The controversial issues concerning immigration have been debated since its considerable increase in the middle of the 20th century. Firstly, after the Second World War, strong economic growth in some European countries led to a vast influx of immigrants from the periphery of Europe into its centre. Secondly, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a far-reaching consequence of political and economic reforms as well as intra-European migration. Moreover, the incorporation into European Union of the post-Soviet countries facilitated the solution of easier immigration. Ceaseless flow across borders is a cogent reason for endless transformations in political, economic and cultural aspects in Europe.
Many Europeans express their discontent about immigration. People are extremely pessimistic about the fundamental European Union principle of open borders, which allows citizens of EU member states to work and receive social benefits anywhere they want. To put it more simply, there is widespread opinion that immigrants are an economic burden in some countries. The government plays a pivotal role in a social life of incomers. Some States in Europe feel excess of foreigners. Therefore, it is an attempt to supress constant flood of immigrants by granting them fewer privileges. To illustrate, Britain faced legal action by the 2014 Immigration Act to limit welfare benefits to immigrants. Those limits have been established in order to make United Kingdom less attractive to people who come
An example is the 2001 elections of Denmark where the issue of immigration was the main pillar of campaign. This is evidenced by the fact that the government that got into power immediately began the process of changing the immigration and integration policies affecting the Danish community. Research conducted show that this kind of policy is very selective. Analysts have analyzed this kind of policy and concluded that it was more supportive of the assimilatory approach. The Danish system was more exclusive until the Danish minister toured Canada.
The fear of loss of job opportunities because of a higher rate of new incoming immigrants has lead to people indulge in vile behaviors to protect one’s personal welfare, releasing hysteria among the people. Many citizens with the same heritage as many immigrants that come to this country refuse to even accept their own people, for they are afraid that these might take away their economic stability. This fear of losing your job is one very predominant in modern society, because people are worried of how their financial status will drop. People worry about being financially stable because money plays a very important role in enabling humans to fulfill their basic and selfish needs. It can be seen how many of these people who have already lost their jobs will do anything to obtain a new one.
You an have one of two things, a welfare state with very restrictive immigration, or you can have a non-welfare state with complete freeflow of immigration. Realistically speaking, We do have a welfare state so.. we have to shut the border instead of incentivising millions more non english speaking, low education, poor, low skill people to cross the border. We have to start enforcing our visas because 40% of illegals have overstayed their visas. Then we figure out to do with the folks here.
DACA immigrants have contributed to society by paying taxes which support the American economy. DACA immigrants have work permits that allow them to have a social security number. With this social, they work legally and, like Americans, pay taxes. In reality “1.3 million young undocumented immigrants [...] eligible for DACA contribute an estimated $2 billion a year,” (State & Local Tax Contributions). Contrary to many American beliefs, these undocumented immigrants do not just live in the country; they live in the country and help the economy.
Douglas You may be able to see parallels from then to today in other countries but I fail to see how people sneaking into our country illegally and getting a job from a business in this country illegally has anything to do with slavery or labor laws. I would agree with you if we were rounding up immigrants and bringing them into our country and forcing them to work for cheap labor. That is not the case, immigrants are risking their lives and their families lives to come into The United States of America to escape the hell that they were living in and work for more money than they have ever made in their entire lives. I don't agree with companies hiring anyone that is in this country illegally and think the punishment for doing so should be
Without delay, one of the possible explanations for the increase of opposition towards immigrants throughout the world is the immigrant's political loyalty. With this in mind, many countries’ “state authorities have questioned the loyalty of fresh immigrants, especially in times of international crises when ties to their country of origin have become suspicious" (Kozak). Since immigrants are people that had original ties to another country, this leads to the country's state authorities having to induce loyalty and obedience. Thus, it would be sensible for the people to feel uneasiness towards immigrants, especially when hostility occurs between the two countries. It is possible that the immigrant's country is an ally; however, there is always
Immigration reform has been a big issue for our country in recent years. Many U.S. citizens claim that immigration is harmful to the US economy. In just 20 years, we have seen the average number of immigrants per year jump a staggering 20%. This has lead to the biased opinions we see towards immigration today. Currently, our country is not receiving any benefit from immigration.
Don’t Shut the Door Both immigrants and America would benefit through a merit-based system and a detain-and-deport approach. Our crime rates will be lower, they would fill unwanted or unobtainable jobs, and give us an economic edge in the world’s economy. Immigrants would thrive with better lives through living in freedom, living under one of the best political systems in the world, receiving a better education, and much more. In saying this, America and its immigrants would benefit off each other; therefore, proving these systems to be the best for America.
Out of the many who have contributed to the ideological viewpoint of open immigration, Matthias Risse has given us the view of egalitarian ownership. He claims that everyone is entitled to a share of the world’s overall resources (Risse 28). His argument is that people should be allowed to freely move across borders for the sake of maximising the earth’s space. He gives a hypothetical example of 2 people in the United States because they are underusing the space they are given they should allow immigration.
For example, incapable of coping with crowds of Syrian refugees, Hungarians have been trying to fence off the flow of Syrians. They had to close Keleti train station in Budapest not to let them further into the continent. A number of Syrian immigrants were halted on their way to Austria and taken to the camp in Bicske, not far from the Hungarian capital. The problem is that no country in the European Union has a valid immigration policy to deal with the current situation.
Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S.A. and become citizens because they are heavy workers, want a better life and most importantly they contribute to the U.S. economy. Immigrants simply want to obtain an opportunity to live and work in this great country. With all this in mind it is clear that they deserve a path to citizenship. Countless people say illegal immigrants are damaging the U.S. economy; however, they are contributing immensely by paying their taxes.
The opposing side would say that the United States lose money because of the immigrants. First off, the amount spent on border control. “The goverment spends $11.9 billion a year on border enforcement...”(Nazario 291). Also, some illegal immigrants don’t pay as much in taxes. “Because immigrants earn less money and are less likely to own property, they pay lower taxes.
Should people be allowed to immigrate? This multifaceted question exemplifies the contemporary news cycle. Hence, it raises the question regarding the rise of such highly debated and opposing views on such a matter. The theories of Karl Marx and subsequently, Frantz Fanon can be applied to such a perplexing phenomena to gain a more comprehensive understanding. It is empirically provable that people have migrated for thousands of years, however the matter has become immensely contested in the contemporary political and social sphere.
The failure to handle the current migrant influx marks the consequences of years of social policies that have left Europe less democratic, more politically and economically polarized, and cynically fearful of outsiders. The Greek financial crisis revealed the cannibalization of democracy by market forces; the migration crisis reveals the fallout of neoliberal trade and development schemes, along with militarism, beyond Europe’s borders. How has politicians responded?
The free movement of labor is believed to increase the efficiency of labor markets and to decrease unemployment with an improved match between demand and supply of workers. Countries may deal with labor shortages, especially in certain skilled positions or undesirable jobs that many domestic workers don’t want to do which can be solved by immigrants. Dayan and Trust (n.d.) in their research paper stated that EU immigrants account for 10% of registered doctors and 4% of registered nurses in the UK. Immigrants from outside the EU make up larger