Essay

Linda Chavez’ “The Realities of Immigration” combats how most politicians view immigration. She states in her essay that most politicians are misinformed and take a stand against immigration to seem tough (Chavez 436). Chavez provides historical and statistical facts to argue the statement that immigrants take all the jobs and leave citizens unemployed. She states that immigrants tend to be more motivated to work harder and take on cheap

“I got up and pretended to study the pictures on the walls like I was a lover of religious art. When I got to the Merciful Mother right above Sinita’s head, I reached in my pocket and pulled out the bottom I’d found on the train. It was sparkly like a diamond and had a little hole in back so you could thread a ribbon through it and wear it like a romantic lady’s choker necklace. It wasn’t something I’d do, but I could see the button would make a good trade with someone inclined in that direction.

Giving into the demands of upset citizens, different political parties began to campaign with planks in their platforms dedicated to legally destroying immigration. The Austrian Freedom Party, for instance, campaigned to increase the amount of laws that prevent immigration and to make it more difficult for non-Austrians to live and work amongst the Austrian people (Doc 6). By creating a platform to change a country’s laws, it is clear Europeans were so upset with immigration that they wanted to make fundamental changes in their governments’ policies. People were unhappy with how their society was transforming and they wanted to put official rules in place that would allow Europe to return to its former state. Enoch Powell, a member of the Conservative Party, brought this common desire to light by explaining that people did not want to live in a country filled with immigrants, so action needed to be taken in order to curb the high immigration levels (Doc 2). The fact that many Europeans wanted politicians to take a stand against immigration shows how upset people were with the rising numbers of immigration, which became roughly 500,000 immigrants per year. By involving the government, European citizens were able to project their anti-immigration sentiment into the rest of the continent. Involving politicians and political parties shows how adament some Europeans were about keeping foreigners out of

When immigration policy is discussed, typically, it is discussed within the confines of egalitarian notions and sentiments, and inside the boundaries and parameters set by generally Marxist-influenced social democracy. Characteristically, it is not discussed pertaining to the concept of a social order built on the rights of property owners, sharers, and contributors to and of the common stock- which at their discretion- may exclude bad apples, lazy contributors, rotten characters, trespassers, and terrorists. Once egalitarian sentiments and notions are rejected full-scale- (only giving credence to those that have empirical weight or logical consistency) more proper, more substantive interdisciplinary analyses may reveal that the current investigative techniques employed by current mainstream political theorists are- in the context of reality, incorrect, superficial and quite shallow.

The party in government is made up of ___________ and has direct impact on governmental policy; it is largely independent of ___________________.

Even though Democrats are attempting to help undocumented immigrants by negotiating an immigration deal with President Trump, many undocumented immigrants are not open to compromise, making it difficult for Democrats to make any progress in regards to immigration laws. At the same time, Democrats have to be mindful of working class voters in the midwest who generally hold an unfavorable view against illegal immigration and support the construction of an United States - Latin American border wall. While this article does not mention any specific powers vested in the United States government, it shows a real life example of how political ideology affects the political opinions held by different groups.

Immigration has been an essential but disruptive aspect of the people and the political state of the United States; however, debates related to immigration and its benefits are intensified significantly. Opposing immigration keeps ranting on how government should exercise better law to control over the people entering into the States from the foreign land. One of the most buzzed argument is that American citizen is unemployed because immigrants stole their jobs and disrupted the economy (Hoban, 2017). Also, an appeal to National security and vulnerability after several terrorist attacks all over the world and also to the government to keep track and maintain the no. of immigrants to create a safer environment (Cafaro, 2009). However, the contrary to these arguments have often been proven right. The pattern of the immigration shows that the contribution of the immigrants has resulted in an economic boost that cannot be overlooked by the government.

For fear that immigrants are crossing the border illegally, many Americans find it a threat. Dancher Keltner, University of California-Berkley states “any newcomer represents a threat to the person who has power” (753). Native hierarchies, that have wealth tend to think about what people in their in-groups can offer, instead of what others in the out-group can contribute to the table. When this happens, it can lead to people being cliché. However, people who are at the top of the hierarchies, who don’t think carefully, could embrace a certain kind of behavior towards immigrants. Keltner says “powerful people are more likely to see other people as means to their ends” (753). Therefore, it is hard for liberals and conservatives to find a common ground on immigration policy.

Smith’s article “Our Fear of Immigrants” starts by offering reasoning for why people do fear immigrants, and seems to suggest that sparse feelings for competent and emotional

Immigration-related discussions could always cause vehement debates and arouse ambivalent feelings among both policy makers and the general public. On the one hand, we appreciate that immigrants contribute to cultural diversity, social vibrancy and economic prosperity; on the other hand, we sometimes could not resist to express our concerns and complaints about how immigrants constantly drive competition in job markets, put strain on public resources, and pose threats to social peace. Although classical economic model predicts with the expansion of labor force caused by increasing immigrants, wages or per capita income will fall and living standards will deteriorate, there might be a subgroup of immigrants who could, in contrast,

Following the 2016 presidential election, the undocumented immigrant communities were anxious about their future in America. A multitude felt distressed, afraid that they would be separated from and would no longer be able to support their family. The level of insecurity within these communities across the country reached its apex. Simply, this phenomenon occurred because people had listened to months of anti-immigrant rhetoric that then-candidate Donald Trump had been spewing. Mass deportation and separation from family and friends were on the minds of many.

The U.S found itself confronted to new challenges that they didn’t think of before. This new challenges led to a shift of American attitudes towards immigration. This was due to the high influx of the immigrants coming from Europe and of the liberal paradox related to immigration (Tichenor 2002, 51). The United States found itself caught between two stools where immigration benefited the economy but the on the other side its obligation to set limits regarding social and publics welfare available to the new wave of immigrants.

In order to gain favor with the native masses, it seems that many politicians have used immigrants has scapegoats. More to the point, when trying to find a way to isolate a country’s problems whether it be unemployment or the economy, most politicians try to find a scapegoat to blame for the mishaps of the country’s well-being. For example, when the Marijuana tax act of 1937 was passed its sole purpose was to halt the immigration of people from Mexico. Moreover, many blamed the immigrants from Mexico for the usage of Marijuana. As the usage exponentially increased within the United States, the political solution was a blame on immigration. This is but one of the many reasons immigrants become targeted by politicians and the government. However,

The United States has maintained a tolerate-hate relationship with undocumented immigrants, and really immigrants in general. DeSoto (2016) provides a unique perspective in regards to the system surrounding undocumented immigration, “until the nature of global capital is arranged so that such [economical] asymmetries are less extreme, people will migrate towards money and opportunity and way from poverty and lack of opportunity” (p. 2). As Hilfinger-Messias, McEwen, and Boyle (2015) emphasize, more often then not when immigrants become increasingly visible in society nativism resurfaces exclusionary tendencies, and immigration policies become increasingly prohibitive and strict,

To measure societal acceptance towards immigrants, attitudinal data can be utilized to better understand the effects of immigration on both societies. One way to measure the general political reaction of each country towards the influx of immigrants. Though such data is constrained by temporal boundaries, a blanket understanding can be gleamed from surveys taken in nations during different periods. Further, in both countries, support for the importance of mainstream right-wing strategies has exacerbated the politicization of the immigrant issue. A survey asking identical questions in the two countries was conducted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2000. The Swedes tend to be more positive than the Danes, but the differences are not dramatic. However, similarly to Denmark, societal attention to the issue increased in the 1980s, not least due to a considerable growth in the number of refugees from the Middle East. In both nations, there are clear trends that reveal a significant rise in negative attitudes towards immigrants; but, the levels of said societal and political attention towards immigrants and the policies enacted which affect immigrants differ greatly in Sweden and Denmark.