Sarah High
Mrs. Thomas
SEGL 102
24 February 2013
How to live the American Dream:
The Debate over Immigration Reform
For years one specific topic has
been brought up to congress over and over again, but yet it continues to be
debated over with little progress being made leaving our country feeling
there’s no end in sight. Immigration
reform seems to be an issue our Government has a problem laying down a solid
law for. This leaves not only our
country but President Obama in frustration.
As American citizens are striving and struggling to make a living for
themselves, many have a hard time dealing with so many immigrants residing on
US land because they feel it takes away from their living, while others find it
to be beneficial for everyone. President
Obama sees every American and immigrants’ point of view on the topic, and has
struggled with Congress since his first term with a proposal for immigration
reform.
Our President first laid out the
DREAM Act, having solid evidence for ways he feels will work to boost our
economy, and at the same time allow those wanting to live the American dream to
do so successfully. But while the debate
continues, illegal immigrants are continuing to have American born children and
more immigrants are sneaking into the country, which is making it even more
difficult to take control over immigration reform. With many putting demands on Congress to make
quick decisions, some are trying to persuade them in believing immigrants
brought in the country are damaging our economy putting us at risk for a
downward spiral, while others are presenting solid evidence to prove
differently.
Two people specifically, one of
which is a Senator, have written articles stating their reasons why immigration
reform will be beneficial to our economy.
Senator Marco Rubio wrote “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a GOP Vision for
Immigration Reform” which was published for the
Las Vegas Review, and David Brooks wrote “The Easy Problem” for The New York Times. Both of these men make logical arguments that
emphasize the immigration reform needing to be rushed for the purpose of benefitting
our economy, while they also use the ad hominem fallacy against President
Obama, Congress, and our country. In
reviewing the two arguments, one can clearly see that David Brooks incorporates
evidence which produces a more trustworthy stance on why it is the optimal
choice for immigrants to reside in America, while Marco Rubio simply uses his
political knowledge to force his stance on readers.
The article by Senator Marco Rubio states
that our congress needs to address three key factors in order to fix our broken
immigration policy. He gives details as
to why needing a modernized legal immigration policy, strengthened law
enforcement, and addressing the illegal immigrants already here would build a
policy which is fair, honorable to ancestors, at the same time helping the
economy (Rubio). In the first paragraph
of his article he mentions how our country is built on immigration and is a
part of our future. He makes a worthy
statement with this because President Obama agrees as quoted in his January 29,
2013 speech “we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are -- in our bones.” One the other hand because Rubio has this
erroneous belief that, “our dysfunctional Congress has been unable to put in
place a new legal immigration system that honors our heritage as both a nation
of immigrants and a nation of laws,” makes his statement seem he is not out to
make an argument about immigration reform, but to thrash our Government.
As the article continues he says the
first key area that needs to be addressed is a modern immigration system with
new aged technology. Besides Rubio’s
political background, he gives no verification this is what our country needs,
yet with President Obama quoting in his January 29, 2013 speech that “Now we
all know that today we have an immigration system that is out of date and badly
broken” gives Marco Rubio’s article more credibility in that our President
agrees needing updates to the system.
Rubio feels by updating the system this will provide a way for immigrant
entrepreneurs, those in the fields of math, science, engineering, technology,
and seasonal workers into our country which will open the job market for
American born citizens. According to the
Americas Society/ Council of the Americas 28% of new US businesses were
immigrant owned in 2011, which created one in ten new jobs; those foreign
students who graduate in the top fields and remain in the United States will
create approximately 262 jobs for Americans.
They also state passing the DREAM Act would bring $320 billion to the
economy and create 1.4 million jobs by 2030.
Although Marco Rubio didn’t offer any of these supporting statistics in
his article, his intellect of how immigrants will boost our economy is clear.
Rubio proceeds with the need to
strengthen our law enforcement. Not only
is his argument weakly supported, but his views on how to penalize those who
improperly crossed the borders see-saw.
