Thursday, January 23, 2014
The "state" of immigration
Do we need a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach to immigration reform? While the Constitution limits what states can do about illegal immigration, federalism has provided a genuine opportunity to learn from the experiments (both pro and anti-immigrant) of various states. Perhaps the answer to immigration reform lies with the states after all?
The "state" of immigration
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe both top down and bottom up approach is ineffective keeping illegal immigrants out while raising the budget for border security. In recent years what our National Government has been trying to do is being counteracted thanks to States who are turing into pro immigration. This has been shown Through California passing laws to give immigrants driver’s licenses. But, I believe that states are going to far in giving immigrants any type of rights other than humanitarian rights because the national government was given an implied power to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the border and making a life for themselves in the US illegally. But, “The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments” (CHAPTER 2: THE SOURCE AND SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION). Overall, illegal immigration will continue no matter what type of direct you hit it from.
ReplyDelete-Imran Jalal
Period 3
I agree with the author of this article’s main point. Pro-immigration reform is much more successful than anti-immigration reforms. Immigration enlarges the economy and leads to innovation, entrepreneurship and technological change. This is proven through the contrast in Alabama’s and California’s policies. Alabama’s anti-immigration policy led to a decrease in the economy while California’s pro-immigration policy was far more successful. The federal government must follow California’s example and create pro-immigration reforms. Our government must not demonize illegal immigrants or immigrants of any religion or race, rather they must create policy to help them think of their future steps towards documentation and success which in turn allows the U.S. to prosper.
ReplyDeleteSamira Torna
P. 3
Upon reading the article I noticed a sentence that said, "but we know that pouring billions more into enforcement won't end illegal immigration, nor will it remedy the situation of unauthorized immigrants who are already here." It's very interesting that in 2017, with Trump centering around illegal immigration, the U.S. is about to spend billions to try and end it. I agree that states can only do so much to help and that we need a pro-immigration reform. There are many ways of legally entering the United States and having a positive viewpoint on immigrants as well as actively helping them gain citizenship is what we need. Immigration should not be a factor of fear. It needs to be looked at positively as a way to enhance our economy and grow for the better.
ReplyDeleteMaya Domozetska
P.3
The U.S. would be better off with a bottom-up approach to immigration reform because the federal government’s efforts at border patrol have proved to be futile. It wastes money on a program that continues to be unsuccessful, and yet the political leaders at the national level expect a different result. This type of insane behavior suggests why states need to lead immigration reform. Although the federal government can prevent oppressive immigration laws such as Arizona’s, it lacks the perspective of individual states which are the ones being most affected by immigration. There are currently complaints to secure only one border, and it is not Canada. So why should non-southern-border states have a right to make a decision on an issue that does not directly affect them. It would not be smart for the national government to stop California’s progressive immigration reform especially considering the economic benefits. Despite this, because of the commerce clause, the federal government is likely to remain involved for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteRobert Snyder P. 2
The talk on illegal immigration is hard to have a resolution to because of, like in the article, there are two sides of it. Immigrants are good for the nation but, legally it's not ok to keep them here. The US thinking by spending more on border control won't help at all and just cost us money. If it's such a big problem for us to keep out illegal immigrants, why don't we make it easier to make them legal? I mean the only illegal thing about illegal immigrants is that they don't have the documents to be named a legal resident of the US. Yes there are some who do criminal activity, but so do legal residents of the US so really we should spend more time helping them. The article even says that we thrive off of immigrants. It's easier said than done but there are better ways to solve illegal immigration.
ReplyDelete- Justin Andal period 3
The article addressed the topic of adding more security within the Border Patrol, but it clearly did not work for the national government very well (during Clinton's presidency). More security has just forced illegal immigrants to find more creative ways to get to America; for example, digging tunnels or crossing the scorching desert. The idea of Trump's wall will not fully stop illegal immigration, I don't think immigration can ever be completely stopped, but it may defer some of those looking to get across the border. If America was founded on the basis of freedom and opportunity, why wouldn't the national government want more people to enter the country and feel like they belong? I know the government doesn't always look on the moral side and wish the best for everyone in the country, but at the very least if the immigrants become citizens they would start to pay taxes, which in turn would help the national government. I think that Governor Brown was on the right track when he allowed illegal immigrants to come to America and obtain the "special licenses", but this is how disputes start between states and the national government. I believe the best way to deal with the immigration issue is to make the process of becoming a citizen easier for those crossing the border, instead of having thousands of people try and finesse their way into America. People will always find a way to get to the land of the free, whether it be illegal or legal, so why not allow them to become citizens and have the same regulations and rights that those currently living in America obtain?
ReplyDelete-Madison Rhind p. 3
I agree with the author's stance on immigration reform. When the federal government passes legislation, they don't often see the full effect of their actions. Usually, the states suffer the brunt of the blow when it comes to poor policy-making and then the federal government realizes it much later, if at all. So, it seems like they should leave at least some power to regulate immigration to whom it affects the most (individual states).
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think immigration policies should side with the ideology that our country started off with, which allows people to come here to start a new life, making the United States safe place for people around the world. Obviously, it would be impractical to allow everyone to stay here, as we can only support so many people. But, for those immigrants who have already come here I think we should focus more on how we can make them more feel more included, not how we can get rid of them. Governor Brown definitely had the right idea when he passed his immigration policies. Hopefully he will inspire the rest of the country to do the same.
Matthew Stewart P. 2
I agree with the author's immigration reform, immigrants should be welcomed in this country not pushed away. Although it may be hard to see for many Americans immigrants do nothing but help out our community/economy and this statement was clearly shown through Alabama and California. It showed that with Alabama's anti-immigration policies there was a negative economy change but as for California who showed a pro-immigration tone led to a positive economy change. Immigration enlarges our economy and helps us out in the long run.. so why push them away? The federal government should start making changes in their polices about immigration because building a wall won't resolve anything. Immigrants will always find a way so lets welcome them into our country.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 29, 20171 @12:35 Pm
Deletewas from Mirna Munoz in period 5
This article lacks full detail of both "pros and cons" of the different approaches that the state and federal government enforce. Federalism separates state and central government, which leads to a differentiation of "self-interests". The article is yelling, "Use the bottom-up approach! Give the power to the states! It's morally and economically correct!" At the same time, we disregard the interests of the federal government. We can't assume that both houses of Congress use a punitive approach JUST because they hate immigrants. (The article makes the argument biased) The top-down approach is utilized in the interest of the federal government, but this article doesn't directly state what those interests are. Yes, it's evident with the given statistical data that Trump's prospective "Wall" and the top-down approach altogether is ineffective in many aspects. Still, I strongly feel as if there are other aspects of both sides that the editors chose to purposefully omit.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Arceo
P-3
Sorry Period 5 haha
DeleteI believe progressive pro-immigration laws, like California's, is what we need. Clearly the stick approach is not working. As shown by Alabama's failed immigration law. The national government should leave this decision to the states. There are many states in congress who don’t border Mexico. Yet they are making decisions for those that do. Because this only affect certain states and not the whole nation. The national government should leave it to those states to decide what to do about immigration. We don't need more money wasted in border patrol when it is clearly not working and only serving to fruitlessly end the lives of over 2,000 people in the last 10 years alone. If some states wish to continue to spend money on this program it can be done through grants of aid. Just like how some states get money to build dams and others who don’t need to don’t, those who need help protecting their borders can and the others won’t. This would save the national government a considerable amount of money and allow the border states to decide for themselves what should happen.
ReplyDeleteP.4
*P.5
DeleteBut if the federal government leaves it to the states, we'll get a diversity of responses to immigration as seen with Alabama and California. I suppose we could just let some states hang themselves and others thrive . . .
DeleteThis is an interesting article. To my understanding this country was literally founded by immigrants from Great Britain, and each person that followed them were immigrants as well, so what I don't understand is that we went from "America's melting pot" and "freedom for all" to "lets kick everyone out". The article makes a good point that the "stick" approach isn't working, doubling the security at the border isn't working, we need to welcome the immigrants and make it easier for them to become legal. Either way people will still find a way to get over the border. Instead of allowing them to work and become citizens they are pushed underground and live in fear of getting deported. I speak from personal experience and my family who legally moved here on a workers visa, but still doesn't have citizenship, and we have been here under green cards for over 10 years. It's easier for people to just come illegally, because face it there is a bias against immigrants. Therefore if we make it easier to become legal, we will be able to accept the inevitable, that people want to be in America, and use those people to better the country. Immigration is a complement to a country, people are willing to leave their home to be better, do better, in a better country. So, isn't it fair to give them a chance at least? Immigration really isn't a bad thing and as soon as the government can come to terms with that, they can create a better system to "fix" it.
