Should Countries Implement Immigration Quotas?

Migration policies are often designed with the sole objective of influencing international migration by either restricting or encouraging circular migration, immigration or emigration(Ripsman & Paul, 2010). Open border policies have contributed to the uncontrolled to the flow of illegal immigrants into countries and in turn generating challenges to the host countries. The fundamental basis for arguments has been whether open immigration policy or restricted immigration policy

The article opens up with background information from Strait’s first two parts of her immigration article. She begins by explaining that immigration information can be found in news media, government agencies, nongovernment organizations, and scholarly journals. Using these sources, many researchers have found some debatable issues regarding taxing, military duties, repatriation, and profiling of immigrants. These first two parts open the doors for Strait to begin discussing the most fitting immigration model for various countries.

Refugees have been the spotlight in many countries in the past few years. In Canada, refugees where mainly sourced from Syria, Eritrea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Congo (Puzic 5). The difference between refugees and immigrants is “refugees are people who have fled their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution. They are not able to return home” (Government of Canada 1), but immigrants are people who chose to leave their country and settle in another for their own reasons. A lot of people do hate the fact that refugees have been the main focus recently, and how “they have been treated better” than our own people, but that does not beat the fact that there are many advantages that come from the refugees. Refugees bring the advantages of increasing the country’s population, boosting the country’s economy, and increasing the country’s diversity.

The article from the FTR documents that stood out to me the most was an excerpt of a speech by Robert H. Clancy, a Republican congressman from Detroit with a large immigrant constituency, in which he defended the “Americanism” of Jewish, Italian, and Polish immigrants and attacked the quota provisions of the bill as racially discriminatory and “un-American.” This speech was made after the WWI economic recession associated with labor unrest and in response to the Immigration Act of 1924. The Immigration Act was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, but illustrated how white Americans reject anyone who doesn’t fit their ideal white educated mold.

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,

In 2012, the immigrant born population was around 40.7 million people in the United States. Even though we initially came to this land as immigrants from mainly the European countries, we are still very protective of our country. Americans have this greediness when it comes to having our own land and not sharing it. Remembering back to when Americans first came to this region of the world, we kicked out the true natives and made this land our own for our safekeeping. Hundreds of years later, we still have the same mentality of keeping The United States away from others who were not there in the first place to take it over. Jones-Correa and Mendoza both address the issue of letting in immigrants and whether it could benefit our society or not. They

Immigration has grown to become a big aspect in today’s society in Canada. Most cities have welcomed immigration, although mainly portrayed in bigger cities. Immigration in Canada has come with its share of pros as well as its share of cons. The pros with the immigration in Canada starts off with the racial blending of persons in the community, giving future generations a more positive outlook towards equality for all races because they grow up in a world that, for them, hasn’t seen racial and cultural inequality. In my opinion, in a world where children aren’t aware of the cultural and racial inequalities that had been put forth in the generations before them is an enormous strength to immigration for the fact that every person has a right to life and liberty and to have those ideas implanted in the generations to come is detrimental to a working society. Cons found in immigration in Canada fall in employment. The more people immigrate to Canada, the more jobs are being filled leaving others without any. The Immigration Refugee Board is able to offer a wide

My thoughts on immigration changed a lot because I think that I’m more able to analyze countries policies and especially the U.S policies toward Immigration. I used to think a country restrictive toward immigration was mostly linked to conservatism reasons but the liberal paradox mentioned in the first reading by Hollifield “The Emerging migration state” made me understand that they were more behind immigration restrictions. The liberal paradox create a vicious sphere where even though international economic forces push states towards greater openness, the international state system and powerful political forces push states towards greater closure. This paradox trapped states because they have to maintain a competitive advantage and keep their economies open to trade, investment and migration but all this advantages follow with the some political risks such as national security and an identification of the type benefit that immigrants could get once on the territory. This liberal paradox explain why countries has established immigration quotas as mentioned by Daniels in the reading “The 1920s: The triumph of the old nativism”. Even though in the application these quotas were exceeded the establishment of this prove the determination of government to address immigration issues. Nevertheless, there are evidences that show that some policies restrictions toward immigrations were purely racial. It

When I first read about the national origins quota I was appalled that the government showed bias toward the different nationalities. They preferred educated Western Europeans, I cannot say I fully agree with this level of censorship, however now I can see how keeping this quota would be beneficial to America. Immigrants with education are an asset to American society; however non educated immigrants can become a liability. The article shares that in 1965, the U.S. House voiced a concern for the unforeseen number of Latin Americans who might enter the

No I don’t think that state and local governments pass their own laws regulating immigration. What is wrong with allowing them to come to the United States to make a better living for themselves and they family. I feel if they abide by the same rules as we do there shouldn’t be a problem. It is estimated that there are currently ten to eleven million undocumented immigrants in the United States. If they are here, make them legal. The Federal Government said that immigration issues have caused great debate amongst community members. Lawmakers, politicians, interest groups, and civil rights activists have been vocal in voicing their concerns. There shouldn’t be a debate, they just want to fit in and be a part of United

World War One and the twentieth century marked the harshest and most limiting immigration restriction yet. This time period created a nationwide fear of immigrants that is still very visible today both in federal legislation and in everyday treatment of immigrants. Although immigration restriction never went away, there have been recent attempts to create new laws that will limit immigration. This recent push against immigration has stemmed from events or statements that have caused people to fear

The Liberal party proposed several institutional reforms regarding immigration. Firstly, allowing foreign students and resident workers to be able to apply to immigrate to Canada while they are in the country. Secondly, ensuring that children who are adopted internationally become Canadian citizens once completed their adoption process. Lastly, they wanted to cut down the “right of permanent residence” fee which at the time was $975 to $600, then to $300 after 12 months, and finally to zero within two budgets. However, the major proposition by the Liberals on immigration was funding. They wanted to allocate 1.3 billion dollars to immigration settlement and integration programs, 700 million over 5 years to clear up immigration applications.

Human rights and new opportunities are important for people in countries with social issues; however, Canada is accepting a significant responsibility letting these people in, and this is an important point that the writer does not mention. It is crucial to understand why the United States is rejecting Somali immigrants and the key arguments the Canadian government has to let them in, and this is other point that the author did not develop. This issue needs a complex solution, one is to educate society about the situation in which immigrants live, and present them the stories behind immigrants. North American society should understand the situation and the effects of discrimination because if people know what is happening it is easier to do something about it. Society must comprehend the situation to feel concern and then try to

In 1965, the 89th Congress got rid of the quota system on immigration (only a certain amount of immigrants can come in from specific countries) and replaced it with a system that was more equitable. According to Roger Daniels, Congress successfully replaced the former quota system because it was seen as very discriminatory toward Asians and Eastern Europeans especially. The Immigration Law was not intended to have major consequences, according to Daniels, but it ended up causing a high influx of South American and Asian immigration over the following decades. Although Daniels presents a good argument and is correct in that Congress succeeded in their initial plans, he does not give many specific reason, and he argues that the consequences of the bill were not foreseen, which is incorrect; many people did see and were afraid of the consequences the bill might bring. In addition, the primary sources’ argument provides for scenarios that Daniels did not account for having to do with the underlying intent of the bill; like that it could have been spurred by diplomatic relations and war.

On the subject of immigration, one student at J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia commented, "we make America more interesting" (Swerdlow 61). As true as these words are, the question of how much more interest should be allowed to cross our borders each year, and what exactly defines an American these days puzzle the already 281 million residents who find comfort in the freedoms of America. America is a land of immigrants, also referred to as the "melting pot of the world." However, the possibility that America 's kettle is over-flowing concerns its citizens and some politicians.