The phenomenon of immigration is often viewed as a complex one due to the concerns and fears associated with the increase in the number of immigrants within a community. Although the perceived threat of immigrants is often unfounded and tremendously harmful to the target population, the perpetuation of the existing myths has been affecting immigration policies. Since the current regulations for immigration provide a reasonable amount of security for the U.S. community, enhancing their rigidity will adversely affect a significant portion of immigrants as a highly vulnerable group.
The topic of my research is Intolerable Immigration laws and their harm to people who are immigrants. The key term to be used in this paper is immigration, which is a legal move to another country. It is essential to convey that despite the system of issuing documents open to immigrants, their rights are infringed and restricted in other areas of life that are just as important (Hayter, 2005). Such practice and speculation will help eradicate the problem of intolerant attitudes in the future, which is the long-term goal of this paper. It has the potential to influence the end of the legal system and to reform it completely (Cisneros, 2006). Since immigration as the means of protecting oneself against adverse factors is an entirely reasonable request, the current regulations need to be relaxed to allow immigrants into the U.S.
The key arguments supporting the idea of immigration include humanistic principles. Specifically, it is assumed that immigration needs to be encouraged as a means of offering people better lives. It is a legitimate necessity to encourage a positive change in the lives of those in need.
Furthermore, immigration allows boosting the economy to a significant extent. Immigration helps create new employment opportunities and increases the efficacy of companies’ performance. Moreover, active knowledge sharing and information exchange become possible.
However, the issue of immigration is also often met with suspicion. Specifically, when performed without due inspection, immigration may open the door for people persecuted for actual crimes to escape to other countries and, therefore, avoid a trial. Consequently, the subject matter still needs proper regulation.
Additionally, removing any barriers to immigration may increase political tensions between states. Specifically, with a significant portion of people immigrating to another state, challenges for sustaining positive relationships will emerge. Consequently, foreign politics is similarly taken into account when addressing the issue of immigration.
Finally, fallacies and common rhetorical devices applied to the discussion should be mentioned. The strawman and causation-correlation fallacies are typically used by the proponents of rigid immigration laws as a means of fear-mongering. In turn, the opponents of the current rigid standards often utilize the appeal to emotions as the main argument to support the change.
The most critical problem is the immigration process because it is excessively time-consuming because of the legal system. The method of preparation of documents and registration of citizenship can take many months, in some cases years. In many cases, this process is due to the slow migration decision on their policy because the number of applicants is high in quantity (Cisneros, 2006). However, it is worth saying that in addition to this reason, there is another, not less important. The services that are responsible for granting citizenship and registering migrants often pay attention to details that are not very important. For example, checking a person’s background takes a long time (Cisneros, 2006). Undoubtedly, this information is essential to verify, but it should not take excessive time. It significantly slows down the migration process and does not allow a person to fully understand the system of the state to which they are planning to move (Harrell-Bond & Kagan, 2008). Such an attitude is not only disrespectful to a citizen of a foreign country but also discourages a person from moving to another country, which has a negative impact on the economic and tourist spheres of life.
Additionally, one should mention a rise in immigration rates. There are various reasons for this, such as poverty, wars, the global crisis, and in the last few years, the pandemic, which has disrupted many of the plans of people around the world (Harrell-Bond & Kagan, 2008). Therefore, people are trying to find a better life in countries where the economy and other areas of life are more developed. The U.S. leads the way among different countries and is suitable as a place to live for almost everyone. They all have similar goals: to improve life in another country (Hayter, 2005). However, what the U.S. now offers cannot be called a full-fledged dream of every migrant. Each of them needs more freedom, as at the moment, there are a vast number of restrictions that do not allow them to live everyday life on an equal basis with other residents
One way to solve such a problem could be an appeal to the U.S. Congress. They have enough power and influence to control the process of migration policy and make it easier for people from other countries to move. This would help remove a lot of waiting lists and save time on migration, especially considering how important it is when changing places of residence. Congress also has the ability to more closely scrutinize the document verification process just before coming to the country itself (Harrell-Bond & Kagan, 2008). This can also reduce the time it takes for a person to enter the United States and benefit not only the migrant but also the country itself, making it more attractive to residents of other countries.
It is also necessary to establish the reason for such long delays on the part of the American Migration Service. The most common thing that was heard was that the problem was the pandemic. However, reports and studies prove that the issue has been quite long-standing (Borjas, 2004). In addition, countries have been preparing for the virus for a long time, so it was worth taking into account the risks associated with pandemics (Borjas, 2004). It is also essential to understand that the pandemic still exists, and it is necessary to adjust to the realities of what is happening in the world.
To retain balance in the assessment of the situation, one should also consider some of the strongest arguments presented by the opposing side. Specifically, the statements regarding the need to enhance the rigidity of immigration control and the admission of immigrants to the U.S. will need to be examined. The first and the most common concern raised against the introduction of more flexible standards for immigrants’ admission concerns the probability of unexpected changes and risks that may alter the current socio-economic landscape and, therefore, affect the state negatively (Hayter, 2005). Though admittedly misrepresenting the manner in which the economy functions, the specified argument voices an understandable concern. Specifically, the sentiment regarding resource management and allocation is raised in the described assumption (Borjas, 2004). In addition, in a range of socioeconomic theories, including the Conflict theory, the issue of poor resource allocation is viewed as the premise or the development of dissatisfaction in citizens and the resulting rise in political and cultural tensions (Hayter, 2005). Therefore, the specified statement is worth considering as a legitimate statement.