ReplyDeleteLauren Hartogh per.3
Part of the backlash against immigration is that America is experiencing a demographic shift unlike anything we've experienced before, and it's not even due to immigration. The white population has shrunk to historic lows; the Hispanic population is increasing at a rapid rate. In the next few decades, whites may cease to be the majority for the first time in American history. Add terrorism to the soup and a lot of Americans are struggling to adapt to rapidly changing demographic circumstances.
DeleteI agree with the author that we, both as a country and individual states, should focus more on pro-immigration reforms. Immigration is never going to stop occurring in this country, and the wall that President Trump plans to build will not only be a drain of resources, it will also be very ineffective in stopping the flow of immigrants. If we use pro-immigration reforms, much more capital and resources will be saved that can be used to benefit American citizens rather than wasting it on a wall that is going to prove to be completely useless anyways.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Wagner
p.2
In this state of immigration it seems to me that the amount of illegal immigrants at this point in time would be difficult to monitor and act on. As much as the national government wants us to deport and stop illegals, they fail to look at the other side of the story where states like California benefit economically through illegals. It would only make sense to shift the view to reform and being able to include immigrants into our nation that is founded by immigrants. As much hypocrisy that can be thrown around however also leaves questions regarding crime, drugs, and growing population but do the positives out way the negatives ? That is what the states and the national government must come to figure out if we are to make any progress in immigration reform.
ReplyDeletep.3
I saw a recent article citing the number of illegal immigrants at around 11 million, of which 60% are of Mexican origin.
DeleteContrary to what appears to be the federal belief, immigrants are not weeds that come into the US and use up our resources-- they are business boosters and economic partners. As previous anecdotes can point out, just because you ban something does not mean it is gone. Virtually, making immigration to the US more difficult will only cause the migrants to take more drastic measures in order to get in. Passing any laws to limit this will eventually be forced to be revoked and thus a waste of time, as exemplified by means such as the Prohibition Act. As the cliche goes, "if you can't beat them, join them." Laws should be passed that make immigration easier on both parties, but still reasonable so the US does not get a million new citizens every month. Doing so would stimulate the economy in every aspect and create a friendlier attitude towards people from all sorts of backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteLainey Gerber
p. 5
I agree. The "illegal" or "undocumented" title creates a stigma and allows others to discuss them in almost sub-human terms. What's the difference between an undocumented Mexican immigrant and a documented Mexican immigrant? One is fine and the other is undesirable?
DeleteI agree that we need pro-immigration reform rather than anti-immigration reform; the fact is that the situation needs remedy, and, as demonstrated by the case in Alabama described in the article, anti-immigrant laws threaten the demographics and productivity of the states in which they are passed. The worry is that we harbor too many illegal immigrants, but trying to keep immigrants out is unrealistic and irreconcilable with the ideals of our government. It seems to me that we should then work to change the status of these illegal immigrants, to give everyone a fair opportunity to achieve a life with the rights of an American citizen.
ReplyDeleteJulia Hernandez P.3
I agree with the standpoint of the author in this article. The bottom-up approach is far more successful as opposed to the top-down approach which tends to favor the national government's interests. Why should we pour so much money into border enforcement that proves to be constantly inefficient? It's in our country's nature to welcome immigrants and to present them with the opportunity for a new life and it's time that the whole country takes California's approach to immigration. As a first generation American, I've seen just how hardworking and how ambitious immigrants can be. My family is composed of individuals who have helped strengthen our state's economy in their pursuit of a better life here in America. Obviously we cannot take in every single immigrant that comes here but it is incredibly important for us to assure that the ones living here are integrated into our society and not pushed aside or sent away.
ReplyDelete-Noah Rico per.5
We need to put a face to the undocumented. Once Americans see the many contributions, it might change their attitude.
DeleteWhile most of the population are either immigrants or descend from immigrants, there is still a stigma against immigrants who are trying to make their way into a better life. By focusing on bottom up, pro-immigration reforms, we could save on resources and help our economies. There is also the thought that illegal immigrants bring crime with them, and only mean for bad intent, when in reality, more often than not, these people are fleeing from harm. Creating policies that focus more on the "carrot" (in this case, making it easier, perhaps for citizens to come in to the country, especially considering the arduous process that comes with legal immigration) than the stick, would be beneficial and should come with focus from the states, and less from the national government.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Vista, pd.5
I believe that the United States needs pro-immigration legislature whether it is at the state level or the federal level. Pro-immigration policies have shown positive results and have brought prosperity contrary to the anti-immigration bills (California vs. Alabama). Morally, every individual should have an equal chance towards achieving the "American Dream". This country was founded by immigrants from Europe and now the discrimination against immigrants is hypocritical.
ReplyDelete- Gursimran Bains (Period 3)
I agree with the author's stance that it is about time we start considering pro-immigration reforms, although this article is a stark contrast to the platform Trump ran on and insisted was the effective way to go. The example of Alabama and it's ultimately poor decision to go with an anti-immigration reform is just another reminder to me that those who press for anti-immigration conveniently forget that these are the same immigrants that are employed all over the nation in meat packaging and distributing factories (which they are often underpaid and in terrible working conditions in comparison to America's work ethics) and countless other jobs due to companies seeking cheap labor. They are often overlooked for years until it's decided to deport them, splitting up families-as the article discusses-and I'm sure a variety of other complications. While I do understand the issue of illegal immigration, the added enforcement to stop has been proven to be a failed effort-so as California has done-make it so that it can be beneficial to the state itself. But not all states would/could take that stance, and now under Trump's administration, I doubt we'll see an increase in the amount of states that will act as California has.
ReplyDeleteBeing an illegal immigrant has grown overtime to have a negative connotation. We can often neglect (if our parents or ourselves did not immigrate to the US) that at one point our ancestors immigrated. And most of the time, they immigrated because of the vast amount of opportunities that America provides, to pursue the American dream. Immigrants can bring new ideas to our country, a point often forgotten because we are so focused on their illegality. Therefore, I believe that national pro-immigration reform would be beneficial. After all, we cannot force millions of people out of America, so why not give them a chance?
ReplyDeletenatalie tang
p 3
I agree with the author how there should be a whole new immigration reform because the situation with Alabama passing their anti-immigration law made myself think what would happen to California’s economy if they did the same? This just shows how much immigrants are so important for our economy and how we need to deal with it in a whole new different way. Obviously, border patrol or fencing extensions are not cutting it because in the article it describes how much the U.S. invests so much money into those however, immigrants are increasing every year. And people should not have to die to get into the land of opportunity which makes myself feel sad how people are struggling so much wherever they are just to come here. I believe that the U.S. should go pro-immigration to increase capitalism and give chances to immigrants or help other countries with whatever economic issues they have to reduce the flow of immigrants to the U.S.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Lor Period 5
I believe that the bottom-up approach is evidently more successful. Coming from a family built upon Asian immigrants, I've always been accepting of allowing others to come to this amazing country but I cut the allowance off when people are coming to America illegally. I am very curious as to see how Trump will deal with this issue and I think that as much as I do not agree with his wall project, to hear that he is working to reduce the harsh discriminatory actions against Christian refugees to come to the states, is uplifting and gives me a hope that he will make a decision that benefits all Americans and individuals seeking to be legalized American citizens.
ReplyDeleteLyndsey Chu, P2
There is no definite answer whether which approach is better, due to the fact that this subject is so controversial. The economy knows how much immigrants contribute but the Government refuses to allow them to legally stay. This idea that spending billions of dollars towards border control will somehow aid in the stoppage and/or removal of illegal immigrants is completely absurd. This is simply a waste of money; skyrocketing our debt. The National Government needs to change this ideology of having to get rid of immigrants into making it easier for them become legal citizens. How difficult would it be to allow these immigrants, most of them working hard to better themselves and their families, to own a document that gives them the right to citizenship. Yes, I understand that there are people, immigrants and legal residents, that cause and have committed illegal acts but to generalize all immigrants as criminals is ridiculous. We need a National Governments that will not only help but stand beside those who need the support.
