Immigration laws are a commonly brought up, controversial subject among U.S officials. There are 4 seperate arguments from the supporting side, with the only question being what branch of the government should be in charge of them, and how. The first argument is that immigration dilutes or change existing languages, religions, cultural norms, etc. The second argument is that immigrants will flock to countries with generous social welfare programs, resulting in urban slums and flooded social networks. The third argument is that immigration can harm the country they come from if the departing immigrants are high-skilled in labor. The fourth argument is that that immigration lowers the income and job availability of domestic, low-skill workers.
The opposing side counter-argues with really great points. The first argument is that Immigration may change or dilute cultural values or norms, but nothing suggests this is a negative. Many societies in the past and present have flourished because they have embraced new businesses, cultures, foods, etc. The second argument is that immigrants will flock to a country with a generous welfare program is all the more reason to moderate who we give welfare to, not to tighten immigration laws. The third argument, that immigration drains high-skilled labor from poor countries is real, but the possibility of migration to a high-wage country generates an incentive to acquire education. If borders were open, many immigrants would seek out education in a different country but end up returning to their home country, knowing they could leave if they needed to. Temporary migration is common in many countries, and was common in the United States before the restrictions of immigration laws in the 1910s and 1920s. Finally, the fourth argument, that it takes jobs away from low skill workers and lowers their wages is combated with a simple statement, "Only a bizarre view of equity favors people earning the minimum wage in rich countries...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document