Over the years, according to new research, unauthorized immigration levels have decreased. Illegal immigration alludes to the relocation of individuals into a nation infringing upon the migration laws of that nation, or the proceeded with the living arrangement of individuals without the legitimate ideal to live in that nation. Unlawful migration will, in general, be monetarily upward, from less fortunate to more extravagant nations.“There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, representing 3.2% of the total U.S. population that year.
The 2017 unauthorized immigrant total is a 14% drop from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007 when this group was 4% of the U.S. population” according to the Pew Research Center by Jens Manuel Krogstad. Jose Vargas’s story called My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant fits in the statistics of the time period. The writing had a very strong hook for the readers and I was personally very interested to read about it. The main point of the essay was to show the life experiences the author faced when he first came to the United States to have a better life. In this case, if I were to choose my side, I would agree with most of the things stated mainly because I in a way have gone through similar experiences. He came at the age of 12 and he was trying to adapt to the new culture and language just like how I was at the age of 7.
The author makes strong points, the essay seems to be a very accurate representation of his life. This essay has made me rethink the lives of those who are undocumented in the country. Many people go through this stage of life and sometimes we must realize that people are living very hard lives. Not everybody is as lucky as us and therefore we must appreciate their hard work and try to help them to the best of our abilities. My experiences might add to the argument because I have gone through similar experiences at a younger age. It might add a different lens/perspective on the topic as a whole. The author’s essay argument could be applied to personal and illegal immigrant experiences. The author seems to have considered almost all of the aspects because he even goes into detail about coming out as gay. This clearly shows that the author is ready to open himself up to the readers. The purpose of the essay was to show a different perspective, on life to other readers. It is clear that there was no real purpose other than showing a different view.
The essay was very effective in this matter. The author was able to support his argument throughout the essay. When writing about a topic, it is crucial to support and provide your argument with shreds of evidence to strengthen it best as possible. I believe that Vargas was able to express his emotions with a great amount of strength and it really touches the reader’s hearts. It was very interesting to see that he included his sexuality in the writing as well, it was not necessary but it added an extra color to the overall story. It seems that his sexuality was much easier to express than his citizenship status to everyone.
The majority of us are no longer a stranger to the stigma around immigrants, and it’s been more prevalent than ever in America due to the president’s stance about it. Therefore, lots of immigrants including those who seem to have no proper legal documentation have progressively become more outspoken about their struggle due to the fact that they can’t seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel due to the fact that there’s no possible way in which they could gain citizenship. Being a reputable journalist and Pulitzer prize winner isn’t an exception to all these unfortunate circumstances. Jose Antonio Vargas is an immigrant from the Philippines. His mother believed that her son could live a better life outside of his country so she made the bold decision to send her 12-year-old son abroad to live with his grandparents in Mountain View, California. He adapted to his surroundings in no time until he discovered the fact that all his legal documents were fake. From that moment onwards, all the dirty secrets that were kept away from him began to unravel one by one as his grandparents admitted that they paid a huge sum of money in order to smuggle him into the country therefore his Lolo (grandfather) in particular had to pull some trick up his sleeves in order to make most things work. This definitely marks a huge turning point in his life as what was once a carefree boy turned into an anxious and scared individual due to the fact that he slowly became more aware of most Americans’ sentiments towards immigrants.
On June 22nd, 2011, Vargas published an article titled “My Life as an undocumented immigrant” through a huge publication called The New York Times. The purpose of this article is to show his personal experience in order to persuade people to speak up about undocumented immigrants’ rights and further educate themselves about the struggles and emotional burdens that undocumented immigrants have to carry from such a young age. Through this article, Vargas’ choice in terms of organization, the medium to publicize his story, and his appeal to pathos makes it extremely effective in terms of evoking an emotional response and clear understanding of not only his personal struggles but also this issue as a whole from the audience.
Despite the fact that Vargas basically grew up in America, achieved so many great things in his life, and even built a career as a reputable journalist, his status as an undocumented immigrant still haunts him every single day as he needs to keep his guard up at all time due to the fact that everything might be taken away from him in a blink of an eye. He voiced out his frustration towards the whole stigma surrounding undocumented immigrants by stating “Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as its own.” (Vargas, Pgh. 9) this shows that even though he puts his heart and soul into his job he knows that at the end of the day, he’ll still be overlooked and discriminated by Americans because of his status. This line itself successfully summarizes the true emotions that every undocumented immigrant has to go through, as they basically grew up in the States and feel an emotional attachment towards the country. However, the people can’t seem to reciprocate their sentiments due to their legal status which emphasizes their lack of sense of belonging and this truly makes us the readers, empathize with them.
His struggle with his legal status is further emphasized when he mentioned how “coming out about being gay seemed less daunting than coming out about my legal status.” (Vargas, Pgh.24) This stood out to me as he came out as gay during a discussion about the assassination of Harvey Milk, an openly gay San Francisco city official. Despite the repercussions and the stigma surrounding gay people back then he still found it so much easier to come clean about his sexual orientation rather than his legal status. This proves that he clearly prioritizes his life in America above anything else therefore he’d do anything in order to continue living there. As a reader, it is extremely hard to disregard his sense of desperation for validation and therefore he successfully used his own personal thoughts and emotions in order to bring out an emotional reaction within the readers.
Vargas’s use of pathos throughout the article really helps in terms of understanding his perspective and the complex scenario that he has to deal with even better. One part that stood out to me the most was when he admitted to crying in his bathroom despite the fact that he won the Pulitzer Prize, an extremely prestigious award (Vargas, Pgh.54) This gives the readers a glimpse into the reality of undocumented immigrants as this shows that they’re constantly on edge despite all the good things that might come their way as everything feels so vulnerable. He also mentioned how the more he achieved the more depressed he becomes due to the fact that he needs to adhere to the eight-year deadline which marks the expiration of his Oregon driver’s license (Vargas, Pgh.58) This emphasizes the urgency of the situation and evokes a surge of emotion within the readers as we can’t help but feel the sense of urgency and heightened sense of fear and anxiety along with him.
The organization of this article is made in the form of a chronological order. This has the capability of making the readers feel as though we’re right there beside him as he experiences all the twists and turns in his life. For instance, Vargas started off this article by showing his innocence and love for the country but as soon as the story progresses it keeps getting more intense as he is forced to face the harsh reality of life due to society’s unwillingness to fully allow him to flourish due to his legal status. All the years he spent hiding and running from the truth must’ve taken a toll on him as he boldly states that he doesn’t want that life anymore and decided to bare the consequence that might come his way (Vargas, Pgh.61). It is admirable how in the last few paragraphs he seemed to be extremely calm about his shocking revelation despite the fact that it is inarguably one of his deepest fear. Instead of showing signs of frustration and anger, he decided to express his gratitude towards his grandparents and acknowledge their sacrifice for him while deeply reflecting on his feelings towards his mother who made the decision to send him abroad. It is interesting cause instead of showing signs of worry, panic, or distress about the repercussions that might come his way, he instead recalls the moments that he shared with the people who mean the most to him along with his feelings towards them. Therefore, this allows the reader to sense his growth and maturity as an individual.
His choice to publish his story through a medium as huge as New York Times is extremely bold and courageous as his story will surely reach majority of the Americans in no time. Therefore, this gives the reader an idea that he must’ve had enough of living in fear to the point where he decided to come clean about his legal status despite being fully aware of the repercussions that might come his way such as being fired from his job or even severe issues such as deportation especially when he stated in his article that he found it so much easier to come out as a gay rather than his legal status. This part is extremely critical for the readers due to the fact that he mentioned the various accomplishments and contributions that he made for this country all throughout the article. It is quite hard to fathom as to why there’s absolutely no way for him to be given citizenship. This in fact adheres to Vargas’ purpose as this might potentially compel the readers to speak up about their opinion and cause a movement in favor of all the undocumented immigrants out there.
Vargas’ use of strategic organization, appropriate medium of publication, and appeal to pathos has successfully allowed the reader to form an emotional response and connection with the writer. His article has effectively allowed the readers to think critically about this issue without having any sort of biased opinion shoved down our throats as he’s just plainly telling his own personal experience, therefore we as the readers were given the freedom to form our own sense of understanding and trust towards the writer as he included lots of relevant information and even pictures about himself which further emphasizes his struggle. He seamlessly managed to touch the reader’s emotions and hence gives us enough reason to identify him as a credible source which then leads us to the fact that he did a great job in terms of fulfilling his purpose as the majority of the readers might feel the need to speak up about it now that they’ve gotten a glimpse on the truth and reality surrounding undocumented immigrants.