ReplyDelete-Dorian Cardoza Per:5
I agree that immigration is a good thing in this country. The article clearly shows the difference between states such as Alabama and California, where Alabama had a decreasing economy from being against immigration and California had a boost in economy from being accepting of immigration. The article also discusses that billions of dollars is spent on detaining illegal immigration from happening, but ultimately fails. The billions of dollars spent could be used for something more practical and better such as medical research or education programs. Ultimately, I feel if the country embraced immigration instead of trying to fight it, then the country would prosper more from immigration.
ReplyDeleteWyatt Lemoine, period: 2
It seems as if neither bottom-up or top-down reform will help in immigration reform. Top-down has proven to be extremely costly without proving much improvement to the immigration problem. On the other hand, bottom-up reform has also seen poor changes with Alabama's case. Additionally, a bottom-up approach creates conflicting laws between states as states can either have pro or anti immigration laws, and I feel that conflicting laws on an issue as big as immigration will not better the issue. However, in the end, I think there will always be an immigration issue as there are immigrants that benefit the community and immigrates that deter the community.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Lu, P.2
I believe the true problem with American immigration is the legality of it. Many people enter this country in ways which are illegal under current law. However, the current law that is in effect today cannot be enforced effectively without hurting the nation in some way, the most obvious being financially. Illegal immigrants, especially in states like California, help the economy by taking up jobs that would otherwise be left undone and vacant because of their unpopularity among American citizens. With my current knowledge on the issue, I would say the best route to take would be to try and control and monitor illegal immigration into the U.S. rather than attempt to halt it by passing pro-immigration laws across the nation.
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel Mintah P. 3
i believe after reading the article and seeing the stats and bills passed that the bottom-up approach makes far more sense than the top-down approach. i think it makes more sense because the fact that America was essentially founded by immigrants and who is the national government to deny people rights of looking for better opportunities here. i think what the governor of California did was a very smart move because it allows immigrants a chance at certain things and they also could and in fact do help our economy even in the slightest of ways. overall, immigrants who come here have little negative effect on us and a good amount of positive which is why the bottom-up approach is more reasonable
ReplyDeleteEthan Cisneros
Period 5
I agree with the author's argument of focusing on immigration reform rather than wasting our energy on ways to get rid of immigrants already in the U.S. I also believe that Trump should give up on his adamant pursuit of building a wall. A wall will not prevent immigration;it will only result in a waste of our resources and could potentially "turn off" other foreign countries and affect our trade with them.
ReplyDeleteJames Lee P.3
I strongly believe that pro-immigration laws are a step in the right direction. One aspect of the article that stood out to me was the " right brain sympathizes and the left brain fixates on illegality". Our government tends to lean more toward the left brain. And rightly so because some important decisions have to be logically. But when it comes to innocent peoples lives who just want to grow as an individual, the line must be drawn. As shown by Alabama immigrants CAN be of use to our economy our schools and our lives. Sadly they do the work that most Americans would think of doing. Giving them that "opportunity" , as Gov Jerry Brown said right before he signed the bill, not only sends a message to Washington, but to other states and immigrants as well. That they are welcome, into a land that was originally immigrated on. By states having rules set in place that actually work and are pro-immigration I do believe that it can set powerful examples for others and hopefully be reciprocated at the federal level.
ReplyDeleteChloe' Kasozi
ReplyDeletep.5
Clearly, there is no right answer to immigration. Pouring additional funds to border security is like throw money down a drain. Meanwhile, deporting immigrants results in disorder as families are separated and the economy is crippled. It’s too late to send the illegal immigrants back for it would damage state economies and local households. There needs to be a compromise from state to state on how they’ll handle illegal immigrants and that’s where federal immigrant reform comes along.
ReplyDeleteJob Kimani
P.5
There are many issues with the immigration policies and the efforts made against illegal immigration. For on a national basis the policies attempted have been far too strict and enforcement based. As well as the areas creating heavily enforcement and tyrannic based policies have suffered and made the problem worse than where the policies were accepting and aiding the many immigrants. In this case I believe the states do hold the key to the problem, the more receptive ones have created a light for other states and the national government to follow, as the best policy would be to combine the enforcement ideals with the receptive, in order to create a comprehensive plan that reduces illegality, and fosters growth and prosperity for the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHunter Mittelstaedt
Period 3
The federal government should focus on making immigration work better for the country instead of trying to hinder it. States such as California show that immigration is beneficial and that the billions the federal government spends is not helping. States such as California should have greater input on immigration laws since they are the ones actually being affected. Trump's wall proposal is another example of the federal government wasting their resources on a project that's futile. Pro-Immigration Laws is the way to go for the future of our country that was founded on immigration.
ReplyDeleteJeric Gaddi
Period 3
After reading the article, I do agree that it is much wise to approach immigration with a bottom-up approach. Pertaining to the top-up approach, the author states in the article, "...pouring billions more into enforcement won't end illegal immigration, nor will it remedy the situation of unauthorized immigrants who are already here". If top-down was being enforced, it would deem useless due to the immigrants already in the U.S. The billions of dollars being put to extend the boarder in order to stop immigrants from entering the country would be a waste because even though it could possibly keep them out, there's still immigrants in the country that are here. There needs to be a compromise between the states and the federal governed over the issue, not just having one power control the right while the other power render useless. There needs to be a balance of what the states can do about the issue and what the federal government can do.
ReplyDelete*Kennedy Madrid P.5
DeleteI agree with the author that top-down immigration reform is not going to work. HonestlyI don't understand the stigma that surrounds immigration nowadays. This country was founded on and by immigration. Immigration is a huge topic today especially because of the executive orders the president has signed and I think they're looking at this all wrong. If these people are so focused on illegal immigrants and them being here without permission and them not contributing to the government why would they waste tax payer money to find and remove them rather than help them become legal American citizens? I think that rather than work on immigration reform we should reform the naturalization process. If it becomes easier for immigrants to gain citizenship, they can start contributing more to society through taxes and other things that they aren't able to because they aren't citizens. The way our country is going with immigration reform in going to end up doing more harm than good. Immigrants can be so helpful for our country if we just allow them to be.
ReplyDeleteClaire Williams p. 3
:)
DeleteI completely agree with the authors stance on pro-immigration, especially when it comes to illegal immigration and splitting families apart. I think that a lot of states forget that one this nation was built on immigration weather it was legal or not and that a huge amount of illegal immigrants have an enormous positive contribution to their states and those states should acknowledge this contribution instead of only acknowledging their "Illegal" Statues. While I don't like the idea of deportations happening because in most cases they split families apart, I do think that there is a need for some deportations to occur, however there should be a system in place where deportation centers help families stay together, as well as help those that truly deserve to be here because they work for a better life. I think that for the most part California has been one of the most supportive when it comes to immigration, and I truly think that most states should be more supportive of immigrants because it will truly benefit their states economy but with Trumps “unique” way of viewing immigrants and latest executive orders, it’ll be harder to get this states that are anti-immigration to be Pro-immigration .
ReplyDelete-Jhosseline Urias
Focusing on pro-immigration reforms is a lot more successful and beneficial than anti-immigration reforms. According to the article, Alabama's anti-immigration policies led to a decrease in the economy while California,who focused on pro-immigration led to far more positive and successful economy. Forcing all these illegal immigrants out of this country is just impractical. I believe that the federal government should work on changing the status of these illegal immigrants and should follow states like California and create pro-immigration policies.
ReplyDeleteSaketh Sadhu P.3
Honestly immigration is such a sensitive subject. So many people have so many opinions about it. I think pro- immigration is great. There are so many people who have come from other countries that have done the jobs we wouldn't and have made the profit of our nation go up. I believe our government does not hate immigrants. It is just the illegal immigrants that harm the nation and the people of the Us that they want to get rid of. But what I don't understand is if they are illegal but doing good for our country why we cant help them. If they are not harming the US in anyway why do we have to divide them from their families and send them back? Just help them and let them stay here and become citizens. We need immigrants.
