Introduction
The recent presidential election reinforced the impact of one issue, among the many other debates: immigration, legal and otherwise. It is certainly arguable that conservative factions have expressed alarm over immigrants, just as advocates consistently cite that the nation was in fact founded by immigrants. Further debate is fueled by conservative beliefs that illegal immigrants occupy jobs more correctly belonging to American citizens, and that documented and illegal immigrants drain social services and resources funded by the mainstream, white taxpaying population. Consequently, the nation remains extremely divided regarding the issue, as opposing factions either insist upon more rights for immigrants or emphatically object to them. Nonetheless, and as immigrants increasingly enter the country, it is necessary to confront certain realities. As the following supports, denial of rights to immigrants actually promotes the negative consequences of immigration so feared by conservatives, as it also defies the most fundamental ethics of a nation based on offering opportunity to those lacking this in their native lands.
Discussion
Before there can be any understanding of the need to grant immigrants more rights, it is first necessary to note how the U.S. has consistently engaged in strategies exposing governmental immigrant “agendas.” More exactly, the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 was an early response to concerns about Mexican and Latin American immigration rates, correctly foreseen as rising in the coming decades. The Act largely eliminated discriminatory quotas in terms of Asian immigration, but also place strong restrictions on the Central American (Voss, Bloemraad 13). Not unexpectedly, the next few decades witnessed enormous increases in numbers of illegal immigrants from the Latin American countries, many from Mexico. Equally importantly, the Act itself indicates a governmental strategy, likely based on ideas of more “desirable” immigrants. Those supporting the Act and subsequent restrictions on immigration argue that all limitations, including rights to gain citizenship, are targeted only at undocumented immigrants of all ethnicities. Nonetheless, Latino populations in the U.S. perceive bias directed at themselves (Voss, Bloemraad 234), perceptions certainly encouraged by ongoing U.S. efforts to block entry of Latin Americans. To these communities, the message is clear: expect no rights or welcome because the society does not wish to accept you.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Should More Rights Be Given to Immigrants?".
The above conflict then led to the activism seen in 2006, when millions protested the lack of immigrant rights in over 160 cities. All immigrant ethnicities were represented, as was support from citizens including future president Obama, and a remarkable feature of all the protesting was its completely non-violent character (Voss, Bloemraad 3-4). Even more extraordinary, and on an unprecedented level, the activism expressed in this six-week period seized upon the American right to demonstrate from protesters lacking fundamental rights: “They focused on, and were in substantial part animated by, people without citizenship in the political system they challenged” (Voss, Bloemraad 5). Since the 2006 protests, organizations representing both conservative and liberal interests have worked toward processes by which immigrants may gain easier access to citizenship (Bardes, Shelley, & Schmidt 146). In plain terms, and without citizen status, the immigrant faces difficulties far beyond social stigma because they have no legal protections as innate rights. That this situation would the actually promote criminality or behaviors harmful to society is then only rational, just as the lack of rights, greatly limiting employment opportunity, promotes the poverty conditions so associated with crime.
It is as well important to recognize a reality in the illegal immigrant scenario, and one going to a grossly unethical ambiguity. It is widely documented that most such immigrants enter the country to earn income through work. Having no rights as citizens, however, they are then typically exploited by American employers. Some employers, assured of no legal repercussions, refuse to pay the immigrant workers or flagrantly change the conditions of employment. Then:
“Other employers use illegal immigrants as employees because they often accept lower wages than American citizens would” (Bardes, Shelley, &Schmidt 146). This is a critical consideration; many Americans insist that illegal immigrants take jobs away from citizens, yet the greater reality appears to be that the immigrants do the work because the average American will not. Then, this same reality exist to reaffirm the need to grant immigrants rights and facilitate citizenship, and simply because these populations, like responsible citizens elsewhere, are chiefly concerned with securing regular employment. In a very real sense, these immigrants, likely living in continual fear of deportation or other legal punishment, are satisfying employer needs and essentially acting as any citizen would. It is certainly reasonable that the U.S. exercise some inquiry as to immigrant backgrounds and activities within the country. The immigrant working, however, must be considered as contributing to the society, and granting rights and citizenship also benefits the nation as such workers will then pay taxes and be more invested in the welfare of their communities and country.
Conclusion
Immigration, and of varying ethnicities, remains a pressing concern in American society and it fuels intense, ongoing debate. Opponents to it stress fears of lost employment opportunities for citizens, even as American employers take full advantage of the immigrant’s lack of rights translating to vulnerability. As the 2006 activism reveals, there is immense support for immigrant rights, but it remains necessary that the nation finally recognize specific realities, and is then guided to facilitate immigrant citizenship. As the above affirms, the denial of rights to immigrants actually encourages the negative consequences of immigration of such concern to conservatives seeking to restrict immigrant presences and rights, as the denial also defies the most fundamental ethics of the U.S. as existing to welcome those in need from other nations.
- Bardes, Barbara, Shelley, Mack, and Schmidt, Steffen. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2008. Cengage Learning, 2008.
- Voss, Kim, and Bloemraad, Irene. Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight for Inclusion in 21st Century America. University of California Press, 2011.