He first blames our broken immigration system on the law enforcement. He
says they have not properly forced the immigration laws from the beginning, which
is why our country is flooded with undocumented Dreamers and Congress is having
this drawn out debate. Since Marco Rubio
follows Obama’s immigration proposal he knows our President recently spoke to a
crowd in Las Vegas about his visions for the reform. President Obama announced, “During my first
term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the
system. First, we strengthened security
at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal
immigrants. We put more boots on the
ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly
80 percent from their peak in 2000” (Obama).
With Rubio declaring enforcement needs to be strengthened, this overlooks
what has already been proposed making his assertion unsupported.
Rubio states, “They knowingly
broke our immigration laws and do not have a legal right to remain here. But they are also human beings who made those
choices in pursuit of a dream we recognize as the American dream.” On one hand he says they don’t have a right
to be here, while on the other it will be difficult rounding up the millions of
undocumented to have them deported. So
they should come forward, pay back taxes, go through a background check, and
perhaps be granted a temporary non-immigrant status which would prevent them
from benefitting from government funds including college financial aid (Rubio). He says after the policy is in place they
should be allowed to apply for permanent residency, but only if they wait in
the back of the line. Our president mentions
there being 11million undocumented immigrants, and it’s only fair they play by
the same rules as every other American; this includes paying their taxes
(Obama). So even though Rubio’s opinions
on current illegals shift, they are supported by Obama’s current proposal.
As Rubio concludes his argument he
directs fallacies toward Republicans and Democrats, including the President
with, “both sides should want this kind of common-sense reform.” He shouldn’t assume every member of Congress
ought to favor his theory because there’s an unlimited amount of methods that
need consideration. There are obviously no
quick fixes to this issue.
While addressing his theory, he links
those concerned with illegal immigration and others who are concerned with
helping the undocumented together. He
does this by blaming our country with having a “de facto amnesty,” meaning current
immigration laws are temporary that allow those immigrants to continue with no
penalty, and the risk for family separation through deportation, on the arguing
politicians. Rubio addresses the debate
between congressmen without giving logic as to why they struggle with the vast
issue. Because he doesn’t verify this
theory will function, it seems he is casting an “easier-said-than-done” option
for immigration reform.
In the second article by David
Brooks, he agrees with Rubio’s argument on the best chance in saving our
economy is through immigration reform; however Brooks focuses on normalizing
the illegals already here. Also, he
wants our immigration policies more like Canada and Australia which allow high-skilled
immigrants into the country. Although
Brooks uses his own research to establish his credibility on the topic and to validate
his claim being more suitable for immigration reform, he also uses the ad
hominem fallacy against our nation.
According to Brooks, “The Office of
Punditry” deals with many hard issues that are full of mixed evidence, except
for immigration reform. He feels there
is enough evidence to prove immigration reform is the only option, and is so
clear that even a “Forlorn Pundit” knows the answer to the debate. He completely insults Congress when comparing
them to a forlorn pundit, who is a miserable critic. If a columnist who can’t give a proper critique
knows the answer, Congress must be in a complete and inexcusable condition. But with him opening the article insulting
our Government seems he wants to draw attention to how horrible they are
instead of focusing on immigration reform.
Brooks continues expressing his
perspective on the reform by alerting his readers on how immigrants would have
a positive impact on the economy. He includes evidence by Michael Greenstone and
Adam Looney of The Hamilton Project which states, “Immigrants are 30 percent
more likely to start new businesses than native-born Americans, and a quarter
of new high-tech companies with more than $1 million in sales were also founded
by the foreign-born (Brooks). He also
includes a study by Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at Agnes Scott
College, who discovered that 262 jobs for U.S. natives were created for every
100 foreign-born workers. These
statistics are accurate, as I previously mentioned the Americas Society/Council
of Americas’ facts. With Brooks citing
reliable sources, this gives his argument influential strength.
According to Brooks, the Congressional
Budget Office reveals, “giving the current illegals a path to citizenship would
increase the taxes they pay by $48 billion and increase the cost of public
services they use by $23 billion, thereby producing a surplus of $25 billion.” As he quotes the Congressional Budget Office,
his understanding on immigrants boosting our economy is clear, yet this data
seems to single out America as solely being a “take-all-you-can” country
instead of a land full of liberty and prosperity, which is what the American
dream is centered around.