ReplyDelete-Abeegail Meyer p.3
I agree with doing pro-immigration approaches instead of anti-immigration. People who are usually against immigration are very adamant about their opinion on getting foreigners out of the United States. However, sometimes these foreigners can be very valuable to our county. The article said that "states and communities that are hostile to immigrants will not thrive", such as Alabama after they enacted their anti-immigrant law. Immigrants play a bigger role in our economy than many people think. I do think that some immigrant reform is good. The process of becoming a legal immigrant should be made easier. I believe articles like this are important so that people can be informed about these controversial issues.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Inouye P.3
True. A lot of Silicon Valley software companies rely on immigrant labor. Is this country not producing enough software developers that we need to recruit from India and elsewhere?
DeleteOn a topic as big as immigration we are bound to have many conflicting ideas on how to resolve it. This article has shown us that in this day and age we can see that the more pro-immigration you are the better off economically you will be from a state’s point of view (for instance the difference between Alabama and California). From this perspective we should all think that immigration can only help us; however when the legality of it all comes into the light is when people get antsy on how to go about solving this as a legal matter. Personally I believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to have a properly managed border system yet I don’t want millions of dollars to go to waste or pouring into programs that have shown little effect on the issue and almost no improvement (such as the increase of money into border enforcement). One part I am not understanding is how a pro-immigration reformation will help resolve this matter.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Ayers
P:3
Given the current political tension on this particular subject the topic seems to be very polarizing. In my opinion, immigration to this country is what it is founded on. This has always been the house on a hill for immigrants coming to this country. Almost everyone of them seeks to better their lives and broaden their opportunities. We should not prevent people fro coming into this country simply because they had the misfortune of being born on a patch of dirt that doesn't encompass the Unites States. We need to make immigration to this country easier. We need to stop dividing each other and painting stereotypes onto people with such a broad brush. Once we can learn to love and accept each other despite our differences the better off we will all be.
ReplyDeleteChandler Sallaberria P.3
I believe that we need a bottom-up approach to immigration. The “stick” approach that has previously been tried does not seem to have brought a decrease in immigration instead it has brought an increase in the number of people who have died trying to cross the border. We have wasted billions in increased border protection and we have nothing to show for it only a bigger debt. If we introduced pro-immigration bills like those passed in California by Governor Brown, we could improve our economy and deal with the whole immigration issue in a humane way. If you increase border protection people are just going to try new ways to get across and many will die in the process. Not every illegal immigrant is a criminal looking to steal American jobs and resources. The majority are just looking for a better life for themselves and their family. They are not here to cause trouble and they are usually the ones working the hardest to accomplish the “American Dream”. People tend to ignore the benefits that immigration brings like Alabama whose strict anti-immigration law affected them greatly and the article even said that one of their economists estimated that it would negativity impact their economy. However, I believe that this would be more of a federal issue as the issue of immigration is one that affects the entire country not just the states near the border.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Campos P.5
I agree that the top-down approach to immigration reform from the federal government is faulty. The author exemplifies the scenario in which the national government has spent over billions of dollars to prove their anti-immigration standing. The proceeds went to extending enforcement, border patrols, etc. This experiment resulted in failure to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants and wasting expenses on an ineffective program. The other project, taken on by the state of Alabama in 2011, issued anti-immigration state laws. The outcome was racial prejudice, abandonment of jobs that natives didn't want, and overall, a weakened economy. This goes to show the positive impact that immigrants have on the economy. I believe that when given the chance and the same opportunities as other Americans are granted, hard working immigrants could truly make a difference. Not only that, but it's the humane thing to do. We have the resources to help others, so why don't we? After all, isn't this the dream and type of morality that America was built upon?
ReplyDelete(Charlize Villamin-De Leon, Period 2.)
The challenges to eliminating illegal immigration are greater today than they were before. For one thing, in order to make today's proposals politically feasible, they have decided to offer illegal immigrants not amnesty but an extended process of legalization. Confronted with the bottom up approach, a large share of the estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants (PewResearchCenter) now living in the United States would likely choose to gamble on the promise of naturalization. The focus on major border enforcement is misguided, pushing stricter enforcement forces illegal immigrants to bypass safer crossing points and travel through the desert instead. Given these realities, the United States should stop attempting to eliminate illegal immigrants and focus instead on policies that treat them with humanely (like how California has done with allowing them to obtain a driver's license). Doing so would mean that there would be a shift from a top-down approach to a bottom-up one: States with laws that were unfriendly to illegal immigrants would lose thier labor to states that were more welcoming. Indeed,the domestic/foreign "problems" we face already cast a shadow over the prospects of switiching over to a bottom up approach.
ReplyDelete-Will Montgomery P.2
As the article addresses, Congress' mainly top-down approach is not only expensive and punishment-oriented, it is ineffective and morally wrong. Focusing on border security funding will not end illegal immigration, as migrants will only find other ways to enter the country. Furthermore, as the article proves, this largely anti-immigration approach will not amend the situation of undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., and the deportations associated with this method wrongfully separates families. That said, I am in agreement with the pro-immigration bottom-up approach highlighted in the article. Immigrants, who bring cultural diversity in the U.S., provide numerous other benefits to communities all over the country. While the states should follow California's example and integrate laws that focus on helping undocumented immigrants rather than driving them out, there's only so much power available to them in order to do so. Congress has the constitutionally implied power to regulate and limit immigration, and should do so in accordance with pro-immigration, focusing on faster legalization instead of deportation. Why shouldn't we provide equal treatment and opportunities to everyone, despite of where they come from?
ReplyDeleteGianna Apoderado
Period 5
I do not believe that a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach would be more suitable for immigration reforms. The state of immigration is nationwide, yes, southern border states are the ones being affected the most due to their location, but from the border states illegal immigrants will move around to different states. Having the states lead their own reforms would be undignified due to their differing opinions on how to deal with the immigration situation. The different states would all have their own ways of dealing with it which would cause animosity towards its citizens and opposing states who do not support those ideas. I believe if it was kept top down the state of the nation would be more aligned than if states began creating their own reforms.
ReplyDeleteCedrych Ramiro
P.2
I agree that the "bottoms up" approach is better, it helps out immigrants have a better life and they contribute greatly to the economy as many immigrants take the jobs many people wouldn't want to do, I feel the alternative has a bigger cost with spending millions of dollars of expanding the border security causing many people to die, people will still cross because they see the risk as a worthy one. The money being spent could be used in a better way that will help those In need and the economy in general, I know this is a very controversial topic but punishing immigrants and spending money in border protection wont fix it.
ReplyDeleteGuillermo Quezada P:5
I agree with using a pro-immigration approach rather than anti one. I just don't think this issue is as black and white as some may see it.The article states that Alabama's economy had weakened when they put into place anti-immigration laws. California has proven that having pro-immigration laws have helped their economy. I just don't think there is one easy solution to deal with this. But I also believe that we shouldn't be spending billions into border control when, in my opinion, there are bigger issues in our country.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Platero P.2
After reading this article, I do believe California's pro-immigration laws are definitely what we need instead of taking a different approach like what Alabama did. As we can see their approach to immigration resulted in failure. We still live with that fear of bringing in too many illegal immigrants. Trying to keep them out though contradicts with our governments ideals about giving them opportunities to become an American citizen. I think we should give them that chance to work for something harder like becoming a citizen and having those rights that we all have. The national government should instead leave it up to the states to decide what they want to do about immigration and bringing in immigrants.