The fact that immigrant citizens are capable of producing resources, as well as local residents, is also omitted, therefore, leading to an error in the further assumptions specifically, the proposed viewpoint represents immigrants as a deadweight as opposed to viewing them as capable individuals that can introduce innovative ideas into the community and, therefore, support its development actively. Thus, the notion of the drop in resources’ availability and the development of their scarcity with the emergence of immigrants is completely unfounded and lacks the understanding of core economic processes.
One should also mention that the existing arguments in favor of the current cruel and unreasonable immigrant laws contain quite a large number of fallacies. The use of a strawman is one of the most common types of fallacies used against immigrants when discussing the current legal standards for accepting legal migrants (King et al., 2019). Specifically, the proponents of rigid legal standards and the prevention of immigration establish an ostensible example of an immigrant or an immigration case that embodies every worst fear of the opposing side and, therefore, uses the scaremongering technique to convince people about the supposed reasonability of the current laws (King et al., 2019). However, when considering actual cases of immigration, one will realize that these, in fact, feature quite vulnerable people that require support and do not pose any major threat to the well-being of other citizens.
Another bias that remains rigidly present in the discussions concerning the impact of immigration policies and the outcomes of making them laxer concerns the false correlation and causation fallacy. Implying that a wrong cause-and-effect connection is established between two unrelated phenomena, the specified bias is often raised as a concern when addressing the issue of immigration (King et al., 2019). Specifically, in discussions on the rigidity of legal standards for immigration, the ostensible causation between an increase in immigration and a rise in crime rates, unemployment, and other phenomena of the kind is often rendered (Minetor, 2018). However, on further analysis, one will have to acknowledge the absurdity of the specified claim since the variables in question is not linked in a cause-and-effect relationship. Specifically, the rise in crime rates observed in the U.S., as well as other countries, over the past decade can be explained by an array of factors including increased tensions among community members, the presence of polarized political opinions, the rise in homelessness and poverty, the subsequent emergence of organized crime, and an array of other factors (Kig et al., 2019). Therefore, the false causation-correlation fallacy, while being often used as an argument, should not be seen as a legitimate claim.
Admittedly, the other side also contains several logical fallacies in its argument. For instance, the optimism bias that overlooks some of the actual threats associated with uninhibited immigration is often present (Kig et al., 2019). Additionally, the fundamental attribution error is often utilized to excuse the instances of negative outcomes of uncontrolled immigration to support the position against rigid immigrant laws (Kig et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the humanism and realism of the standpoint supporting more relaxed immigrant laws contribute to the ultimate correctness of the specified viewpoint.
This paper contains objective arguments, which have additional points which are more subjective. This is done in order to reinforce basic judgments about the need for reform with personal examples from life. Such a decision allows a better sense of the importance of how big a problem this is, and many immigrants will be able to find themselves in the image of the person from this work. As mentioned earlier, the main goal is to prove how significant this problem is and to influence its resolution in the future.
To do this, it is necessary to take into account the point of view of people who have personally confronted the problem and give a detailed description of what happened in their lives. The WCU library can be considered the most important of them all. It is pervasive and allows you to find a considerable amount of materials. For this work, it was also necessary to find reliable and objective information, both from personal examples of other people and with a basis in the scientific community. In addition, the need to find reliable sources is justified by the fact that it is necessary to be convincing when considering this problem (Minetor, 2018).
Although the issue of immigration is a highly complex phenomenon that is likely to entail multiple changes within the recipient country, the current regulations minimizing opportunities for legal immigration must be revisited since immigration will also contribute to the benefits of all parties involved. The debate surrounding the concept of immigration continues to take place and remains quite heated, which leads to an increase in hostility toward immigrants, who already represent a rather vulnerable group, and minimizes the range of their opportunities to live a decent life in a new environment. Therefore, changes must be introduced into the current legal standards and policies concerning the management of legal immigration. It is believed that, with a shift in the legal perspectives on the subject matter, a change in the levels of social acceptance toward immigrants will take place in the U.S. environment. As a result, the extent of opportunities that legal migrants will have will increase, allowing the government to address the needs of the target population as one of the most vulnerable minority groups.
References
Borjas, G. J. (2004). Immigration strains the economy. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints. Immigration. Greenhaven Press.
Cisneros, H. (2006). Population Increases resulting from immigration do not undermine national unity. In K. F. Balkin (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints. Population. Greenhaven Press.
Harrell-Bond, B., & Kagan, M. (2008). Supporting refugee rights can help the refugee problem. In K. F. Balkin (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints. Population. Greenhaven Press.
Hayter, T. (2005). Immigration controls should be abolished. In L. I. Gerdes (Ed.), Current controversies. Immigration. Greenhaven Press.
King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Potenza, M. N., Demetrovics, Z., Billieux, J., & Brand, M. (2019). Logic, evidence and consensus: Towards a more constructive debate on gaming disorder.Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(11), 1047-1049.
Minetor, K. (2018). Immigration selection systems. In T. Riggs & K. J. Edgar (Eds.), Context series. Immigration and migration: In context (Vol. 1, pp. 439-443). Gale.