Works Cited
Vargas, Jose Antonio. “My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 June 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html.
Immigration policies and what is the right thing to do morally or practically has been a major point of argument over the years. From Risse’s article, we get both moral and practical standpoints on immigration. Kukathas shares a similar view in her article supporting open immigration and also showing the challenges towards it. On the other hand, Brock argues against the immigration policies of healthcare worker recruitment to developed countries. Lastly, Mill shares a similar philosophy, however a little more exceptional through his concept of social alarm. All in all, by comparing and contrasting these articles the key differences that I deduced is that Risse and Kukathas are both one-sided towards the immigrating countries where as Brock and Mill address more about the home countries and their problems for immigration.
In the first article, Risse brings in a moral standpoint saying that the earth belongs to humanity in general and this matters for assessing while making the immigration policies (Risse, 2008). His moral arguments have a few important components starting from safety, security, land, space, and resources. Land, space, and resources are his focus over here. Risse uses the policies of immigration into the US to build his argument. His major argument states that the amount of land or space that the US exclusively holds power over is significantly large compared to its population. Thus, he thinks that illegal immigrants should be neutralized, and more widespread immigrants should be permitted (Risse, 2008). He raises a huge moral question is illegal immigration a moral thing to do? He introduces the term egalitarian ownership saying all humans share ownership of earth’s resources. He also talks about luck egalitarianism, saying it’s a matter of luck where someone is born and ends up now. Based on these two standpoints and the massive space being underused in the US Risse argues that the citizens of the US do not have the right to bar other people from entering the country. Thus he disagrees with the notion of illegal immigration, he says there is no such thing as that. All in all, Risse thinks the US has a lot of resources to share and he favors open immigration and morality of immigration. However, his moral philosophy is contradictory because people immigrate for opportunities, you would not live in a lot of space with no jobs or opportunities. To further justify his argument Risse compares US population density per square mile with other countries of the world. The overall population density per square mile in the US is 80 where whereas countries like Germany, the UK, Japan, the Netherlands, and Bangladesh have 600,600,830,1200 and 2600 respectively (Risse, 2008). This clearly shows that the US is severely misusing their land. Thus, he says that illegal immigration cannot be condemned in the US as they are underusing their resources and not letting more immigrants. Lastly, Risse talks about adverse possession, which states that there are many illegal immigrants across America working in their society with jobs, licenses, and other permits. These immigrants are well known by the society as well as the state but nothing much is done against it. Showing that there is an existence of a moral form of adverse possession.
On the other hand, Kukathas is arguing for the freedom of immigration and defending it from all its critiques. He argues that borders should be open and movement should be free. According to him does not matter what perspective a person or group is from, starting from socialists, liberal, or libertarians everyone is guarded about immigration (Kukathas, 2005). Kukathas breaks down the chapter into six sections starting with the problems of immigration, its defense, economic perspectives, national perspectives, security perspectives, and lastly some dilemmas and reinforcement of his argument. First is the imposed cost on society and secondly, most of these liberal democratic states are welfare states. As a result, it’s a huge drawback if the immigrants are getting more benefits compared to the tax they are paying. Kukathas says labor unions and nativist groups would oppose immigration out concern of for their economy and environment. He explains this with a classic example of Australia refusing to offload human cargo in their borders from Norway in 2001(Kukathas, 2005). Proving that these states are reluctant to get new immigrants until and unless making sure they will be gaining more than they spend. To defend these immigrations from such issues Kukathas come up with two principles, freedom and humanity. By the principle of freedom, he means that borders restrict freedom of movement without having any established or sufficient reasoning making people indefensible (Kukathas, 2005). As a result, if people from a country are fleeing from unjust or tyranny then it’s unfair to them. Same for people who are coming for friendship, love, duties, or family. Closing borders restricts workers from selling their labor and also restricts people from the freedom to associate. Thus Kukathas argues that the stated reasons for these restrictions are not strong enough to justify their side. Humanity on the other side is more concerned with global justice. A lot of people around the world living in poor conditions want to immigrate to developed countries to help improve their living conditions. In some cases, it is the alleviation of poverty. Restricting and denying such people entry is equal to denying them the right to get out of poverty or live a better life. Kukathas says there is no justification to deny them this positive assistance. For the economic challenges, he mentions the impacts on the local market economy and migrants on the cost and availability of state-funded resources. For national issues, he talks about changes in society, damages in culture, and difficulty in retaining social solidarity. Lastly in the security section, he talks about terrorism and the security of their political systems. All in all, Kukathas builds a strong case for free immigration by solving all these issues and proving that welfare states should rethink.
Brock in her article argues for ending or reducing health care worker recruitment from developing countries to developed countries. He addresses the citizens of affluent developed countries as “We” and citizens of developing countries as “Them”. The paradox of the reading is that countries that have the money to train doctors are attracting doctors from countries that do not have money to train them. As a utilitarian, the marginal utility in a poor country for a doctor is more than a rich country as they already have enough. Health care workers have the right to immigrate anywhere, but they are also obligated to compensate. A country like Bangladesh where there is a great shortage of doctors would maximize the utility of the doctor rather than adding one more to a country like Canada which would reduce the doctor’s value. Brock brings in two main examples, cheaper as there is no training cost and a global tax regime. She also talks about the various push factors and pull factors that bring these immigrant doctors. Brock uses the term ‘Brain Drain’ in his article, meaning that the emigration of skilled workers leaves behind only the low-skilled doctors, in a way draining the country’s skills (Brock, 2011). To conclude she believes “We” are allowing an injustice to happen by not restricting these immigrant doctors and causing suffering in the developing countries. Lastly, Mill states in his article that recruitment of health workers from sub-Saharan Africa is a crime. He shares a similar view as Brock, however, the only exception he provides is the social alarm in Africa. He points out that this is a widespread problem throughout Africa as millions are suffering due to an insufficient number of doctors available, for instance in Malawi there is one physician per 50000 people where whereas the Uk has 100 times more (Mill, 2008). There are also a lot of push factors involved that cause these doctors to flee such as poor living conditions, dangerous infectious diseases, and a lot more. Mill finds this outrageous and proves it is a crime.
By analysing the four articles I have found that they are complex and multifaceted. They reduce their articles to either “pro-immigration” or “anti-immigration”. All four articles try to point out the grey areas surrounding immigration. By comparing the four texts I have found that Risse and Kukatha’s articles are more one-sided towards the immigrating countries and have a utilitarian approach, like Sandal’s freedom approach. He argues in favor of opening immigration. Kukathas give a similar vibe, but there are a few major differences between Risse’s and Kukatha’s articles. Risse is focused more on the moral standpoint of why people are entitled to immigration based on egalitarian ownership, on the other hand, Kukathas is solely dependent on the practical reasons and all the practical issues associated with them. Risse focuses on the US where as Kukathas focuses on a general standpoint based on economy, nationality, and security. Risse’s article is more concerned about the unused resources foreign people are entitled to in the US where as Kukathas discusses how immigration could get people out of poverty and tyranny of their home countries. All in all, Kukathas is more realistic compared to Risse and deals with more practical problems. Similarly, Brock and Mill argue about the same issue, both focus on reducing or restricting the immigration of doctors to developed countries. However, there is a significant difference, Brock argues that it should be stopped because of compatriotism and injustice however Mill’s paper states it’s a crime and caused major social alarms in Africa. Mill compared to all the other articles is significantly specific in terms of the percentages, numbers, and graphs. Miller, Risse, and Brock are more to the point, population density numbers and comparison of the number of nurses to doctors respectively. Comparing the solutions to the problems provided by all the authors the most effective solution in my opinion was Risse’s idea to grant visas to immigrant doctors on condition that the health care organization provide adequate compensation to the country of origin (Risse, 2008). Does not matter what rules and policies are made doctors will move to developed countries mainly due to push factors thus it is important to work something out around it. Finally comparing the texts, I feel that all four readings share the same goal, their main goal is to reach justice for people. Risse wanted to justify morally, whereas Kukathas more realistically that immigration should not be restricted but they both had weighted reasons like humanity and poverty. Similarly, Brock and Mill argued the restriction of only immigrating doctors whichdoeso not conflict with Risse and Kukatha’s argument as they did not focus on any particular profession or sector. Brock and Mill also had sufficient established and weighted reasons which proved that morally and ethically it’s wrong for doctors to immigrate to these developed countries stranding their fellow citizens to die.
