Theory Post  

Posted by Emily

In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts limited immigrants', especially from France and Ireland, role in politics and government. Then, in the 1850's, the formation of the Know Nothing Party provided a haven for people with a strong idea of nativism (opposition to immigration). As Irish-Catholics immigrated into the United States in the mid-1900's many people grew even more hostile to foreign-born people living in the United States. Immigration has been around forever, it's how continents were settled 100,000-200,000 years ago when modern humans migrated out of Africa to settle the world. Immigration is so hotly debated today because it's literally the origin of civilization.
With every new idea or event comes two different views on the subject. The same can be said for illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has two very different sides
1. Anti-Illegal Immigration-the individuals belonging to this group of people believe that illegal immigration is inflicting harm on our economy and society. They believe that illegal immigrants are taking American's jobs and are not being deported in high enough numbers. Anti-illegal immigration followers believe that illegals are simply a burden on the taxpayer and drain the United States of emergency medical care and free education. They also strongly oppose amnesty.
2. Pro-Immigration-it's hard to say that anyone is pro-illegal immigration, but there are definitely groups out there that believe the border needs to be made more easily accessible for open immigration. They believe in legal immigration, and the valuable effect these workers have on the workforce. Pro-immigration followers also believe that the burden illegals put on taxpayers is not really as big as it may seem. They believe that as children of immigrants grow up, "their contributions to the overall economy should exceed the costs of their education".
These polarized sides both hold valid arguments for and against immigration, which is why it's so hard to bring these two contrasting viewpoints to a consensus. The one thing that could unite these two different groups is to remind them why they believe in certain ideas. Both groups are strongly patriotic, they hold a firm belief in what's right for this country, and want whatever will strengthen the United States the most. If these sides were to both recognize that their beliefs stem from patriotism, then I believe they could tolerate, if not accept or merge, each other's views.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 7:27 AM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

2 comments

Dear Emily,
Great post. Your theory is intuitive in that you recognize the common thread between both sides of the issue of illegal immigration. I think that it is interesting that the common thread is that they are both concerned with well-being of the masses. What do you think could be a stepping stone towards coming to an agreement on how to deal with illegal immigration? What is the first action our government should take in tackling the issue while trying to balance the ideologies of both sides of the issue?
Keep up the great work!
Thanks,
Merritt

October 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Merrit,
Thanks for the comment!
Your question is a good one, and very hard to answer. If I could answer your question, the debate between pro-immigration and anti-immigration would end. However, it's very hard to come up with a definite plan that will put groups at ease. If a fence is built in favor of anti-immigration groups, environmentalists and pro-immigration will be unhappy, and will believe that it's too harsh. If amnesty is given to illegals, anti-immigration groups will believe we are being too soft. So, unfortunately, I do now have an answer for you, just a general assumption that maybe this issue can never truly be solved.
Thanks,
Emily

October 22, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Post a Comment