Every country has a very high percentage of illegal immigrants, all of whom moved into the country for various reasons. Most immigrants move into a country for economic reasons, commonly referred to as “looking for greener pastures”. Refugees are not classified as immigrants. Each government has the liberty, according to its constitution and current legislative system, to take an action towards its illegal immigrants.
Some may choose to create a system that will enable them to track them down in order to evict the immigrants, while others may choose to grant immigration amnesty. This simply means that the government grants them ‘pardon’ and allows them to stay, hence giving them equal treatment with any other legal immigrant.
A great percentage of immigrants have a positive significance to a country; amnesty, therefore, may be a solution to problems that the government has never regarded serious before. Seemingly, immigration amnesty is the way to go for every government.
Research indicates that there is no accurate measure of establishing the portion of foreigners in any given country who are illegal immigrants. This means that any decision, be it granting amnesty or having an eviction, made by the government concerning illegal immigrants will affect a huge population of people (Razack, p 34).
It may be true to say that every nation in the world would like to be almost free of any immigrants, legitimate or not, residing in it. But, the benefits that immigrants may bring to a nation outweigh the liability that they may be (Cohen, p 27).
Economically, eviction of illegal immigrants would cause havoc in a country, because most of these immigrants come into a country for economic reasons. They make a great contribution to a country’s economy, because of the economic activities they get involved in (LeMay, p 60). Since illegal immigrants are not documented, they do not stand a chance to secure white-collar jobs.
They, therefore, undertake blue-collar and self-employment jobs (Razack, p 50). Every country’s job market is congested, and it is evident that every country is presently advocating for and directing its efforts towards the creation of self-employment. Illegal immigrants, therefore, widen the avenues a country has for self-employment opportunities (Alexander, p 78).
It is pretty obvious that not all may agree to this point of view. “The country cannot “accommodate” people who cause no “direct” or “major” economic improvement to the government,” they may say. This is a sign of ignorance on the part of the opponents of amnesty. Giving immigration amnesty to illegal immigrants will give them equal opportunities as those whose immigration is legitimate (LeMay, p 79).
This means that they will not do business in secret and fear; they will come out in the open and register their businesses with the government for licensing. The above only means two things: one, there will be reduction illegal businesses many immigrants secretly undertake in search for livelihood; two, the immigrant owners of these registered businesses will have the responsibility of paying taxes, just like their legitimate counterparts (Gibney, p 264).
Other may say that “There is nothing wrong with the law catching up with illegal immigrants and treating them like any other criminals”. But in the real sense, amnesty may be a useful tool in getting rid of racism and other related crimes, for example, terrorism, in a country (Gibney, p 331). Research from reliable sources indicates that there is a major correlation between terrorism in a country and its immigration policies (Cohen, p 167).
This means that how country A will relate to country B highly depends on how the latter receives and treats the former’s natives. Countries which are known to have extreme harshness and intolerance to foreigners are more prone to terrorist attacks than those which are a bit lenient when dealing with illegitimate immigrants (Alexander, p 178).
Also, it would be of great importance to be humane and consider the fact that many immigrants marry from the country to which they immigrate, start a family and settle. Others, having left poor and struggling families in their native countries, are the main breadwinners in their families back at home.
Evicting immigrants would, therefore, cause some families which are directly related to them to be at risk of falling apart (Newton, p 97). Some of them usually immigrate into a country with the intention to stay for a short period in which, according to their estimate, they will have made a fortune enough to jumpstart their somewhat stagnant lives (Razack, p 104).
It would be of great importance to understand that, unlike many people’s perception of amnesty, giving immigration amnesty does not imply that the government has opened a channel or that it has given a go-ahead to anyone wishing to enter the country illegally. It covers only those who are present in the country illegally (Puddington, p 257).
It is usually followed by the government taking stricter measures for any other illegitimate immigrants who will be found after amnesty (LeMay 301). This, therefore, exempts the government from any form of exploitation by foreigners, who intend to take advantage of the government’s act of kindness (Puddington, p 258).
Thus, the government and the country at large get various benefits by giving immigration amnesty. First, it is able to ‘cleanse’ its system by giving amnesty to present immigrants, hence making it easier to track and deal with any fresh cases of the same (Gibney, p 576).
Secondly, the government is able to account for the number of people residing in it; this translates to better accountability and utilization of funds and resources (Alexander, p194). Also, both the government and the immigrants benefit from a grant of amnesty because it makes it easier for the immigrants to go back to their native country and apply for a legitimate way of moving into that country (Razack, p 217).
It does not matter how one may perceive immigration amnesty, but there is no convincing reason why a government should not grant amnesty to the illegitimate immigrants in it. This does not mean that the opponents of amnesty do not have their reasons to justify eviction.
But, whether one considers the probability that there may result in an overpopulation crisis and that the country’s resources will be strained, it would only be logical to agree that most of the facts show that immigration amnesty is the right thing for any government to do; it is the only humane, economical and convenient thing to do.
Works Cited
Alexander, Michael. Cities and labor immigration: comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv. Guildford: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
Cohen, Steve. Deportation is freedom! : The Orwellian world of immigration controls. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006.
Gibney, Matthew & Randall, Hansen. Immigration and asylum: from 1900 to the present, Volume 1. California: ABC-CLIO, 2005.
LeMay, C. Michael Illegal immigration: a reference handbook. California: ABC-CLIO, 2007.
Newton, Lina. Illegal, alien, or immigrant: the politics of immigration reform. New York: NYU Press, 2008.
Puddington, Arch. Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Denver: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Razack, Sherene. Casting out: the eviction of Muslims from western law and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.