Based on my discussion and textual comparison I think that the messages in these texts are complimentary. They might not be mutually exclusive, but they all share the same global goal, which is justice. Immigration has been a major issue for debates over the years and it is easy to prove someone wrong as it has different angles and ways to look at it. In many cases, it might be right to restrict freedom of movement, on the other hand injustice in doing so. What matters is if the policies and the ultimate goal of the developed nations is justice for the people, not exploiting them.
Illegal immigration is a diverse issue with many perspectives and ideas of how it should be handled. On the far left, some want to completely get rid of borders and let people migrate freely. To them, the right to exclude people is incompatible with democracy as it insinuates that there’s a lower class of people who don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else. We’re supposed to be a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it’s not right to hold that back from people and not give a voice to the people who live here or want to live here, documented or not. This goes against the egalitarian belief that everyone is equal so opportunities should also be equal. Going along with the idea of equality, there could be any time that Americans become refugees or could’ve been born as someone seeking asylum, so why should America hold its borders back for people who are? The borders can also hurt US citizens because they could be arrested for aiding those who crossed illegally. Overall, the borders aren’t helping anyone and are unfairly cruel to all who try to come through. The goal is the extreme idea of internationalism, that because we as people and nations are equal, there’s no need for borders to divide us. Borders are exclusionary and allow privilege to prevail, so we need to get rid of the concepts of nationalism or citizenship entirely. There can’t be illegal immigration if there are no borders to cross illegally. To get closer to the ideal of open borders, supporters vote for anything that promotes immigration and makes it more open to immigrants. It’s a little step toward the bigger goal of having completely open borders for all who wish to enter the country. The government is going too slow and not making big enough changes, so all they can do is nudge in the right direction while making their cause widely known. Supporters are quite adamant that there is no middle ground and that we can’t wait for a good political landscape to make their voices heard. People are waiting and suffering at the border, so how could we expect them to wait until there’s good timing?
On the far right side are the restrictionists, who are the extreme against illegal immigration and immigration as a whole. To them, it threatens the natural order in what should be a strictly ordered society. There’s a strong sense of nativism, a mix of nationalism’s pride in one’s country and xenophobia’s general disdain for the foreign. They not only believe that their country is the best, but that non-native element disrupts and threaten the nation. Having a closed border protects the values of order and stability, and by eliminating the possibility of new elements, everything will be safe. It goes along with ethnopluralism, that people are divided by their ethnicity and are equal but should stay segregated. It’s a strong “us versus them” mindset and the idea for reform reflects this too. The idea is that all borders are closed, citizenship is based on ethnicity, and that people either have the choice to assimilate to the culture or be kicked out. It’s believed that immigration is correlated with crime and that progressive politicians support immigration to get their votes, so if the border is closed off, everything will be back in order how the country should run. They want intense security at the border and support bills that lean in that direction. They believe all issues can be solved with punishment and by teaching “moral” and “traditional” standards in school. The restrictionists believe the best way to handle illegal immigration is through closing off any opportunity for entry and promoting order.
In the Shadow of the Wall: The Effects of the US Expansion of Border Protection
The case of the USA and Mexico may be different from any other in the world. Although the two countries are economically very differently developed, they have a unique common history, are important trading partners for each other, and are linked by a remarkable Mexican diaspora spread throughout the territory of the United States. However, both countries are also connected by a 3,000-kilometer border, which is militarily very secure on the US side; and by a political context in the US in which Mexican immigrants (and other ethnic groups) are routinely seen as ‘outsiders’ and criminalized by the state.
‘They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.’ states US President Donald Trump, who used these words during the election campaign to warn against supposedly unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico (Jackson). This warning is astonishing inasmuch as illegal migration to the USA is at a historic low and more Mexicans have been moving from the USA to Mexico than vice versa for more than ten years. The traditional narrative of Mexican immigrants coming illegally to the US, whose numbers are constantly increasing, is now outdated. Today, illegal migration from Mexico has reached an all-time low (de Haas). While more than a million undocumented Mexicans were arrested at the border in 2005, less than 200,000 were arrested ten years later. At the same time, more and more Mexicans are returning to their homeland after years in the USA. Mexico’s migration balance for the USA, i.e. the difference between immigration and emigration, has even been negative for some years. Between 2009 and 2014, one million Mexicans left the USA, while only around 870,000 emigrated. Already since 2013, China and India have been the main countries of origin of new immigrants to the USA, while Mexico only occupies third place. According to information from the Census Bureau, some 125,000 Mexicans immigrated to the US in 2013, compared with 147,000 Chinese and 129,000 Indians (Zong and Batalova).
The reasons for the lower immigration from Mexico are manifold. The recession of 2008 in the USA with increasing job opportunities in Mexico at the same time plays just as important a role for returnees as the desire for reunification with the family. Declining birth rates and an aging society in Mexico are also reducing the number of potential new emigrants. Despite lower migrant flows in recent years, the Mexican diaspora (migrant stock) in the USA remains large (Passel). For some years now, it has remained constant at almost twelve million and thus accounts for almost one-third of all immigrants living in the USA. About half of Mexican immigrants, i.e. around six million people, live irregularly in the USA. These impressive statistics are the result of decades of steady legal and illegal immigration. Since 1942, many Mexicans have entered the USA legally with temporary work visas via the so-called Bracero program. After the program ended in the mid-1960s, many Mexican migrant workers maintained their close ties with U.S. employers and continued to work in the U.S., but illegally. Legal migration from Mexico also increased as the 1965 revision of the US Migration Act introduced generous family reunification provisions. In the 1970s, less than a million Mexicans lived in the U.S., doubled to 2.3 million by 1980, and then rose exponentially to 11.7 million in 2010 – a figure that has remained with slight fluctuations ever since.
While the number of Mexicans moving to the USA is decreasing, the number of Central American migrants is rising steadily. Every year hundreds of thousands of people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the ‘Northern Triangle’ of Central America, set off for the USA and cross Mexico as transit migrants. 110,000 Central American migrants tried to cross the border illegally to the USA in 2006, but by 2016 this number had more than doubled ( Cornelius). Combined with the sharp decline in illegal migration from Mexico, this means that the proportion of Central Americans crossing the border illegally has risen rapidly during this period, from 10 to 54 percent. The fact that more Central Americans than Mexicans now try to cross the border is all the more impressive when one considers that the three countries together have only about 30 million inhabitants – and thus only a quarter of Mexico’s population. Nevertheless, the region is considered fragile and plagued by a multitude of problems. The people suffer from extremely high levels of violence and murder rates of between 30 and 75 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Poverty and unemployment are widespread, and a quarter of all young people are so-called ‘Ninis’ who neither have a job nor attend school. Massive corruption reinforces growing social inequality and already weak state institutions are further eroded by the overwhelming influence of gangs.
To put it bluntly, illegal migration from Mexico to the USA is already history. The data situation described here – declining Mexican migration and simultaneously growing Central American migration – is clear. However, it is largely ignored by the current public and political debate in the USA. Donald Trump’s claim that he has to build a wall against illegal migration from Mexico ignores the fact that illegal migration reached a 40-year low at the southern border of the USA in 2015. However, the local perception of migration, the ‘perceived’ migration, is independent of statistics and the actual number of migrants. People experience immigration not at the federal level, but locally, through concrete examples such as the ethnic composition of their children’s schools or the daily street scene in their communities or cities. Thus, the subjectively perceived migration situation of a country can be fundamentally different, depending on whether someone lives in the city or in the country or whether the neighborhood is ethnically diverse as in New York City, or homogeneous as in Salt Lake City. Furthermore, it is not so much the number of migrants as the speed at which migrants change the demography of a place that is decisive in the perception of migration. More and more immigrants in the US are settling not only in the traditional immigrant states of California, Texas, and New Mexico but also in regions where locals have had little experience with immigrants (Casselman). The faster the demography of a place changes due to migration, the more likely people are to react to migration with skepticism. Fear of migration is therefore more widespread where the number of migrants is rising by leaps and bounds; slow change, on the other hand, is less worrying.
