Why America Needs Immigration Reforms
During the 2012 pre-election, presidential debate, one of the key questions sought to address the issue of the loopholes in the immigration structure of the U.S. The question required that the candidates say what they would do concerning the high figure of illegitimate immigrants who are productive in the economy. In his reply, President Obama argued deporting the twelve million illegitimate migrant in the United States would amount to gross immorality; as such a move would break families and affect some sectors of the economy negatively. Obama’s response has been the topic of debate in political circles since then. There are many controversies surrounding the issue of introducing reforms to the immigration plan of the United States (Battisti 12). However, the bottom line is: every native or legal resident is a proponent of immigration reforms. This paper seeks to explain the need for reforms in the immigration policy of the United States.
Certainly, one of the key rationale why there is an imperative call for reforms in the American immigration policy is the security concern. The security of the United States is affected by the presence illegal immigrants and the possibility of more such people moving into the country. The American-Mexican border is the most notorious for the entry of terrorists and drug barons. The smuggling of illegal drugs and weapons is a risk to the security of the nation (Stolz 22). The immigration policy should be reformed such that the security at the borders is beefed up to prevent the entry of illegal arms, drugs and substance. In addition to the aspect of insecurity, drugs are likely to cause moral decay and antisocial behavior.
The second reason as to why the United States immigration policy needs to be reformed is because there is an urgent and pressing need to protect the taxpayer (Stolz 11). The taxpayers’ money is used in funding government facilities that are used by both the legal residents and the illegal immigrants. The amount of money spent on the healthcare of undocumented residents sums up to billions of dollars. In the absence of such immigrants, the money could have been put into other constructive uses such as paying better salaries to the American workers. Additionally, the presence of non documented workers in the labor market lowers the bid of the trade unions since such workers are ready to be employed by unscrupulous employers who aim at avoiding taxes (Scherer 26). The result is that the average legitimate American worker will have to work under poor conditions and under low pay.
The third reason as to why America is in urgent need of the reforms is that such reforms will make certain the fortification of the rule of law. Perhaps, the rule of law is designed to protect the supreme, constitutional law. Allowing illegal immigration will be a violation of the law (Hinojosa-Ojeda 182). As such, the reforms will be a way of upholding the rule of law. The fourth reason why many people are proponents of the reforms is that it will prevent the breaking of families. The family has been portrayed as the single most fundamental unit of any social structure. When an illegal immigrant is caught, they become deported. In the event that an illegal immigrant has a legitimate American wife, deportation of such an individual will amount to breakage of marriage. Broken marriages have many negative impacts on the welfare of the children. Psychologists explain that a child who is brought up in a broken family is likely to suffer emotional instability.
Battisti, Danielle. “The American Committee on Italian Migration, Anti-Communism, and Immigration Reform”. Journal of American Ethnic History 31.2 (2012), 11-40
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raul. “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. Cato Journal. Winter, 32.1. (2012), 175-199
Scherer, Michael. “Obama Plays Hard Ball”. Time, 180.1 (2012). 24-29
Stolz, Rich. “Lessons for the Future of Immigration Reform”, Social Policy, 41.3, (2011). 4-19
Stolz, Rich. “Reflecting On the Campaign to Reform Immigration for America”, Social Policy, 41 (2), (2011), 21-26