Miron, Jeffrey A. "The Realities Behind The Immigration Debate." The Dailey Caller 18 May 2010. Print.
This article talks about different methods of stopping illegal immigration. Jeffrey Miron, the author of this article, goes on to explain different methods of illegal immigration prevention techniques. He gives pretty good detail on each method, but the details or explanations he gives are mainly one sided. Mr. Miron talks about what they don’t do for illegal immigration instead of bringing up the positive things that these anti-illegal immigration methods actually do accomplish. I have to admit that the points he brings up are relevant and do make a good point to a certain level. He brings up credible groups such as NAFTA and CAFTA for support on one of his points, but the rest of it from what I read is mainly his opinion or his “hypothesis” on different scenarios.
Jeffrey Miron writes, “Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.”, this quote from the first paragraph kind of leads into what he’s going to talk about, which is the four policies that he think can significantly reduce illegal immigration. He already begins his article off with saying the methods the government uses or want to use are wishful thinking, but that’s not all true. They are the first step in ending illegal immigration or at least slowing it down. Plans that are implanted and took into action first have to come from ideas or this “wishful thinking” to even exist.
Mr. Miron’s first policy that he brings up is to allow more legal immigration. He thinks that the reason why we have such a bad problem with illegal immigration is because we restrict legal immigration. I agree with this policy idea to a certain point, I agree with that we could loosen up on allowing legal immigrants in, but to a certain extent. He believes we should allow all immigrants come in, but he doesn’t take into consideration that some may be convicted of violent crimes or be full blown criminals from where they are from. Why would we want to allow people with a violent history into our country, I mean you can tell me that’s inmoral not allowing immigrants in, but I can tell you that your crazy if you expect me to be okay with allowing violent criminals in. But to the contrary, a criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime, and some of these crimes could be minor such as stealing or something that isn’t as bad as it may seem when you hear criminal.
The second policy Mr. Miron brings to the table is expand free trade. He says that if we expand free trade and make it easier for goods to travel across borders then the low-skill labor will shift from the United States to the poorer countries. This is a faulty policy, he’s correct that making it easier for good to travel across borders will allow immigrants to stay in their country and work their instead of in America, but that doesn’t mean that working in their country will be good. Foreign employers could use fear tactics on their workers, pay them less, or abuse them. But those claims are all skeptical and the only way of knowing what would happen is to actually try it out, but by then if it doesn’t work out we’d be screwed.
The third policy or whatever you may call it because at this point in the article he gives up on calling these “policies” policies. And he has a good reason to because they are becoming more into the category of “wishful thinking” which is starting to make him sound like a hypocrite. He started off and saying that the reality is only the four policies that he talked about in his article would stop illegal immigration, when the REAL reality is, that every idea is “wishful thinking”. But that’s not a bad thing because that’s where great ideas and great things come from is wishful thinking. So my reaction is, or well opinion for that matter, is don’t try and say you have the correct answer to ending illegal immigration and at the same time say that the other ideas aren’t as promising as yours, because you start to sound ignorant near the end of what you are trying to implement.
I chose this source because it kind of brings out the other side of illegal immigration. It gives good detail on the other side of my argument and I believe it is necessary to know the other side of your argument so you can cripple it. But not only that, if you learn about the other side you can describe why your side is correct compared to your “opponent”. Also if you don’t know the other side of your argument, you’re in for a crude awakening when they start bringing up ideas that are in favor of their side and all you can do is sit there with your tongue tide. I might want to know a little more of the opposing side to my argument, because this is just one perspective to pro illegal immigration or in other words allowing more immigrants into our country. I could go from here and include in my essay a little more about why Americans should support the prevention of Illegal Immigration and the laws passed to stop it, because these ideas in this article show how faulty the opposing argument really is.
No comments:
Post a Comment