US voters, despite historically low levels of illegal immigration, continue to be strongly concerned about this issue due to the contrast between flows and stocks. Even though fewer and fewer Mexicans are trying to enter the country illegally (flows) today, the total number of Mexicans (stocks) already living illegally in the country is so high that they perpetuate the traditional narrative of undocumented Mexicans. The election of Donald Trump has shown that it can be politically opportune to ignore facts. Trump and his advisors have succeeded in artificially ‘boiling up’ the issue of illegal migration to make political capital. Populism propagates a simplified worldview in which corrupt elites on the one hand and honest people on the other are hostile to each other and complex problems can be solved by simple common-sense solutions. In this worldview, migrants are ideal scapegoats because they can be portrayed both as not belonging to the people and as supposedly easy to get out of the country – be it by entry bans, deportations, or even by walls. The strengthening of border protection has always been associated with the hope of curbing illegal immigration. Since the mid-1990s, the USA has erected several walls and fences along the border. Some of them run through populous cities, others through deserted areas. The construction method is inconsistent – some concrete walls, and some lattice fences. What all border fortifications have in common is that they do not cover the entire border but end somewhere along the border. Building a wall is an extreme form of border protection, but countries have many ways of protecting their borders. Typical border management measures include checks on persons entering and/or crossing the border, carried out by border guards, or using electronic equipment at airports, ports, or other border crossings. Increasingly, technical means such as cameras, ground sensors, motion detectors, or drones are being used.
Walls and border management measures operate on two levels: On the one hand, they can block existing migration flows and, on the other hand, they can act as a deterrent to potential future migrants, so that they can contribute – at least in the short term – to a decline in migration figures. While walls can successfully prevent illegal migration, this is not necessarily the case. A clear assessment of how effective walls and border management actually are is hampered by three factors: First, the impact of walls is not clearly measurable. Even if illegal migration figures fall after the construction of the wall and investments in border protection (as in the case of the USA in the 1990s), other factors may also have contributed, such as an economic recession or changed living conditions in countries of origin (as in Mexico in recent decades). The establishment of legal migration routes, e.g. through temporary work or student visas, can also influence illegal migration figures in one country, as can changing border management regimes in other countries in the same region. Second, a fundamental dilemma of border management is that more border officials can make more arrests, even if the number of attempted border crossings remains relatively constant. Thus, paradoxically, investing in more border personnel can even lead to the impression of more rather than less illegal migration, as more arrests are recorded. Thirdly, illegal immigration need not be linked to illegal entry. As the numerous so-called visa – overstays in the US show, migrants can legally enter the country, for example on a tourist or temporary work visa, and remain in the country after its expiration. Border guards and the construction of the Wall have no effect on this form of illegal immigration. Walls and reinforced border management measures also pose a number of problems and unintended side effects. For one, walls can be bypassed, particularly in the case of the USA, where they only cover part of the border. More or less creative methods range from tunnels, ladders and ropes to ramps, catapults, and drones (e.g. drug smuggling). In addition, more border protection makes migration more dangerous. Even if walls are able to block migration flows in the short term, in the medium and long term they tend to displace them rather than decrease them (displaced not decreased). Border protection often shifts migration routes into more inhospitable terrain – in the case of the USA into the desert. More border protection can also lead to tugboats raising their prices and adapting their business models. Tugboats in Central America are increasingly offering their customers three border crossing attempts for the price of one. If a migrant is caught and deported to his home country, he has two more attempts without additional financial costs – a business model that exacerbates the so-called revolving door problem (of migration, repatriation, and renewed migration).
Building walls alone is not enough to get rid of the problem of illegal migration. Another side effect of border protection is that circular migration can become permanent migration. For decades, Mexican immigration had been characterized by seasonal and circular work migration, but the more difficult it became to cross the border, the more Mexicans and their families permanently settled in the United States. While walls and border guards can be an effective symbol of deterrence, shifting migration flows and thereby contributing to a short-term reduction in migration, they do not solve the problem of illegal immigration in the long term or completely and cause considerable problems and undesirable side effects. In view of the fact that many migrants around the world do not leave the homes of their own free will, but are forced to do so by economic hardship, war or civil war, fighting the causes of migration and flight, as well as development aid to countries of origin, seems to be a logical strategy to reduce migration flows. Mexico is indeed an excellent example of a country where improved economic conditions have contributed to a sharp decline in emigration. Mexico’s gross national product (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.5 percent over the last ten years. Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of Mexicans in the middle class increased by nearly nine percentage points, i.e. more than ten million Mexicans rose to the middle class. In the same period, annual illegal migration from Mexico fell from 1.2 million to 290,000. The actual causes of irregular immigration are both social and economic. The solution, therefore, lies in dealing with these causes, not in permanently expanding border protection and criminalizing immigration.
Walls and border protection can only solve the problem of unwanted migration flows in the short term and in parts; investments in causes of migration and flight, on the contrary, can only solve them in the long term to some extent. Real solutions are therefore policies that combine both approaches – compromise solutions. Sustainable migration policies include both border management measures as well as the fight against causes and treat the two concepts not as a zero-sum game, but as necessary elements of effective migration policy. Neither the best border management nor the best fight against the causes can completely stop undesirable migration flows. US policymakers must look for human alternatives to immigration control that respect the rights and dignity of their southern neighbors. Therefore, mature migration policies must be able to weigh both approaches and merge them.
Works Cited
Casselman, Ben “Immigration Is Changing Much More Than the Immigration Debate” FiveThirtyEight, 9, July 2014.
Cornelius, Wayne A., and Marc R. Rosenblum. “Immigration and Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 8, no. 1, June 2005, pp. 99–119. EBSCOhost.
David Jackson, and USA TODAY. “Republicans Hit Trump over Mexico Comments.” USA Today. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com
de Haas, Hein, and Simona Vezzoli. “Migration and Development on the South–North Frontier: A Comparison of Mexico–US and Morocco–EU Cases.” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, vol. 39, no. 7, Aug. 2013, pp. 1041–1065. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.778019.
Migration Policy Institute (MPI) tabulation of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2017 American Community Surveys (ACS). www.migrationpolicy.org/
Passel, Jeffrey S. “Demography of Immigrant Youth: Past, Present, and Future.” Future of Children, vol. 21, no. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 19–41. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0001.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 2016, pp.2–3, n.5.
Zong, Jie and Jeanne Batalova. ‘Mexican Immigrants in the United States.’ Migration Policy Institute (2017).
In the Shadow of the Wall: The Effects of the US Expansion of Border Protection
The case of the USA and Mexico may be different from any other in the world. Although the two countries are economically very differently developed, they have a unique common history, are important trading partners for each other, and are linked by a remarkable Mexican diaspora spread throughout the territory of the United States. However, both countries are also connected by a 3,000-kilometer border, which is militarily very secure on the US side; and by a political context in the US in which Mexican immigrants (and other ethnic groups) are routinely seen as ‘outsiders’ and criminalized by the state.
‘They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.’ states US President Donald Trump, who used these words during the election campaign to warn against supposedly unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico (Jackson). This warning is astonishing inasmuch as illegal migration to the USA is at a historic low and more Mexicans have been moving from the USA to Mexico than vice versa for more than ten years. The traditional narrative of Mexican immigrants coming illegally to the US, whose numbers are constantly increasing, is now outdated. Today, illegal migration from Mexico has reached an all-time low (de Haas). While more than a million undocumented Mexicans were arrested at the border in 2005, less than 200,000 were arrested ten years later. At the same time, more and more Mexicans are returning to their homeland after years in the USA. Mexico’s migration balance for the USA, i.e. the difference between immigration and emigration, has even been negative for some years. Between 2009 and 2014, one million Mexicans left the USA, while only around 870,000 emigrated. Already since 2013, China and India have been the main countries of origin of new immigrants to the USA, while Mexico only occupies third place. According to information from the Census Bureau, some 125,000 Mexicans immigrated to the US in 2013, compared with 147,000 Chinese and 129,000 Indians (Zong and Batalova).
The reasons for the lower immigration from Mexico are manifold. The recession of 2008 in the USA with increasing job opportunities in Mexico at the same time plays just as important a role for returnees as the desire for reunification with the family. Declining birth rates and an aging society in Mexico are also reducing the number of potential new emigrants. Despite lower migrant flows in recent years, the Mexican diaspora (migrant stock) in the USA remains large (Passel). For some years now, it has remained constant at almost twelve million and thus accounts for almost one-third of all immigrants living in the USA. About half of Mexican immigrants, i.e. around six million people, live irregularly in the USA. These impressive statistics are the result of decades of steady legal and illegal immigration. Since 1942, many Mexicans have entered the USA legally with temporary work visas via the so-called Bracero program. After the program ended in the mid-1960s, many Mexican migrant workers maintained their close ties with U.S. employers and continued to work in the U.S., but illegally. Legal migration from Mexico also increased as the 1965 revision of the US Migration Act introduced generous family reunification provisions. In the 1970s, less than a million Mexicans lived in the U.S., doubled to 2.3 million by 1980, and then rose exponentially to 11.7 million in 2010 – a figure that has remained with slight fluctuations ever since.
