This essay will examine the issue of illegal immigration in the U.S. It is often referred to as a nation built by immigrants. Though, its history of immigration has not always been a welcoming one, particularly for certain groups. This uneven approach toward immigration has created a vital debate that has yet to be resolved within the country. It is significant to note that the topic of immigration is not, in itself, a real cause of division left or right in the United States. Firstly, unlike the UK and the rest of Europe, the United States is a land of immigrants historically. On the contrary, this continent is historically a land of emigration: For seven centuries, The Europeans preferred to go elsewhere to find a better life. This fact has the consequence that the vast majority of Americans see a positive view of immigration when many Europeans are afraid of this relatively new phenomenon (Cornelius, 2017). The problems associated with recent waves of immigration and the plight of illegal immigrants are the visible face of a lively social debate.
Immigration is not a problem in itself, especially in the United States. However, it should specify “what immigration” is? For two centuries, massive immigration from all five continents took place in the United States, through a process of assimilation. Since the founding of the United States (1776), newcomers arrived and began to live the way Americans already lived through a more or less rapid process. To promote this, certain laws are implement to control the risk of immigration entry (Cornelius, 2017). There is no limit or prevent the new immigrant’s entry in America and Europe.
Thus, through the quota system established by the American Federal government, between 2000 and 2009 an average of 91,000 green cards (work permits for immigrants in the United States) has been allocated per month. This means that on average 1.1 million new legal immigrants entered the American territory per year over the period 2000-2009. This figure has decreased slightly since 2009 as a result of economic stagnation in the United States (for a current annual average of about 1 million legal immigrants per year) (Cornelius, 2017). This represents an increase of 1% of American population every three years simply by immigration! And that’s not counting illegal immigration.
The problems brought t by the massive proportion of the population are illegally present today: From an economy view, these illegal immigrants are creating a situation of injustice from the perspective of work. They do not pay taxes because they do not exist in the files of tax (IRS), they are able to accept lower paying jobs(Cornelius, 2017). Many employers who, knowing the proportion of illegal in public around them, do not require proof of legal presence in the territory. They understand the value of having workers who accept lower wages because these employees will not have to give tax on income or assets as a result. U.S. legal immigrants or citizens in the country and find themselves at a disadvantage in the face of cheaper employees paid for equivalent net income.
From an entrepreneurial point of view with a massive amount of people illegally present, it creates the perfect circumstances for the configuration of a parallel market. In the Border States in particular, moonlighting is present and absorbs a significant proportion of the local economy. From a tax perspective: beyond the tax not paid by illegal immigrants, many public institutions that do not require proof of the legality of a family in the area. Thus, many families illegally are able to take advantage of public school and hospital medical care (not including some social aid). These families do not pay taxes; the total cost is borne by American citizens and legal immigrants.
From a political point of view: the presence of a large illegal population on American soil is very treacherous from a political opinion. In the America, it is not essential to present an identity card or passport in order to vote in an election. Republicans party always blame the Democrats win because they get votes from the illegal immigrants, who do not normally have the right to vote. Several laws to enforce verification of the nationality of the voters were presented in 2011 and 2012 by elected Republicans. Some states have managed to pass them, but majority Democrats have managed to postpone the vote of these proposals after the November 2012 elections or to defeat these proposed laws. These difficulties show that the major problem is the presence of such a mass of people in irregular situations. Both parties want to solve the problem, but politically face, mainly shots rhetoric. Within the two major parties themselves, the situation is far from simple. Thus, many Democrats who refuse the idea of a general regularization, Similarly, Republican side, many leaders want alternatives to the deportation of these populations.
The problem of illegal immigration has always been a hot subject in US. For this reason, George W. Bush has remained very cautious pointing out that the United States remained a host society. The number of illegal immigrants currently present in the United States is estimated at around 12 million, or 1/3 of the 100.1 million residents of foreign origin. George W. Bush wants to find a compromise between amnesty and mass expulsion. In his speech to the US public, the president reiterated his opposition to amnesty, deemed “unfair to those who are already settled by law”, and at the same time window open to “many waves of illegal immigration” (Rosenblum, 1999).?