ReplyDeleteClay Reyes p.2
As a country that accentuates the ideologies of liberty and freedom we should provide equal opportunity to all, regardless of where they came from. Therefore I agree with the pro-immigration bottom-up approach underscored in this article. The article shows how anti-immigration reforms are expensive and inefficient. Migrants will always manage to find a way into the country regardless of how many agents we deploy or reforms we make. More states should be like California and support the undocumented immigrants as they are beneficial to our society. Not only do they promote cultural diversity, but they also boost the economy. Not to mention it is the morally correct thing to do. Although the states have some power to help, Congress should use their implied power to focus on faster legalization instead of deportation.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Johnson-P.2
The side I’m more in favor of is starting from the bottom-up. Starting from the bottom up can be tedious but it is a more organized and humane option. Many immigrants take up the jobs that most Americans aren’t in favor of for example in the article when Alabama didn’t have enough workers to pick up crops in the field. Most immigrants are here for a better opportunity and we should not deny them that just as Gov Jerry Brown stated that California is the “state of opportunity”. I do agree with the author when he states that Americans “can be of two minds when it comes to immigration” because a part of me wants to solve the other issues in the U.S but there will always be an issue so we might as well embrace immigrants rather than push them away. If we were to start from the top-down not only will taxes be raised and families will be separated but it would seem as if we were pushing the issue of immigration aside by ignoring it rather than facing the issue. Although it would be more beneficial for the states to be pro-immigration it would be more effective for the national government to be pro- immigration.
ReplyDeleteJosette Yasay Period 2
I agree with the pro-immigration laws that California carries out. The anti-immigration laws, used in Alabama, led to a failing economy that California can not afford. By being pro- immigration, we carry out simply what is stated in the Constitution. That all men are created equal. With this being said, we can not pick and choose who wants to come into this country and better their lives. I believe we should make it easier for illegal immigrants to receive citizenship instead of deportation as well as carry out the pro- immigration laws stated in the article.
ReplyDeleteJurnee Joseph P. 2
First and foremost, no matter what the state and national governments do, illegal immigration will NEVER end. No amount of money and no amount of bills will end ever this. Immigrants are desperate to cross the border to be united with their loved ones, or build a better life for themselves. The hope that drives them causes them to stop at nothing to get to the US, which would explain the death rates of immigrants attempting to cross the border. The more we resist immigrants, the more they will push back. This is proven by the direct causation between increased Border Control and the influx of immigrants. With that being said, instead of pouring billions of dollars into blocking out immigrants and deporting illegal immigrants, the government should attempt to actually change the status of these immigrants. Not only will this decrease the chaos at the borders, but it will contribute greatly to the economy of the United States. The anti-immigrant law Alabama passed is proof that keeping immigrants out will just cripple the economy of the states. If Americans, along with the government, would stop frowning upon the idea of immigration, they would realize that pro-immigration reforms makes more sense and would create more peace not only within the U.S., but with other foreign countries.
ReplyDeleteSitembile Sukuta (P. 5)
Does that mean we do nothing to stop the flow of immigrants across the southern border? I agree that we should put the 11 million undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship, but our borders have to mean something as well.
DeleteI believe more pro immigration reforms should be passed and this is an issue that should be kept to the states because it isn't an enumerated power to control immigrants. I agree with California's approach toward immigration especially because the founders of this country were immigrants themselves from England hoping to build a better life in a new world. Inhumane immigration reforms prove to be unproductive as seen in Alabama. Immigrants are a huge part of the country and are productive toward the community taking on jobs that the rest of society is not willing to take.
ReplyDeleteViviana Nunez P.5
There will always be flaws with the immigration system whether we like it or not. The struggle between wanting enforced borders but being sympathetic towards immigrants that simply want a better life for themselves and their families. I feel that we should be working on how to cooperate with that as have the states with the pro-immigration bills/resolutions have. Yes, enforced borders are a positive thing, but excessive deportations and heavy anti-immigration laws can lead to drawbacks. The pro-immigration reforms proved more efficient as the article made prominent through illustrating the negative aspects of the anti-immigration law enforced in Alabama. As stated in the article, Alabama had jobs left undone and had to recruit Puerto Ricans and refugees to do the jobs that residents did not want. There will always be jobs that residents feel they are too good or over-qualified for and who do we rely on to do them? The illegal immigrants who have been endlessly blamed for stealing jobs. We should be looking for more opportunities to help these immigrants in gaining rights and citizenship. In my opinion, these tasks would produce far more fruitful effects for the future.
ReplyDeleteLitzulli Figueroa p.5
The article is correct that immigrants are beneficial in increasing productivity of a local economy. However, the article does not take into account the reasons that illegal immigrants boost the economy. Undocumented immigrants are often willing to work for salaries less than the Federal Minimum wage, with working conditions often less than what an American worker would expect. This makes it advantageous for employers to hire undocumented immigrants as they can be exploited because of their lack of legal rights. This may cause some states to attempt to prevent immigration but as the Berlin Wall demonstrated in Germany, as legal immigration becomes tougher people become more extreme in their attempts. The only solution then to level the job market, fix illegal immigration, is to return to our founding roots, and make legal immigration easier so that economies thrive, and illegal immigration decreases resulting in less exploitation leading to less illegal and more legal immigration and a stronger economy.
ReplyDeleteOmar Moiz (p.2)
Well said.
DeleteThe United States needs pro-immigration legislature. Pro-immigration lead to the American community as a whole obtaining prosperity and helps push America to thrive and progress. Regardless of that incentive, absolutely every individual should have an equal chance towards the "American Dream". This country was founded by immigrants- regardless of how long ago. We are all immigrants. If Congress decides to go anti-immigration, it would be hypocrisy. So much for "Give me your tired, your poor,
ReplyDeleteYour huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
Amani Ali (Period 2)
Some would argue that we no longer need their "huddled masses." Do we need immigrants as much today as we did when we were industrializing?
DeleteI feel that putting that much money into increasing security for immigration will likely never be 100% effective, so why continue to put funds there when there are many more important programs that could be using those amounts of money. Like the article stated, even if the US is able to bring immigration numbers down, we still have all the remaining immigrants living here, and as seen in Alabama, they have a huge impact on society. Pro-immigration has been a successful message to America. As Governor Jerry Brown said, it's about "opportunity." Migrants come looking for a more beneficial life that they don't get to have in their countries. Many are ready to start jobs and give their children safety and educational opportunities that the US has to offer. The process of citizenship should be made simpler in that people don't have to live illegally for long and deportation is prevented. I hope to see more bills being passed like those in California so immigrants can expand their opportunities and families can stay together.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Gonzalez Period 2
As I began reading this article this quote stood out to me,“strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants." I immediately had questions; On what basis did he decide to pull the sanctuary cities funding? Did the states that have sanctuary cities violate the strings that are attached to the federal funding? Throughout the article it was evident that this was not the case.
ReplyDeleteAs I continued to read I understood that the funding, in the case of New York City, would be pulled from its police department, money that is used to fight against terrorism. Which didn’t answer my previous questions but left me even more perplexed. HOW would this in any way benefit New York or help him follow through with his promise to "unite the civilised world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth", wouldn’t this action prevent him from doing the things previously stated?
The federal government is doing a mistake by pulling federal grant money from the sanctuary cities, because these cities seem to be abiding the law and terms that they must follow in order to continue receiving the funding.
Adriana Ortiz
Period 5
After reading the article i found it much more relatable than not. Addressing a pro-immigrant reform will make the country much more successful in many ways especially when you look at the numbers: more than half of the u.s. is made up of immigrants whether illegal or not, so to try and push them out will do more harm than good economically and otherwise. If the government is pushing for the nation to strive why not work out the details in the "problem" they have rather than try to get rid of it altogether? As much as some americans hate it, there will always be immigrants coming to the u.s. and for those who believe otherwise: there is no stopping it. it's better to cooperate with these families. enforcing bills that deport or forcively keep out these immigrants can leave a negative impact on the community. in the article it states alabama having to bring in other reinforcements due to a lack of service. instead of forcing residents to do a job they feel overqualified for, we can give these to people starting off in our states... just a thought .in agreement with the article, we should push and be more proactive towards pro-immigrant resolutions
ReplyDeleteNicole Figueroa Leon p.2
With intensity of this popular topic increasing, congress’ top down approach exceeds unsuccessful results in terminating illegal immigration. Not only has congress’ excessive spending and funding on enforcement have been inefficient, but as well as the process to legal citizenship. The extensive process to gain citizenship has also been a contributing factor to the increase of illegal immigrants. As many states reforms accepted the top down approach, it had proven to be unpromising in annihilating immigration by the disastrous effects of their dependency on immigrants. I do believe that pro-immigration bestows beneficial factors for the economy but as well the life of the expatriate. It is still unclear to me why our government has a negative outlook on immigration, it was our nation who was founded by that very principle.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Amador P.3
Though the U.S isn't wholly built on immigration, it kind of is. Our founding fathers were not native to this land (in fact we actually did quite a number with the actual natives here) and illegal immigration's issue in its illegality can plausibly be overturned; there are a number of ways to enter the United States with legal acknowledgement and it already shows that anti-immigration laws are doing nothing but increasing the numbers of illegal inflow and physically hurting individuals who feel compelled to take advantage of the opportunities of a better life.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as the most odd was when the Alabama dilemma was mentioned. It goes to show that we need immigration; we need immigrants to allow the nation to flow the way it does and the fact that Congress refuses to acknowledge such an important asset to our nation is appalling. The fact that they are wasting billions of dollars on ineffectively locking them out is even more appalling.