While the number of Mexicans moving to the USA is decreasing, the number of Central American migrants is rising steadily. Every year hundreds of thousands of people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the ‘Northern Triangle’ of Central America, set off for the USA and cross Mexico as transit migrants. 110,000 Central American migrants tried to cross the border illegally to the USA in 2006, but by 2016 this number had more than doubled ( Cornelius). Combined with the sharp decline in illegal migration from Mexico, this means that the proportion of Central Americans crossing the border illegally has risen rapidly during this period, from 10 to 54 percent. The fact that more Central Americans than Mexicans now try to cross the border is all the more impressive when one considers that the three countries together have only about 30 million inhabitants – and thus only a quarter of Mexico’s population. Nevertheless, the region is considered fragile and plagued by a multitude of problems. The people suffer from extremely high levels of violence and murder rates of between 30 and 75 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Poverty and unemployment are widespread, and a quarter of all young people are so-called ‘Ninis’ who neither have a job nor attend school. Massive corruption reinforces growing social inequality and already weak state institutions are further eroded by the overwhelming influence of gangs.
To put it bluntly, illegal migration from Mexico to the USA is already history. The data situation described here – declining Mexican migration and simultaneously growing Central American migration – is clear. However, it is largely ignored by the current public and political debate in the USA. Donald Trump’s claim that he has to build a wall against illegal migration from Mexico ignores the fact that illegal migration reached a 40-year low at the southern border of the USA in 2015. However, the local perception of migration, the ‘perceived’ migration, is independent of statistics and the actual number of migrants. People experience immigration not at the federal level, but locally, through concrete examples such as the ethnic composition of their children’s schools or the daily street scene in their communities or cities. Thus, the subjectively perceived migration situation of a country can be fundamentally different, depending on whether someone lives in the city or in the country or whether the neighborhood is ethnically diverse as in New York City, or homogeneous as in Salt Lake City. Furthermore, it is not so much the number of migrants as the speed at which migrants change the demography of a place that is decisive in the perception of migration. More and more immigrants in the US are settling not only in the traditional immigrant states of California, Texas, and New Mexico but also in regions where locals have had little experience with immigrants (Casselman). The faster the demography of a place changes due to migration, the more likely people are to react to migration with skepticism. Fear of migration is therefore more widespread where the number of migrants is rising by leaps and bounds; slow change, on the other hand, is less worrying.
US voters, despite historically low levels of illegal immigration, continue to be strongly concerned about this issue due to the contrast between flows and stocks. Even though fewer and fewer Mexicans are trying to enter the country illegally (flows) today, the total number of Mexicans (stocks) already living illegally in the country is so high that they perpetuate the traditional narrative of undocumented Mexicans. The election of Donald Trump has shown that it can be politically opportune to ignore facts. Trump and his advisors have succeeded in artificially ‘boiling up’ the issue of illegal migration to make political capital. Populism propagates a simplified worldview in which corrupt elites on the one hand and honest people on the other are hostile to each other and complex problems can be solved by simple common-sense solutions. In this worldview, migrants are ideal scapegoats because they can be portrayed both as not belonging to the people and as supposedly easy to get out of the country – be it by entry bans, deportations, or even by walls. The strengthening of border protection has always been associated with the hope of curbing illegal immigration. Since the mid-1990s, the USA has erected several walls and fences along the border. Some of them run through populous cities, others through deserted areas. The construction method is inconsistent – some concrete walls, and some lattice fences. What all border fortifications have in common is that they do not cover the entire border but end somewhere along the border. Building a wall is an extreme form of border protection, but countries have many ways of protecting their borders. Typical border management measures include checks on persons entering and/or crossing the border, carried out by border guards, or using electronic equipment at airports, ports, or other border crossings. Increasingly, technical means such as cameras, ground sensors, motion detectors, or drones are being used.
Walls and border management measures operate on two levels: On the one hand, they can block existing migration flows and, on the other hand, they can act as a deterrent to potential future migrants, so that they can contribute – at least in the short term – to a decline in migration figures. While walls can successfully prevent illegal migration, this is not necessarily the case. A clear assessment of how effective walls and border management actually are is hampered by three factors: First, the impact of walls is not clearly measurable. Even if illegal migration figures fall after the construction of the wall and investments in border protection (as in the case of the USA in the 1990s), other factors may also have contributed, such as an economic recession or changed living conditions in countries of origin (as in Mexico in recent decades). The establishment of legal migration routes, e.g. through temporary work or student visas, can also influence illegal migration figures in one country, as can changing border management regimes in other countries in the same region. Second, a fundamental dilemma of border management is that more border officials can make more arrests, even if the number of attempted border crossings remains relatively constant. Thus, paradoxically, investing in more border personnel can even lead to the impression of more rather than less illegal migration, as more arrests are recorded. Thirdly, illegal immigration need not be linked to illegal entry. As the numerous so-called visa – overstays in the US show, migrants can legally enter the country, for example on a tourist or temporary work visa, and remain in the country after its expiration. Border guards and the construction of the Wall have no effect on this form of illegal immigration. Walls and reinforced border management measures also pose a number of problems and unintended side effects. For one, walls can be bypassed, particularly in the case of the USA, where they only cover part of the border. More or less creative methods range from tunnels, ladders and ropes to ramps, catapults, and drones (e.g. drug smuggling). In addition, more border protection makes migration more dangerous. Even if walls are able to block migration flows in the short term, in the medium and long term they tend to displace them rather than decrease them (displaced not decreased). Border protection often shifts migration routes into more inhospitable terrain – in the case of the USA into the desert. More border protection can also lead to tugboats raising their prices and adapting their business models. Tugboats in Central America are increasingly offering their customers three border crossing attempts for the price of one. If a migrant is caught and deported to his home country, he has two more attempts without additional financial costs – a business model that exacerbates the so-called revolving door problem (of migration, repatriation, and renewed migration).
Building walls alone is not enough to get rid of the problem of illegal migration. Another side effect of border protection is that circular migration can become permanent migration. For decades, Mexican immigration had been characterized by seasonal and circular work migration, but the more difficult it became to cross the border, the more Mexicans and their families permanently settled in the United States. While walls and border guards can be an effective symbol of deterrence, shifting migration flows and thereby contributing to a short-term reduction in migration, they do not solve the problem of illegal immigration in the long term or completely and cause considerable problems and undesirable side effects. In view of the fact that many migrants around the world do not leave the homes of their own free will, but are forced to do so by economic hardship, war or civil war, fighting the causes of migration and flight, as well as development aid to countries of origin, seems to be a logical strategy to reduce migration flows. Mexico is indeed an excellent example of a country where improved economic conditions have contributed to a sharp decline in emigration. Mexico’s gross national product (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.5 percent over the last ten years. Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of Mexicans in the middle class increased by nearly nine percentage points, i.e. more than ten million Mexicans rose to the middle class. In the same period, annual illegal migration from Mexico fell from 1.2 million to 290,000. The actual causes of irregular immigration are both social and economic. The solution, therefore, lies in dealing with these causes, not in permanently expanding border protection and criminalizing immigration.
Walls and border protection can only solve the problem of unwanted migration flows in the short term and in parts; investments in causes of migration and flight, on the contrary, can only solve them in the long term to some extent. Real solutions are therefore policies that combine both approaches – compromise solutions. Sustainable migration policies include both border management measures as well as the fight against causes and treat the two concepts not as a zero-sum game, but as necessary elements of effective migration policy. Neither the best border management nor the best fight against the causes can completely stop undesirable migration flows. US policymakers must look for human alternatives to immigration control that respect the rights and dignity of their southern neighbors. Therefore, mature migration policies must be able to weigh both approaches and merge them.
Works Cited
Casselman, Ben “Immigration Is Changing Much More Than the Immigration Debate” FiveThirtyEight, 9, July 2014.
Cornelius, Wayne A., and Marc R. Rosenblum. “Immigration and Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 8, no. 1, June 2005, pp. 99–119. EBSCOhost.
David Jackson, and USA TODAY. “Republicans Hit Trump over Mexico Comments.” USA Today. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com
de Haas, Hein, and Simona Vezzoli. “Migration and Development on the South–North Frontier: A Comparison of Mexico–US and Morocco–EU Cases.” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, vol. 39, no. 7, Aug. 2013, pp. 1041–1065. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.778019.
Migration Policy Institute (MPI) tabulation of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2017 American Community Surveys (ACS). www.migrationpolicy.org/
Passel, Jeffrey S. “Demography of Immigrant Youth: Past, Present, and Future.” Future of Children, vol. 21, no. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 19–41. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0001.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 2016, pp.2–3, n.5.