This debate bringing significant tensions, finding a way is particularly difficult. Between 2001 and 2006, President George W Bush wanted to go to a solution of regularization of the 12 million adults who are illegally present on the territory. He was especially included in its program during the 2004 campaign. However, he knew that the majority of the time, Republican, was opposed to such a solution. In 2007, the arrival of the new Democratic majority, President Bush took the opportunity to offer a very similar to that currently proposed reform (Heer, 2018). But he failed to get his project because the Republicans were opposing party and some Democrats wanted to take this opportunity to inflict a political defeat to the President at the time. This immigration policy in the United States it may be a solution for the UK and Europe?
First, in Britain we do not as important as in the rest of Europe immigration (especially compared to France, Germany or England). Therefore, such an agreement, or even such a discussion would have little interest in Britain. To date, we have absolutely no similar situation that currently living the United States. However, some principles they apply or are considering applying can inspire us for an immigration policy in Britain. In this considered, it is significant to note that if there are statistics showing the number of individuals living in Britain however who were not born in France (about 85,000 in the territory of the Region of Brittany in four departments), it n ‘ statistics are not made on the French who immigrated to Britain, although this accounts for the vast majority of immigration at the territory Breton. This is a feature that remains strong and specific to the UK and non-independent nations (the same situation exists in Catalonia or Scotland for example). It is also noted that, in general, without the French Breton origin who immigrated to Britain assimilate relatively well to local culture. This is particularly true in Lower Brittany. It should, however, some little temper this assertion for the cities of Nantes and Rennes (Heer, 2018).
With a people of 4.5 million persons, if we desire to protect our culture, we must, we also (and especially us) pay attention to what immigration is not too massive in too little time. This means he must be prevented immigration? No, immigration is a good thing. If it is a labor migration, it is a strong indicator of the prosperity of a country. But this means that immigration should be a rhythm control in order to avoid situations of social distress of immigrants and to ensure their integration into our strong culture Celtic. The multiple demonstrations in support of immigrants who reunited millions of people in major US cities and the May 2006 strike day, the 2006 Great American Boycott, caught the attention of international media (Hanson, 2017). However, they are only the visible and “humanist” face of an often heated debate on the economic and military stakes or the social aspect of the reforms. There have been major protests against the use of the National Guard at the border – concerns over the security of the rest of the US territory plus the historic and secular debate over the link between local authority and national guard, between civil law and military power. But if the social dimension is for Bush the framework of reflection from which his reform came, the president battered by the polls and facing a series of trials and adventures, must resolve to woo his own party by hammering the importance the framework of economic security and military use.
To conclude, the debate on “immigration” is key issue of the United States. It was estimated at an average of 500,000 individuals and more each year between 2000 and 2006, a total of about 12 million people illegally present on the territory in 2008. Added to this figure approximately 4 million children born in the U.S. territory (and therefore American citizens actually) whose parents illegally present for a total of about 16 million people illegally present or whose parents illegally present. America is proud of its multicultural roots and the attractiveness of its economy and society. This pride imposes political positions that would follow the evolution of the composition of the population.
In his testament, Edward Said recalls, not without reason, that “America is a society of immigrant populations which is at present less composed of Northern Europeans than of Latinos, Africans and Asians; why would this fact not be reflected in “our” traditional values and “our” legacy? George W. Bush seems to share this approach. The US president is indeed in favor of the regularization of illegal immigrants, and proposes a rather open immigration policy, particularly towards Latin American countries, and considers that “immigration is the reflection of a trusting nation”. In this context, the new immigration policy strives to maintain a balance between the need to remain an attractive nation, and the Conservatives’ growing desire to control border flows. But this balance remains precarious, and the United States is engaged in a process that could, without providing an answer to the question “who are they? At least provide more specific guidance on “who do they want to be?”.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer