gjelten. How the White House’s Immigration Reforms Might Backfire. The Atlantic, 2017Kirk, Johnson and Tim, Kane. The real problem with immigration and the real solution.The Heritage Foundation, 2006. Hollifield, James, Philip Martin, and Pia Orrenius. Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford University Press, 2014.Cornelius, Wayne A. “Controlling unwanted immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993??“2004.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31.4 (2005): 775-794.