Zong, Jie and Jeanne Batalova. ‘Mexican Immigrants in the United States.’ Migration Policy Institute (2017).
Various researches such as the one conducted by Merton (1938) have shown that individuals tend to resort to crime if they cannot obtain decent livelihoods by legal methods (Chiricos 1987; Thornberry Christenson 1984). Illegal immigrants contribute to the increasing rates of unemployment in the United States and this therefore leads to increased crime-rates.
Camarata (2004) has shown that illegal immigrants account for over 20% of the individual in federal prisons. Studies have also shown that a very large number of accidents caused by driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol have been linked to Hispanics (Cantor and Land 1985).
An article carried in the Austin American Statesmen in 2003 reported that, “Latinos account for nearly half of 2002 Austin drunken driving arrests even though they make up only about 21 percent of Austin’s driving population” (Sum and Khatiwada 2006). Nationwide statistics from the Texas Department of public safety have also revealed that over 40% of the individuals apprehended in 2002 for DUI were Latino while 38% of the arrested individuals were unemployed (Sullivan 2006).
Aside from drug-related crimes, it is worth noting that the unemployed illegal immigrants are responsible for other types of criminal activities (Hughes and Carter 1981). In 2007, over 21% of the criminals sentenced in Arizona County were illegal immigrants. Of these criminals, 18% were accused of violent crime, 35% of kidnapping and 47% were sentenced for car theft (Swain 2007).
Illegal immigrants were also linked to almost 90% of all identity stealing cases and over 50% of document forgery. Coming towards the close of 2003, over 250,000 illegal immigrants had been charged in courts for various offences and sentences to prison. Reports have also revealed that in Los Angeles, 96% of the over 1000 warrants for murder suspects in 2002 have been for illegal immigrants and that over 90% of the individuals charged with homicide have been unemployed.
It is also important to appreciate that most of the criminal activities committed to immigrants by fellow immigrants tend to be underreported mainly because of the fear that immigration officials may be involved hence deporting both the offender and the victim (Freeman 1983; Harrison and Beck 2006; Horowitz 1997).
Study approach
The research will be based on both primary and secondary data. As far as primary data is concerned, empirical data will be collected to show the impact of project management strategies in a particular institution and how it could effectively be used to serve as a guide for other organisations that would like to make the switch.
In such a scientific field, the strength lies in the figures and particularly the numbers obtained from real life scenarios to support collected evidence. With this knowledge in mind, effort will be made to obtain relevant information to the particular topic in question and this will be accompanied by proper citation.
Secondary data will be extracted from books and journals. The criteria of selection for the literature will be the relevance to the research topic as well as the year of publication. Both public and private libraries as well as online libraries will be visited in order to access the data. This research will be partly evidence based and partly founded on professional research by professionals in the field. Various articles will be studied in order to provide background information which will essentially give credibility to the final essay.
Information from the publications will serve to provide explanation as regards the internal machinations of financial departments of the company. This will be very crucial information that will make the research report appeal to both professionals and the general public. For the latter, it may require that some of the information obtained from the books and other publications be broken down into simple language and at the same time illustrations drawn from the most successful strategies for project management.
Reasons for Selecting the Above Methodology
For any professional topic, chances are that extensive research has been carried out by professionals in the field before. Consequently, in order to establish the backbone of a given research project, it is only necessary that extensive review of literature be carried before identifying seeking first hand information from the field.
The latter, i.e. information collected from the field is also necessary since it helps give professional credibility to the project. Combining results from both sources would serve to foster their symbiotic relationship with one offering background information and the other presenting up-to-date information on the topic.
Expected outcome
The outcome expected out of this research process is results that would make government officials appreciate the impact of unemployment and illegal immigration on the well being of the country. The research and subsequent paper will show the various loopholes which if sealed can increase the effectiveness of state security management.
Research process plan
The first step in conducting the research will come in the form of extensive review of literature from various secondary sources. Information on the topic of unemployment, illegal immigration and their linkage to criminal activity will be collected from books, state records, journals, Magazines, conference proceedings and websites.
The second step in the process is the collection of data directly from the field. This will to a large extent depend on various forms of interviews including one-to-one interviews as well as the use of questionnaires. Some of the people expected to be targeted for this part of the process include security specialists and administrators from various arms of government, as well as qualified state security analysts.
The above two steps would make it easy to come up with a survey question which will guide us into the third step of the process. In this stage, an analysis of the data obtained shall be carried out and the challenges that are raised regarding the process of project management shall be picked out and effectively compared with the strategic approaches for dealing with them.
Objectives
The Objectives of the research were to:
To analyze the relation between illegal immigration and crime
To analyze the relation between unemployment and crime
Hypotheses
There is a correlation between illegal immigration/unemployment and criminal activity.
The unemployed and illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime as compared to the employed and legal immigrants.
Research implications
If there is a direct correlation between organizational structure and project management, it is only imperative that the government establishes strategies to help in enhancing the border security and creating employment opportunities in order to reduce instances of crime rate
Research process
Quantitative methods will be used to collect data. These are basically strategies developed to help in analyzing natural phenomena. The questionnaire is one of the main instruments for gathering data using a social survey design. It is completed by the respondent. The questionnaire, which is one of the quantitative survey methods, will be used in this research in order to collect the primary data.
Because of the nature of the study only online questionnaires will be used. The reasons for using an online questionnaire are that compared with the interview, the online questionnaire is cheaper to administer, quicker to administer and convenient for respondents
Questionnaire development
The development of questionnaire passed through three stages; the planning stage, design stage and pilot stage. I will, therefore, follow these stages for the questionnaire. In this research, the questionnaire was designed in relation to the literature review: the questions will be formulated as open-ended questions to answer the research questions.
The questions considered will illustrate the relationship between illegal immigration, unemployment and crime rate. All the questions will be formulated to measure (directly or indirectly) the respondent opinion of the security around him/her.
Furthermore, the layout of the questionnaire will be designed in such a way that the layout is clear as well as attractive for respondents. Industry standards like five-point scales will be used in the majority of questions to make it easer to collect the data. Some experiments recommend that demographic questions should be at the end of questionnaires because the data is sensitive; therefore the researcher will have to take that into consideration in the design of this questionnaire.
In addition, ambiguous terms will be avoided in the questions, as well as any long, repetitious, leading or double-barreled items, and negative questions which could essentially reduce the effectiveness of the project.
The scores will ranges between Almost Never True (1) – Almost Always True (5) and the results will be analyzed with regard to its Related Problem. These results will be classified as Almost Always True (5), Frequently True (4), Occasionally True (3), Seldom True (2), Almost Never True (1).
Analysis of results
The number of samples should be at least 30 and the Mean and Variance of each of the three sections will be found for EACH of the Samples collected. Assuming that the Variance of each of the sections for a particular sample is small, that means all the answers gave a similar direction (for that particular sample).
If the variance of any of the sections was high, then there might be a question that is not clear or not related directly to the problem, so the answer of that question of that section in that sample should be compared with the answer of the same question in the same section of other samples and then decide to delete that question or not upon the result of the comparison.
Then, the Mean and the Variance of each of the three Sections will be found for ALL the samples. Assuming a small Variance, that means all the samples agreed on the existence or non-existence of the problem related to that section.
Accordingly, the Mean of the samples of that section will be compared to see if it is closer to (5-10) or (20-25) and then decide upon the strength and severity of the problem existence because of using the Balanced Matrix Structure. Why a Range of (5-25)? Because 5=Least Value of (1) for Five Questions in the same section. 25= Highest Value of (5) for Five Questions in the same section. Any thing between, should be analyzed (10-15 or 15-20).
Conclusion
Studies have proven that criminal activity can be directly linked to both unemployment and illegal immigration. This paper has looked at various statistical data on the impact of unemployment and illegal immigration and crime rate in the United States.
The data collected has shown that individuals in employment and immigrants who enter America through legal means commit less crime as compared to their counterparts with no jobs or those who enter the country illegally. However, more research is still needed on the topic, particularly because there is a lot of data countering these researches findings.
Reference List
Camarota, Steven A. 2004. The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget. USA: Center for Immigration Studies.
Camarota, Steven A. 2001. Immigration From Mexico: Assessing the Impact on the United States. USA: Center for Immigration Studies.
Cantor, David and Land, Kenneth. C. 1985. “Unemployment and crime rates in the post-World War II U.S.: A theoretical and empirical analysis.” American Sociological Review, 50, 317-32.
Chiricos, Theodore. G. 1987. “Rates of crime and unemployment: An analysis of aggregate research evidence.” Social Problems, 34, 187-212.
Freeman, Richard. B. 1983. “Crime and unemployment.” Wilson James Q. (Ed.), Crime and public policy. San Francisco: ICS Press. 89-106.
Harrison, Paige M. and Alan Beck J. 2006.. Prisoners in 2004. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, p. 8; US Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. “Quick Facts about the Bureau of Prisons.” Washington, DC: BOP
Horowitz, Carl F. 1997. “An Examination of U.S. Immigration Policy And Serious Crime.” USA: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Urban Institute
Hughes, Michael. and Carter, Timothy. J. 1981. “A declining economy and sociological theories of crime: Predictions and explications.” K. N. Wright (Ed.), Crime and criminal justice in a declining economy. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain. 5-26.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social structure and anomie.” American Sociological Review 3, 672-82.
Sullivan, Bob. 2006. “Hidden Cost of Illegal Immigration: ID Theft.” United States: MSNBC
Sum, Andrew P. and Ishwar Khatiwada. 2006. The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005. USA: Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder Swain, Carol M. 2007. Debating Immigration. Cambridge University Press,
Thornberry, Terrence P. and Christenson, Richard. L. 1984. “Unemployment and criminal involvement: An investigation of reciprocal causal structures.” American Sociological Review, 49, 398-411.
Migration is the movement of people from one place to another in search of education, jobs, investments, leisure or curiosity. State security refers to all issues that relate to human welfare and which can be affected by an increase in the number of foreign immigrants (Bryans 2009). This essay explores the relationship between migration and national security.
Literature Review
Immigration’s Impact on U.S. National Security and Foreign Policy by Kenneth J. Franzblau (U.S Commission on Immigration Reform)
This paper explores the ways the state interacts with immigrants and evaluates their impacts on the citizens and welfare of a country. The paper notes that immigrants affect the state in terms of national security, foreign policy and immigration.
It was produced by the U.S. Commission on Immigration and presented to the state for actions to be taken to amend or establish any policies that will ensure there are effective ways of handling immigrants. The author has noted that there is a close relationship between immigrants and these issues and this call for the need to evaluate the application of these policies in controlling the activities of immigrants in the United States.
He notes that national security does not have a specific meaning due to the complexities involved in defining and grouping all issues that form this policy.
He uses the theory advanced by Hans J.Morgentha to explain that state security is defined by logic and variables that determine the existence of peaceful, democratic and legal social, economic and political activities within a state. Even though, initial definitions of national security revolved around military interventions to restore law and order this has changed to include social, political and economic logistics that affect the activities of a country.
This paper acknowledges the failure by many states to identify national security threats posed by immigrants since they have amplified security variables to necessities. This means that most immigrants have been unfairly treated due to the presumption that they are threats to national security.
In addition, the author notes that the United States has contravened its constitution in many occasions since it has repeatedly failed to respect the provision that it should not trade or compromise the primary interest of the state.
Even though, this author claims that the United States has failed to apply logic in its immigration and refugee policies it is important to explain that sometimes logic depends on variables to attain its legitimacy. For instance, immigration has social, political and economic issues that should be solved regardless of whether the policy concerned follows logic or variables.
First, the American culture must always be respected, preserved and supported by foreigners and natives. However, an increase in immigrants means that this culture will be diluted regardless of the steps taken to promote it. Secondly, immigrants look for all kinds of jobs to allow them to survive the harsh economy in America.
Therefore, they will sacrifice and do any work regardless of the amount they earn. This means that most Americans will become jobless as competition for the few jobs available will not favour them. Lastly, terrorism is a serious challenge facing the United States.
Immigrants have been used in many occasions to stage suicide bombings. This is a political and economic consideration that must be addressed regardless of the logic used to establish immigration policies.
On the other hand, Franzblau uses the example of immigrants who fled Italy and Germany before the First World War broke out to illustrate the importance of immigrants in developing the United States of America.
It was during this time that the U.S managed to produce the first nuclear weapon courtesy of the talents from the immigrants. Therefore, the author appreciates the contributions of immigrants in terms of labour, skills, knowledge and expertise that place this country above others in global markets.
He uses Myron Weiner’ migration effects to explain the advantages and disadvantages of immigrants to three parties (foreign and home country and their relationship). He notes that there are five positive and negative impacts of immigrants to these parties.
They include opposition to the government of the home country, political security threats, cultural; development or dilution, social and economic burden or contribution and hostages.
He illustrates how immigration policies are changed to reflect the need for the United States to advance its national security policies. Lastly, the United States does not associate with a country that has repressive policies that force their citizens to flee. He gives the example of the wide spread immigrants in America from communist countries during and after the first world war as a way of weakening these countries.
Conclusion
Therefore, this paper contributes to the discussion presented by this essay explaining various issues affecting immigration and national security. All states have a responsibility of ensuring they protect the lives of all people living within their boundaries regardless of whether they are foreigners or natives. It is necessary to explain that the above discussion has identified and explored various impacts of immigration on national security.
It has noted that even though most nations appear to condemn and limit foreign nationalist from invading their spheres there are sufficient evidences to prove that they appreciate the contributions associated with immigrants. Therefore, this analysis shows that immigrants can develop or build a country depending on how they are handled.
How the United Kingdom Manages Immigration and National Security Issues
The United Kingdom has experienced major changes in its foreign and immigration policies within the last two decades (Buzan 2011). The Second World War had a significant impact on the United Kingdom’s immigration policies due to a high number of people seeking asylum there, and this forced this country to amend its policies.
Traditionally, the United Kingdom was used to sending people out to other countries including the United States of America and countries within the European Union. This was influenced by poor living conditions and a stagnant economy that offered limited opportunities for investments and economic growth.
However, the last 15 years have transformed this trend, and now people are seeking entrance into this country owing to the robust economy that offers a variety of investment opportunities to foreigners and locals.
Currently, this region receives about six million immigrants annually compared to the four million that migrate to other countries Kulischer, M, 2008. Research conducted between 1997 and 2007 shows that most immigrants and emigrants are non British and British respectively as shown in the table below.
Non-British
British
Total
Gross Emigration
1,747,000
1,867,000
3, 614,000
Gross Immigration
4,412,000
1, 054,000
5,466,000
Net Migration
2,665,000
-813,000
1,852,000
Consequently, the United Kingdom’s working population had been dominated by a mixture of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. This shows that this region has good foreign and immigration policies that encourage immigrants to settle and look for jobs or investment opportunities available in its robust economy.
A research conducted in 2007 by the London School of Economics showed that there are more than 618, 000 illegal immigrants in this region with London having about 70 % of this population (Katzenstein 2009). This trend seems to be increasing despite existing policies to regulate this condition.
However, the government through the UK Border Agency established the following stringent measures to ensure illegal immigration is controlled due to the risks it posed on this country.
The agency observed that the September 11 terrorist on the U.S was successful due to lack of identification of immigrants. Therefore, it established the use of biometric registration of all immigrants that stayed in the country for six months or more. This exercise started in 2008 and focused on students from non EU countries and later involved all categories of visa applications.
Even though, this move was highly criticised by non EU countries the United Kingdom argued that it was for the best interest of both natives and foreigners to be protected against terrorism and other security risks. Secondly, employers were put on notice regarding employing illegal immigrants and face fines of about $ 7,500.
Despite this threat, there was an increase in civil cases involving employing illegal immigrants (Cohen 2012). In addition, public service providers like schools and hospitals were asked to report all cases of illegal immigrants to the immigration department. This move contradicts the constitution of the United Kingdom that requires all children (illegal and legal residents) to attend schools.
Lastly, it has made some changes in its administrative policies regarding immigration and offered permanent residence to asylum seekers who had been in the country for more than 13 years. However, this did not discourage people from migrating to the United Kingdom (Kleinschmidt 2011).
There was an increase in the number of immigrants to this region and this caused the government to readdress measures to control this situation. The graph below shows the changes that have been witnessed in the United Kingdom regarding its immigration statistics.
Another recent development in this region includes the debate on cultural integration between legal and illegal immigrants. The United Kingdom has been synonymous with racial discriminations for very many years. First, its immigration policies allowed members from the EU countries to migrate to its member states without restrictions.
However, the same standards were not observed when it came to those affiliated with the Soviet Union. Some members within the government circles were not happy and expressed their dissatisfactions openly.