Creating pro-immigration opportunities is a much more efficient and humane way to go about things; after all, immigrants wouldn't completely uproot themselves from everything they know to come here unless they felt a strong compulsion to and no blockade seems to stop them, nor does this blockade necessarily benefit the progression of our nation.
-Sharon Park, P.5
As a Nation built upon immigration many years ago, I see it that we should take a hold of many new opportunities that cross our borders, not make it harder on immigrants who seek a new life. According to the article, "...a human rights organization, noted that about five migrants died every four days in the 2011-12 fiscal year." We as a Nation should not make life any more difficult on immigrants who seek a better life here in the U.S. There are plenty of opportunities. Isn't that one of the many great mottoes of the U.S., 'The Land of Opportunity'? And doesn't opportunities apply to everyone? Now concerning State vs National Government power on who should make the decision, I believe that the states should have the power to create immigration reforms, if any are needed. After all, the state of Kansas does not need the same form of immigration laws that the state of California needs.
ReplyDeleteGregory James Pullon Jr.
Period 5
I agree with this reform and that immigrants should feel welcomed into America. The government doesn't realize that the more they try to block immigrants out, the more ways they are finding in to this country. I don't believe the answer is to try to keep them out but make a simpler process for them to come to America legally with permits and licenses and then to become a citizen
ReplyDeleteLuz Cabada Period 2
Most of the US’s population is made up from immigrants. Immigration is what formed our country, it made the United States have so many different cultures and backgrounds, adding to the beauty of living here. Adding more people into the United States isn’t a bad thing, even the article says that its beneficial to the states. By passing pro-immigration laws, California had a boost in the economy, while Alabama, who passed “one of the most draconian anti-immigration laws”, experienced a drop in their economy. Not only that, but Congress’s “Gang of Eight” bill is placing a huge amount of strain on the United States’s wallet, $40 billion isn’t something they should be throwing into a well, wishing for illegal immigrants to stop coming when it’s become crystal clear that people can get past those obstacles. Some people ask, why immigrants don’t just go through the process of legal immigration, the answer to that is that it takes forever and a half. That’s the number one reason why people who are looking for a better opportunity and a way out from a horrible place find it easier to just come into The United States illegally. Instead of passing laws that restrict illegal and legal immigrants from coming in, the US should pass laws that welcome immigrants, laws that make it easier for people to become citizens. They'll come to find that the amount of illegal immigration will decrease and the economy will experience a boost.
ReplyDelete-Erick Martinez
P3
I agree that the top-down approach to immigration does not work. The author of the article explains how the national government has spent over billions of dollars in order to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Their plans failed, causing them to lose a lot of money. Instead of wasting so much money and time trying to stop immigration, I believe the government should help them gain citizenship. Immigrants come to America for work and to provide a better life for their families. They are hardworking and will take any kind of work that is offered. If the process of citizenship becomes easier, immigrants can be more useful and beneficial to our society.
ReplyDeleteJuliann Salinas Period 2
I do believe pro-immigration laws are more beneficial for the United States. However, no amount of immigration policy will stop the flow of immigration. Besides, America was built off of immigration dating all the way back to the westward expansion. All immigrants really want is the opportunity to start anew. Immigrants are beneficial to the economy and contribute to the society through the jobs they do. There is really no reason to argue that they "take jobs" because one cannot own a job that they do not have yet. Jobs normally do not have a partiality towards whether you were born here or not, it is first come first serve, and if you do the job best, you are more likely to qualify for it. Even still, most immigrants take advantages of jobs that residents do not take a second look at; they will not take an opportunity to start a new life for granted. On top of that, some immigrants have no choice but to flee their country. They could be going through economic crisis, political turmoil, famine, epidemic, and in some cases, war in their backyard. So they will naturally want to come to a developed country such as the United States that do not have to worry about issues a third world country would have to worry about. It is one of the reasons America is so diverse in the first place, so why not let them have a chance to make a better life for themselves and their future generations to come?
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler, p. 2
What our country needs is a bottom up approach to immigration, with states offering rights to the undocumented immigrants within their state. What we don't need is a national government spending valuable time and resources towards useless border security. More states should take California's lead and provide undocumented immigrants with rights, such as driver's licenses, protection, education, etc. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are hard working, honest, law abiding citizens solely searching for better opportunities for their families and a part of the "American Dream". If our country were to provide a more accessible and available pathway to citizenship, undocumented immigrants can come out of the shadows and search for better jobs, education, and lives. For those that argue that undocumented immigrants make no impact on our country, look at Alabama. It is clear that undocumented immigrants are willing to do certain jobs that other Americans don't care to do and their part in our country affects all of our lives. Undocumented immigrants also have children, those children have futures. These children, when provided proper access to education, go on to be the lawyers, doctors, and teachers of our country.
ReplyDeleteSharen Moniqca
Period 2
My take on this article correlates relatively consistently with the author's perspective on the conundrum that is immigration. The causation of the split on this issue is derived from the stances of either sympathizing with or condemning illegal immigration. Through reading this article, I have established that I am indeed pro-immigration, but not necessarily due to an overbalance of sympathy, but because the process benefits both parties. What many Americans often forget to realize is that immigrants, legal or not, take on a variety of occupations that the average American doesn't normally occupy. This fact becomes evident when anti-immigration laws are put into practice on the state level and yield nothing but disaster. These immigrants simply come to indulge in the wide game of opportunity we offer, and in turn our economy is boosted; in this sense we have no room to complain, however this doesn't remedy the illegality of it all. I still believe illegal immigration is wrong, however we need to keep in mind their purpose for attempting to come here; and with this in mind we should endow them the basic human rights and attempt to tackle this issue from the ground up rather than spending millions of dollars on reinforcement that has proven time and time again to yield lackluster results.
ReplyDeleteKenechi Ikeanyi, P. 5
It seems that over the past couple of years the top down approach towards an immigration reform has not really been working. Congress is growing to realize that money isn’t always going to be the easy fix. I think that a bottom up immigration reform will work better because the manner can be dealt with accordingly to each state. A bottom up fix ensures the likelihood of an humanely action that would center around many American moral values. Also, the answer to immigration reform does indeed lie within the states because how closely it affects their economy. Alabama was a prime example of how the immigration issue has gone far enough to where sending everyone back would be detrimental to many businesses. Even though the states have usually leaned towards pro immigration reform, that might be the direction that congress needs to look towards to possibly find a constitutional answer to effectively solve the argument.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Hill
Period 2
I also agree with the authors standpoint and that we need pro- immigration reform rather than anti-immigrant reform. As the article shows any state that passes anti-immigration laws see a downfall in their production, as shown in the case of Alabama. This country was founded by immigration and immigrants. In the case of illegal immigrants, I believe it is too late to deport them as they have already established lives and families, and to take them away would be inhumane. Many of these immigrants also carry out the everyday jobs many Americans would rather not and are an essential part of our societies today. We must work on NOT alienating these people but rather, integrating them into society and positively acknowledging their presence and contributions.
ReplyDelete-Tariq Nugud period 3
"But we know that pouring billions more into enforcement won't end illegal immigration, nor will it remedy the situation of unauthorized immigrants who are already here"
ReplyDeleteThis statement really stood out to me and I completely agree with it.
Another part that stood out to me is the pathos aspect of this article. Addressing the deaths and family separations of immigrants is another branch of this debate. Many might ignore the emotional part of immigration and find it irrelevant to such a big topic but I believe it's important to take it into consideration because this is rather a sensitive topic.
