While there is a common consensus that the arguments proposed under the claims hold true, there are those who oppose these arguments. It is only fair they are discussed and although these claims are in opposition, they still deserve respect.
immigrants are the ones being abused and fleeing poverty
Let's observe scholar author Rebecca Smith, who is published in the journal New Labor Reform, where she voices her opinion by arguing for the immigrants. In her article, “Guest Workers or Forced Labor?,” she explains the unjust systems that are labor hiring and the easily manipulated immigrant programs yet, proceeds to offer a solution for the betterment of the immigrants. Similarly, Eduardo Porter, author at The New York Times, in his article, “The Crumbling Case for a Mexican Border Wall,” ultimately asks the audience: “How can the benefits of immigration be more evenly distributed?” These benefits Porter defines as, but are not limited to, “an expanded earned-income tax…more training for low skilled laborers…how to help workers with stagnant wages…”
Although the two above sources are in opposition, they are sound. Smith explores the abuse and scamming that immigrants are put through while Porter questions if the benefits of immigration can not be vastly spread. Immigrants are thrust through rigorous lifestyles when coming to the United States, be it legally or illegally. Upon entering, life could be, in light of where they migrated from, a lot better; or it can be the same. They can still be abused by the United States system of employment and the laws that are easily manipulated allowing cheap labor with unbelievable hours. However, immigration can still be beneficial, and it is. Mostly for employers and in cases the immigrant. Undoubtedly though, modified immigration policies would likely make things harder for the immigrants.
Immigrants are being torn apart
In her article, “The Negative Impacts of a Permanent U.S.-Mexico Border Wall,” Stephanie Musso addresses immigrant struggles in response to Donald Trump's immigration plans. As well, she claims, “majority of immigrants who illegally cross the border are fleeing extreme poverty for a better life in the United States.” She takes the time to introduce readers to the fact that life for immigrants should not be assumed to have been good outside the United States. Instead, it should be understood that an immigrant could have had a terrible life; coming to America might be their only chance at new start. However, with current immigration policies, all that is being done regarding such immigrants is the breaking up of Mexican families and destruction of their chance at a better life; exclaims Archbishop Joes H. Gomez in his article, “The Moral Urgency of Immigration.” Both of which, raise agreeable claims.
Musso and Archbishop Gomez argue the United States are depriving immigrants from a chance at a better life. From a chance to flee from where they originate and/or stay in a location, the United States, away from a worse place. Unfortunately, harsher immigration policies will only make this more challenging for the immigrants.
What follows below is a letter written to one of the oppositions above.
|
Although the opposition has raised agreeable claims and common ground has been established, click below for the refutation.
|
Header: Photo courtesy of Jewish Council of Urban Affairs