For instance, Roy Jenkins (Home Secretary during the 1970s) criticised the policy claiming that it was not a standard way of enhancing racial integration since it based its regulations on mutual benefit rather than cultural diversity.
Recent criticism on the United Kingdom’s racial immigration policies led to the formation of a sovereign commission to ensure this issue is addressed owing to the high number of people seeking residence in this region. The Commission for Racial Equality was established in 2002 to promote good racial relationships and enforces other immigration requirements (Huntington 2012).
Other steps taken to promote safety measures and address humanitarian concerns regarding immigration include the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights and Race Relations Amendment Act Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 1998, 2000 and 2006 respectively.
The Future of Immigration and National Security in the United Kingdom
It is expected that there will be a net immigration level of about 200,000 people annually within the next ten years. Even though, most nations are experiencing an economic recession this figure will not reduce.
In addition, the three pending bills (The Citizenship, Borders and Immigration Bills of 2009) are likely to be made part of the British law, and this will increase the cost and time for becoming a British citizen since it will introduce short time citizenship (Graham 2010).
Lastly, public spending is going to be reduced due to the recession experienced in this country, and this means less money will be allocated to the immigration department.
However, the joint effort by the United States of America and other global organisations like the United Nations are likely to create additional rooms for illegal immigrants to enjoy their rights.
How China Manages Immigration and National Security Issues
Most eastern countries like China, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan amongst others do not have strict immigration regulations. In addition, their foreign policies are less strict compared to those of the United States and United Kingdom. The following reasons are responsible for a casual; foreign policy in most eastern countries.
First, the economy of this region is not active compared to that of European Union, United States or United Kingdom (Hobsbowm 2010). This means that this region has limited investment opportunities and recreation facilities for investors and tourists respectively. Secondly, this region has experienced regular conflicts that have discouraged investors and learners from visiting this region.
Lastly, it has limited natural resources that are drivers of developments. This limits its abilities to attract visitors from other countries. However, few North Koreans find this country to be an attractive region due to its average economic status. The neighbouring regions experience worse economic problems and this makes China a lucrative country amongst its peers.
However, recent financial developments in China have made this country an attractive investment hub in the eastern region. It is necessary to state that China is giving the United States competition regarding the production of nuclear weapons. China has benefitted greatly from African countries that seek cheap services including development loans and grants (Guild 2009).
This has led to an increase in illegal immigrants in China from African countries. However, China is adopting restraint in processing application permits for legal and illegal immigrants to ensure it controls this population.
It has also declared that all illegal immigrants must be reported to the local authority and a reward of 100 Yuan give to the whistleblower. However, it is also discouraging its residents from migrating to other countries even though this is not a legal requirement. On the other hand, it has established strict immigration policies to ensure illegal immigrants from Mongolia and North Korea are not given asylum in China.
Conclusion
Immigration is an important aspect of national security, and it cannot be separated from foreign policy and international relations. Immigrants (legal and illegal) may develop or destroy a nation depending with the relations between the host and home nations.
However, there must be strict guidelines regarding illegal immigrants to ensure their welfare and that of others are respected. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that a nation develops good relations with others by valuing their sovereignty. On the other hand, citizens must not run away from their countries when they experience economic problems.
References
Bryans, D, 2009, Introduction to International Politics: The Logic of Anarchy, Columbia University Press, New York.
Buzan, B, 2011, Is International Security Possible? New Thinking about Strategy and International Security, HarperCollins, London.
Cohen, R, 2012, Diasporas and the Nation-State: Redefining Security, Preager, New York.
Graham, D, 2010, Migration, Foreign Policy, Globalisation and Human Security, Routledge, London.
Guild, E, 2009, Cultural and Identity Security,” in Elspeth Guild and Joanne van Selm; International Migration and Security, Routledge, London.
Hobsbowm, J, 2010, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Huntington, S, 2012, Who Are We: The Challenges of American National Identity, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Katzenstein, P, 2009, The Culture of National Security, Columbia University Press, New York,
Kleinschmidt, H, 2011, Migration, Regional Integration and Human Security, Columbia University Press, New York.
Kulischer, M, 2008, Europe in the Move: War and Population Changes, 1917-1947, Columbia University Press, New York.
An illegal immigrant or an alien can bee conceptualized as that individual who enters and stays in a foreign country illegally. Illegally here means that the person or immigrant fails to adhere to the laid down rules that apply to visitors entering the country. There are many reasons why people immigrate illegally to other countries.
This includes economic needs, social needs and in some cases the need to commit a crime. Several strategies are used by the illegal immigrants to gain access into the foreign country. They may enter legally using a visitor’s visa, then overstay, or they may use illegal routes that circumvent customs. They may also compromise the immigration officials by bribing them.
The United States of America is one of the countries in the world with a large number of illegal immigrants. It is estimated that about 11 million individuals were living illegally in the United States of America in the year 2008 (Riley 2). Majority of these are from neighboring countries such as Mexico and other war torn countries around the world.
Successive governments have made efforts to deal with menace. Some of the strategies used are to grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants, a move that has attracted a lot of controversy especially from conservative members of the society. In this essay, the writer is going to argue why it is better to confer amnesty to these illegal immigrants as opposed to continuing to illegalize their existence.
Amnesty to the Illegal Immigrants: Is it the Best Option?
Granting amnesty to the illegal immigrants involves recognizing their existence and removing the criminal tag from this existence. Their crime of breaking immigration rules is forgiven (Rumbold 3). It also means that they will no longer be prosecuted for working with forged documents or driving with fake licenses (Rumbold 4).
Those who oppose granting amnesty to the undocumented workers support their arguments by giving several reasons. They are of the view that such a move will be counter-productive economically. This is given that the undocumented workers will take the labor meant for the natives, putting the American worker at a disadvantage.
However, as Riley (2) reports, scientific facts do not support this position. Studies have indicated that, if America was to grant the more than 12 million undocumented workers a legal status, the economy will benefit. More jobs for the native American will be created, as well as improved wages for the same (Ellsworth 5: Riley 5).
The GDP of the country will rise by about 1.5 trillion dollars if this were to happen (Riley 5). This is given that the illegal immigrants will now be able to participate fully in the economy. They will be able to start businesses and pay taxes as legal entrepreneurs in the country. This is something that they can not do while they are regarded as aliens illegally living here.
Those against amnesty admit the fact that illegal immigrants came to this country to escape poverty, war and other vagaries of life in their mother countries. However, they are of the view that, as much as this might be the case, this is not an excuse to breaking immigration and other laws (Berry & Cooney 4).
However, these critics are forgetting the fact that these people risked more than their lives when coming here. They risked separation from families and ostracisation and rejection in their new country. It is only fair to legalize their existence, given that the only crime that they committed is trying to make their lives and those of their families better. Surely, no one should be punished for this.
Deportation or arresting of illegal immigrants can be counter-productive, a fact that those against amnesty ignore or are not aware of. There are those immigrants who come here and start families. The children they bore and in some cases their partners are technically legal citizens (Ellsworth 4).
By arresting and deporting them, the government will in effect be breaking up an American family. This is not only unfair to the immigrant, but also to the innocent children, whose only fault was to be born in an illegal immigrant’s family. This is despite the fact that the illegal immigrant is allowed to take their children with them.
This is still unfair, considering that the child, who is innocent, will be subjected to the poverty and other vagaries in the parent’s mother country.
It is technically impossible to round up and deport all illegal immigrants in the United States of America (Berry & Cooney 5). This is given that it is not possible to execute a door to door campaign to arrest all illegal immigrants.
This means that the authority’s opposition to their existence does not negate the fact that they still live among the Native Americans. They continue contributing to the economy, albeit using illegal documents such as fake work permits. This means that it will be easier, and it will make more sense, to grant these individuals amnesty instead of arresting them.
Conclusion
There are those who argue that granting illegal immigrants’ amnesty will pose a national security threat by easing the entry of terrorists and other criminal elements into the country.
However, just like other arguments from these people, this is fuelled by fear and uncertainty. Unless the immigration department is inefficient, no terrorist or criminal should pass through the screening carried out on the potential candidates for amnesty.
In conclusion, it is important to restate that facts prove that it is more beneficial to grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants than to criminalize their existence. The benefits range from economical, social among others. Americans should embrace these people instead of shunning them by supporting the call for amnesty.
Works Cited
Berry, Benson, and Cooney, Stillwater. “Should Illegal Aliens Currently Living in the United States be Granted Permanent Residency Status?” Juniata.edu. Web.
Ellsworth, Eva. “Some Arguments for Amnesty”. Mensnewsdaily. Web.