I support pro-immigration laws because it indeed makes this country better.
I concur with the authors viewpoint to adjust to the expected illegal immigrants. While it is my belief that the states should wield more authority as to controlling illegal immigration in ways they see fit, I believe that federal government wields more power in its ability to fund and loan economic projects in other countries.
ReplyDeleteJulian Gutierrez
Per. 2
I agree with the author's stand on the pro-immigration reforms. We have already seen a failed immigration reform in Alabama's case, so what's the point of repeating the same mistake? Immigrants come to America seeking new oppertunities and a better way of life for themselves and their families. Most people dont see how immigrants help our economy and are doing the jobs that most U.S citizens wouldnt even bother doing. (so theyre not "stealing our jobs")
ReplyDeleteSo if they're helping us economically, then why would we deport them? We should instead be helping them recieve citeznship so that they can continue to contribute positively to our country and have a chance at the "American Dream"
Anahi Aguilar Period 5
Since the top down approach to immigration is not very effective, a bottom up way of facing immigration would benefit our country more. Instead of placing so much time, energy, and money on deportations, we could focus those resources on aiding immigrants on becoming citizens. Thousands of people each year flee their home countries in search of a better life for their families in America, the "land of opportunity" but we seem to reserve that slogan for only citizens of the USA. Hundreds die crossing rivers, scorching deserts, and unfriendly refugee camps as they make their way to America. Also, many immigrants take the lower paying jobs that US citizens are not willing to take, making the argument that immigrants are "stealing" our jobs, very weak. Our economies would greatly suffer if you took immigrants out of the equation. If all the states came together and adopted an immigration policy that regulated and also made current immigration laws more apt to be followed, our country would benefit immensely. Thousands of deportations tear families apart every year and discourage people of the dream of making a better life for themselves. At the end of the day we are all human, no matter where you are from, and deserve the right to journey on the pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Sandoval
Period 3
I think that states should start following in the footsteps of California in passing legislation that helps transition immigrants into the the states instead of barring them out. It has already been proven that increasing anti-immigration laws not only causes issues for a states economy, but creates a dangerous environment for those who are desperate to immigrate to the U.S. It is only constitutional that we treat these immigrants with basic rights and incorporate them into our society.
ReplyDeleteSeth Casas p. 5
I agree with the two hemispheres of left and right brain arguments on immigration. A side of us will say these anti-immigrant laws are unconstitutional and that there is evidence, for example, the situation in Alabama that our country was built on immigrants and we need them to continue to thrive. On the other hand there is the argument that illegal immigrants should be deported because they shouldn't have came to the US illegally. I believe deciding what to do with illegal immigrants should be up to local governments since certain states in the US aren't as concerned with illegal immigrants as others are. This way the federal government won't have to make immigrant laws for all the states with varying degrees of the issue.
ReplyDeleteKayla Scarberry p.2
I personally think that the pro-immigration approach is the best path to go on. The United States emphasizes equality for all, regardless of who they are. Immigrants have also impacted the productivity of our country. Just look at Alabama: anti-immigration led to significantly less productivity and a falling economy. States should follow California's example of supporting immigrants and giving them the opportunity to prosper.
ReplyDeleteGiuseppi Pelayo, period 2
This is rather a state of moral questiong rather than anything lawful. Most likely as it was stated before hand about Alabama holding true to that law about immigration that they nearly had a collapse in their system. Most likely any state wouldn't admit that they need immigrants in order to show off they need them to actually be able to function. And back to the basics, if Washington DC does want to follow the rules set by Trump, they will definitely find resistance among the states, especially those invested in immagrants like California, Arizona, etc. And in the end they willost likely be frantic to actually fill the positions that the immagrants held, it would surely make the system unstable; which then the Senate can decree that the immagration laws unconstitutional because will effect the economy.
ReplyDelete-Alexia Tejeda P.3
After reading this I decided to ask my Dad his opinion on things. As an immigrant himself, he explained to me the 12 year process for him to be a documented immigrant. We used to live in Saudi Arabia and financially our lives were better off there. And so I asked my Dad the question of why come here? He said he wanted to give my sister and I more educational and job opportunities that America promises. And just like us, thats what immigrants come here to do- be given the opportunities that this country offers. But of course this does not mean that I condone or promote illegal immigration. Rather, I promote the idea of national law to make an easier, faster, better way to welcome immigrants into our country. And if indeed immigrants occupy those jobs that other civilians wont, then whats stopping the states? If you need immigrants to take over these jobs and if without them theres a loss, then whats stopping them? If we have come to the conclusion as a nation that no matter the expense and effort put into stopping immigration, that it will still happen, then why don't we gear this effort into making an approachable way for immigrants to come on in.
ReplyDelete-Jumana Roufail, Period 2
I believe that a bottom-up rather than a top-down strategy would be the most beneficial for the country. By allowing the states to handle their own immigration laws, they can see for themselves how they will benefit -- or how they wont. For example, California is very pro-immigrant,and we have a great economy to show for it. Meanwhile, other states who are in favor of punishing immigrants tend to be doing worse. In my opinion I think states should be pro-immigrant rather than punishing them for immigrating, not only because of the positive economic effect it will have on the states, but just because it is the humane thing to do. Immigrants, legal or illegal, are just humans trying to improve their lives or those of their families, and denying them that just seems to go against everything that America was founded on: the idea that all men are created equal. I agree with the authors of this article, that we need state level reform that focuses on the integration of these immigrants rather than the punishment of them.
ReplyDeleteAlysa Quijada
p.2
A bottom-up is by far a more efficient tactic concerning the topic of illegal immigration in most cases. If left up to the national government, it would be much easier for laws to be passed that are very constricting to some states that have been more immigrant flexible due to borders and the overall economy. Immigration certainly does have its pros and cons but if looked at from a personal and practical standpoint why would you wish to turn away those willing to earn honest bread while contributing to the American economy? Of course there needs to be regulations in place and I believe the ones fit to create those regulations are the states that will be directly affected.
ReplyDeleteIt is incredible the impact that banning immigration can have on an economy. People say that immigrants are taking Americans jobs when in reality they are taking jobs that many Americans aren't willing to do. When Alabama passed their anti immigration law their economy tanked to show for it. While this may be the case I do believe that it is the states job rather than the federal because the federal may not fully understand what will happen to a particular state under the law they may pass.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is no doubt that immigration policy has needed a fresh coat of paint for a long long time. However, I feel that we need to come together and work on a way to give immigration policy a refresh, in a way that will benefit both sides of this argument. Countless times, immigrants have proven themselves as beneficial to our economy as well as a vital part of the American identity. Let us not forget that the Europeans who "discovered" this land and "settled" it were once immigrants as well. We have a MORAL obligation to assist those facing turmoil and political chaos in their homelands. There is chaos all around us. There is chaos in Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, etc.. Closing our doors to those in need will do nothing in solving the problems that have been banging on our doors for years. The government needs to look at the big picture. Immigrants are what make this country great, and with the recent anti immigrant rhetoric being spewed by the Trump administration, many Americans have turned this into a "us vs. them" situation. The hostility needs to stop. Wasting so much money on building a "yuuuuuuge wall" will do nothing but further divide us and send a negative message to our Southern Neighbors (and everybody else as well). We need to focus the money being used to diminish immigration efforts and bolster deportations on more important things such as aiding those who wish to become citizens. Trump's words are not those of "security" or "protection", they are words of racism, prejudice, and blatant discrimination.
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
Delete:)
DeleteI agree with the author's stance that instead of fighting immigration we should accept it. The author precisely explains why with the contrast between Alabama's and California's immigration policy, in which California has a booming economy with pro-immigration policies policies and Alabama having a weak economy with anti-immigration policies. The national government should instead pass laws to allow the path to citizenship to be easier, so The United States will decrease numbers of illegal immigrants and have an economic boom.