He recalls the last major immigration debate
in 2007, with the focus on immigrants lowering pay wages for low-skilled
workers. Brooks uses the previous debate
to compare how time has changed, and with research it is proven immigrants
don’t have a negative effect on American-born workers. In some cases he shows wages were actually
raised. He points out that in 2007
economists were divided on the debate, but in current time the Economic Policy
Institute has presented reviews to support immigration reform and the effects
on pay wages. As a result in Brooks analyzing
and comparing data from the 2007 and current debates, the readers understand
that society has advanced over the years, so past opinions on the issue are no
longer accurate. Because Brooks presents
the justifiable claim, “The argument that immigration hurts the less skilled is
looking less persuasive,” makes his view more appealing and accepted.
There is no doubt every country
competes with one another for recognition; Brooks describes this as “competing
to win the global talent race.”
According to him, over 60% of nations have improved their policies,
which now have more talent from around the world entering, but has America
losing the competition. In order to get
back in the race he suggests for our country to organize the system to be more
like Canada and Australia’s. According
to Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
to become a Canadian citizen one can qualify after completing several steps. The first being a permanent resident of three
years and at least eighteen years old , unless the parent is applying at the
same time or adopting;. After applying one
must know proper English or French, pass a criminal background check, and have complete
knowledge of Canadian history, symbols, and values. Canada also has a variety of requirements for
work or visitation visas and for refugees.
Although David Brooks has the
intentions of providing an example of such a prestigious stature, one must
realize that Canada is not perfect.
According to Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, they are working on updating their immigration system
in hopes of using biometrics to help track immigrants. They say even with strict immigration
policies about 80,000 illegals remain in their country. Although the Canadian immigration system seems
more successful than America’s, there is no proof using their policy as an
outline will be beneficial for American people because our country is dealing
with separate issues and values.
As Brooks concludes the article, he emphasizes
his point on immigration reform being the better alternative in fixing the
economy than tax reform and fiscal reform, but focuses on us needing Canada’s
policy to better the work ethics brought into the country. With his ending statement he uses the ad
hominem fallacy against our nation, calling it pathetic if unable to finalize
an immigration law this year, given the evidence that supports it. By him putting our country down and saying
Canada is better, is like saying he no longer has confidence in America. As a
result citizens might lose respect for his opinion and begin feeling even more
timid about their future.
Although David Brooks presents a
strong argument by citing reliable sources, Marco Rubio’s argument is drawn
from his experience in politics. With
both of these men feeling passionate about the reform, they manage to redirect
the readers’ attention many times by showing animosity towards American
bureaucrats. Yes, immigration reform is
an issue that Congress is struggling to conclude, but considering the amount of
information they are working with its no wonder they are slowly
progressing. Because there are several points
of view that have to be taken into consideration, can one really blame Congress
for wanting to make sure this is done right the first time? So these
men’s opinions on how immigration reform will brighten our economy are fully supported;
however, the need to call names and be impatient on such a crucial topic isn’t
providing evidence Rubio and Brooks are familiar enough with the issue. The evidence presented has me believing
immigration reform will boost our economy, but how and when, leave it up to
congress to continue debating on.
Works Cited
Brooks,
David. “The Easy Problem.” the New York Times. 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 12
Feb. 2013.
Citizenship
and Immigration Canada.
Canadian Government. 6 Feb.
2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
Marczak,
Jason. “Get the Facts: Immigrants and
the Economy - Five Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Needs Immigrants.” Americas society/council of Americas. 12 Feb. 2013.
Web. 16 Feb. 2013.
.Obama,
Barack. “Remarks by the President on
Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Del
Sol High School. Las Vegas, Nevada. The
White House. 29 Jan. 2013. Web. 16
Feb. 2013.
Rubio,
Marco. “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a
GOP Revision for Immigration Reform.” Las Vegas Review-Journal. 27 Jan. 2013. Web.
12 Feb. 2013.
