Immigration Argumentative Analysis
To begin, we must first understand the arguments presented by both proponents and opponents of immigration, to better understand the issue. Advocates of immigration cite that their support lies out of a sense of obligation and in the belief that the United State’s actions have created the immigration crisis abroad. Statistics show that the U.S.’s involvement in the Iraq war alone has created “over two million refugees,” and the passing of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, have “fueled migration and immigration” (Root). Since the passing of NAFTA alone, illegal Mexican immigration has risen 60 percent, from 1993 to 2000, as local economies fail to compete globally (Root). In contrast, those in opposition to accepting immigrants claim that the
United States cannot adequately support such a drastic increase in the population without depleting social resources. With information showing that most immigrants are “limited by…low skill and education levels,” with “a third [having] less than a ninth-grade education,” most will have difficulty being incorporated in the U.S. economy, and therefore will require some form of assistance (National). Data shows that, currently, illegal immigrants place a strain on taxpayers of “$29 billion at the federal level” and “$84 billion at the state level” to provide services such as education, medical, and public services (Fairus). With this information, it can be predicted that the costs associated with accommodating an influx of legal immigrants would be similar.
By taking an analytical approach to understand the arguments presented, we can begin to distinguish what values are being promoted. The sentiments shared proponents seek to provide justice to those who have been wronged by globalization and war. By eliciting that Americans assist immigrants in need, proponents seek to uphold values of compassion, humanity, and take responsibility for harms caused. Meanwhile, the values highlighted by opponent to the issue, seek to protect the fragile security and well-being of their immediate communities. By supporting a system that filters through the masses and allows only the most educated, talented, non-violent into the U.S., opponents advocate for a process that will bring the best from abroad, who are willing to improve communities and add to them.
United States cannot adequately support such a drastic increase in the population without depleting social resources. With information showing that most immigrants are “limited by…low skill and education levels,” with “a third [having] less than a ninth-grade education,” most will have difficulty being incorporated in the U.S. economy, and therefore will require some form of assistance (National). Data shows that, currently, illegal immigrants place a strain on taxpayers of “$29 billion at the federal level” and “$84 billion at the state level” to provide services such as education, medical, and public services (Fairus). With this information, it can be predicted that the costs associated with accommodating an influx of legal immigrants would be similar.
By taking an analytical approach to understand the arguments presented, we can begin to distinguish what values are being promoted. The sentiments shared proponents seek to provide justice to those who have been wronged by globalization and war. By eliciting that Americans assist immigrants in need, proponents seek to uphold values of compassion, humanity, and take responsibility for harms caused. Meanwhile, the values highlighted by opponent to the issue, seek to protect the fragile security and well-being of their immediate communities. By supporting a system that filters through the masses and allows only the most educated, talented, non-violent into the U.S., opponents advocate for a process that will bring the best from abroad, who are willing to improve communities and add to them.