ReplyDeleteAndy Garcia P.2
After reading this article, I took some time to think about how deep this issue has really become recently. I believe that immigration has more positive effects than negative. Although I am aware of the slight chance of bringing in criminals, most immigrants come to our country in search of hope new opportunities, which is the example we must continue to set for other countries.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Jordan, P.3
I believe that a pro-immigration reform is better than anti-immigration. Illegal immigrants contribute in boosting the economy, taking jobs with low wages that no one else is willing to take. They should treated equally as the documented immigrants, not be separated with their families and looked down upon. There is no permanent solution to this topic. However, throwing billions of dollars towards strengthening border enforcement will not prove to be fully effective. They should be given opportunities to gain citizenship more easily.
ReplyDeleteJessica Lee, p.2
I don’t understand why Congress is pushing for more funds to be used on border enforcement and security. Since the federal government handles all regulations of immigration, could there be a valid reason to why they do not support the idea of immigrants finding a home here in the United States? Or are they just inconsiderate and only focus on what’s best for the citizens of America? As some states’ inhumane immigrations policies and the Clinton, Obama, Bush administrations emphasized to send back immigrants, many still push and fight to seek a better life in the U.S., where at least they were able to find jobs and provide a living for themselves and their families. While California has made decisions that has been advantageous to immigrants and to Americans, Congress should make reforms to immigration laws and give immigrants the opportunity to live in a country that allows the people to express themselves freely and provide a new lease on life.
ReplyDeleteMikayla Teves P.5
Immigration reform should be dependent on the states and the federal government working together. The national should definitely be in charge of setting the base line policies however. The legislation of one state can easily affect the control on immigration in another state. The issue is mostly national and should use a top down approach, because of the interstate effects of immigration control.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Goodling P.5
Constitutionally speaking, I would say that the ultimate responsibility to deal with immigration lies with the federal government, since illegal immigrants are an integral part of our industry, particularly that relying on unskilled manual labor and agriculture; because illegal immigrants affect commerce so heavily, federal authority to legislate on illegal immigration falls firmly under the commerce clause. And so, because regulating illegal immigration is an implied power of Congress, I doubt that states would even have the authority to write their own legislation concerning illegal immigration; the very existence of such laws seems unconstitutional to me. And as thus, from a strictly legal perspective, I'd say the question is not if immigration reform should follow a bottom-up approach or a top-down approach; rather, the question is, is such state legislation even legal? Hence, my stance is that the current top-down approach should be followed, speaking strictly objectively. Of course, the protections our Founding Fathers put in to prevent a tyranny of the majority is essential, but this leads to Congress becoming a group of men (and women) grouped in a circle doing nothing. Speaking from an ideological perspective, I'd advise against having states legislate on such matters anyway, since crippling illegal immigration could have detrimental effects on state economies and even the nationwide supply of produce, particularly in conservative-leaning states where agriculture is likelier to be more common.
ReplyDeleteOh, my bad.
DeleteThis is Arthur Kim, period 5.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is constitutional for the federal government to intervene on immigration reform so strictly. However history policies have shown to do very little to prevent illegal immigration, no matter what people will want to come to this country because of the economic stabilization we have. The economy of the country is improved by immigrants they are not leaches to the American people, but an addition to the values we hold of the American dream. Border control isn't what we need because of its inability to stop illegal immigrant, instead help people gain fair work and citizenship here. The United States was founded by immigrants and strengthened through our diversity.
ReplyDeleteEnrique Menjivar
Per.3
Considering this article is quite biased on the presentation towards both sides of the argument as seen in the many previous comments proving slanted answers. The articles only gives the cons to the top-down approach towards immigration and the pros of the bottom-up approach causes the positivity to only be seen towards working together. Provided the top-down approach is more of the national governments approach and is only seen in negative effects and failed attempts I lack the knowledge to answer unbiased because do not know the positives of this of approach seeing that the national government wouldn't try such measure if they were no possible benefits. As for the bottom-up pr states approach towards immigration I can only see positives ass how it helps the Economy of states through labor, but it doesn't list the negatives of immigration along with potentials such rise in crimes or overpopulation or the loss of jobs and most importantly possibility of deficits due to too many immigrants migrating in documented or not. In order for me to answer effectively i'd have to be given a more information oriented article providing facts rather than bias giving surface truths.
ReplyDeleteJesse Nkemere p.3
Immigration does not take up jobs, it creates them. Legal immigrants provide a constant feed of new ideas, business, and diversity. As for illegal immigrants, the work that they do lays the foundation that our country depends upon. The majority of them work in manual labor, spending their days in a variety of different activities like washing dishes or picking fruit in the fields. It is not uncommon to find said workers living in inhumane conditions, working long hours, and earning less than the minimum wage. This type of treatment is not limited to small companies, but can also be tied to large corporations that sell their products in the US. In fact, if all exploitation of immigrant labor was to stop, the inflation rate for most goods would increase tremendously. Nonetheless, these conditions are unacceptable and must be reformed. Most illegal immigrants are in search for a better life. It is extremely difficult to become a US citizen. Much like during World War II, many are denied political asylum even under the harshest of circumstances. They cross because they have nothing to lose. They cross because they are desperate. They cross because the fear of what is chasing them is greater than the fear of being caught. I believe that in order to take control of the situation, the federal government must create a new citizenship test and take charge of building housing along the border in order to provide temporary shelter for those who don't have any. As for the ones who already reside within the country, they need to be counted and organized (for the possibility of citizen ship. I also believe that the companies and corporations that took advantage of their situation must be held accountable for their inhuman practices and profits.
ReplyDeleteKaity Ortiz-p.5
I agree with the standpoint of the author of the article because I believe that a bottom-up approach is the most efficient way to deal with immigrants. It seems like most immigrants affect their communities positively rather than negatively and to deal with them in an inhumane or unjust way is unfair and also somewhat hypocritical since our very own country was built and established by “immigrants”. Although I do agree that immigration systems need to be reformed, I don’t think trying to deny illegal immigrants of basic necessities in a way to force them out or turn them away completely is the right way to go. I think more states should try to give immigrants benefits and create certain policies in their aid, like California, to not only create incentive to be a good American “citizen” but also to aid their community as well. It’s a win-win. Another act of reform would be to try and make the process of immigration quicker and easier since the wait is what turns most immigrants away, and although this easier said than done and I understand American security is our first priority, it seems like now especially we are moving away from this idea and in fact making it harder for certain people to get into the U.S. legally. Many of these immigrants come from their home countries in search of a better life for their families, not to terrorize or corrupt the U.S. which is why I think the federal government should try to push the States to agree to more giving treatment of existing and incoming immigrants, since it cannot technically force anything at a national level.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the bottoms up approach is better as it allows immigrants to sustain a better life. Also i believe that immigrants contribute greatly to the economy as they take jobs many Americans would feel ashamed to do. I woukd assume that the alternative would have a bigger cost with spending many dollars to expanding the border or building a "wall". The money spent could be used in a better way, for example they could use the money to make education better or use the money to fund experiments of newer and better technology that are environmental friendly. Over all i believe that the bottoms approach is a fair and just idea if practiced.
ReplyDeleteKaren Girgis p2
Based on the author's logistics, I find my self agreeing that pro-immigration reform is much more successful than anti-immigration reforms. The United States is a country of immigrants. We are not our own ethnicity. If 500 years ago, someone was wondering what the negative and positive effects of immigration are, it would literally be every positive and negative effect of people coming to America... because we are all, if not all descendants of, immigrants. I am going to substitute the word "immigrants" for "we." We are economy boosters. We are are innovative. We make differences and impacts. Anti-immigration policies limit our potential as the American country. Alabama’s anti-immigration policy led to a decrease in the economy. California’s pro-immigration policy led to a booming economy and the enhancement of American pride, culture, and beauty. Anti-immigration is a hate belief for some, a false belief and misconception for others. The United States of America needs immigrants- legal and illegal- to function correctly for now, until we find the most efficient and legal way to use pro-immigration reforms to continue the American greatness WE have established.
ReplyDeleteI am very shaky with this topic. I believe that illegal immigration should stop as it can give people unfair advantages (can argue that their situation was even more unfair before coming). However, after reading the article I see that there really isn't anything we can do to stop it. There is always going to be illegal immigrants and its hard to know how to deal with them. I believe that state governments should have the right to deal with this issue. I am more in favor with supporting the current immigrants and doing our best to limit how many immigrants enter illegally.
ReplyDeleteJames Stock p3
Delete