This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Due by class time on Friday, March 1st Pick someone from your same hour to respond to on immigration. Agree or disagree with their stance. Use at least 2 pieces of evidence to back up your argument. I look forward to reading your last post. Take care and thanks in advance for participating and for taking AP GoPo. It has trying been a pleasure teaching you!! - M.Aby
posted by maby-keirstead @ 1:39 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
37 Comments:
I am responding to Dylan’s blog post. Starting with the first line of his post, Dylan stated that “President Obama is in a position of power. He can basically pass whatever legislation he chooses with no repercussions to himself.” This however, is not necessarily true as the Republicans still have leverage and the majority in the House of Representatives (1). Also, Republicans have time on their side. One source stated that “The president, as he has said repeatedly for anyone who cares to listen, is running out of time. Time is, in fact, on the GOP’s side (1).” President Obama is the one under pressure to pass legislation, but the GOP can just wait it out with very little damages to their prospects (1).
Going on to the immigration topic, a phrase in Dylan’s post said, “potential workers to stay in our country and become legal citizens so that they may work and aid our economy instead of taking their knowledge elsewhere.” Even though facilitating illegal immigrants’ paths to citizenship is not necessarily legalizing illegal immigrants, it essentially has the same effect. If illegal immigrants become citizens, they will then be able to petition for or sponsor their families which in turn could add 30 million new people in the next decade or so (2). Next, “Illegal immigrants are currently limited to working for employers who pay in cash and don't ask questions, but with an amnesty, they'll be competing for jobs in the mainstream labor market with less educated Americans, who are already struggling with wage stagnation and a tight labor market (2).” Lastly, legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security or health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies which we do not need at this time (2).
Lastly, Dylan stated that immigration reform will not be passed by Congress this year. I completely disagree with him for several reasons. First, Republicans want to repair their anti-immigration image (3). After seeing Mitt Romney facing a 27% drop of Hispanic votes compared to the 2004 election, Republicans realized that they were missing a large chunk of the electorate and realized that they need to take a better stand on immigration and sees this immigration reform as the ticket out (3). Also, immigration reform is high on the political agenda. “Businesses' need for both high-skilled and low-skilled workers is the reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made immigration reform a top priority (3).” The last reason I personally think immigration reform will be passed is because of the pressure the democrats are placing on the republicans to take action. Even though I stated the GOP has time on their side, doesn’t mean that they will just sit there and do nothing and reject everything. If immigration reform is a top priority in Washington, then the Republicans will have to take action eventually.
1. http://www.mediaite.com/online/most-pundits-miss-the-gops-biggest-advantage-time/
2. http://www.cis.org/OpedsandArticles/David-Seminara-Legalizing-illegal-immigrants-a-bad-idea%20
3.http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2013/01/17/3-reasons-why-immigration-reform-may.html?page=all
I am responding to Sydney’s post. I agree with her that President Obama should pursue his reform goals and that immigration reform will be possible and will pass if done quickly. In a poll taken on President Obama’s immigration views about 49% of Americans favored his goals and only about 43% disagreed with them (1). This shows a positive sign for President Obama and his chances at reform because Americans are on his side for the moment and he has to harness that positive response in order to get legislation moving. With this data, I agree with Sydney’s point that reform is possible and it is especially because Americans seem to believe reform is needed as well. I also agree with Sydney when she stated that kids that come over the border illegally should not be punished because most likely it is their parents that have brought them over. I believe we can not simply ship them back to Mexico if that is what it would come down to and they should be made American citizens.
Since there are 11 million undocumented immigrants, I believe allowing them to become citizens after they are educated and follow certain procedures should be allowed (2). We cannot simply deport 11 million immigrants because more will only come over the border and families could be divided by this deportation. It is simply not the best solution to this immigration problem which Sydney and I both agree on and we also agree that President Obama should pursue this reform of allowing immigrants to be given the opportunity for citizenship. Yes, this may lead to more immigrants coming over the border but would we be able to stop them anyways? Reform is needed and President Obama’s reform goals should be pursued and passed.
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-reform-poll-obama-washington-post-abc-citizenship-2013-2
2. http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/fixing-our-broken-immigration-system
I agree with King/Speaker Rolstad’s stance on immigration reform. It is impractical to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, especially children, and a pathway to citizenship must be created. Nativism is outdated and irrelevant to those who believe in freedom, a global society, and humanitarianism. As a nation of immigrants, we owe them the opportunity to improve their lives by migrating here and to not live in fear. I agree with Ryan and President Obama on their course of action, seeking security yet benevolence in increasing border security and fighting crime yet offering a helping hand to hardworking and relatively innocent families and workers. Once out of the shadows, immigrants will then be able to pay taxes and businesses can legally hire them (1). These immigrants will also be on their way to worthy citizenship as well, gaining civic education and English-speaking capabilities and improving societal bonds (1). Employers will have less risk when hiring, and immigrant workers will gain peace of mind. With Obama’s reforms, visa regulations will be lightened, so Silicon Valley tech companies will be able to “import” needed workers with STEM Master’s and Ph.D.’s, providing more domestic economic gains (1). This plan does not jeopardize safety by being kind however. Increased security and crime-fighting capabilities will keep the nation safe, and background checks during naturalization will filter out criminals (1). I also agree with Ryan that the time is right. The public and politicians have warmed up to the idea of reform (2). President Obama owes it to his Latino voting bloc, and Republicans need reform as a means to survive. Ultimately, reform will happen and hopefully along the lines of the proposals made by our nation’s president and our class’ king/speaker.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/read-president-obamas-immigration-proposal/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/24/does-immigration-reform-sound-better-in-2013-than-2007/
I am responding to Josh Punnoose’s blog post on immigration. I completely agree with him that the main danger of illegal immigration is related more to national security and less to the economy.(1) Mr. Obama also agrees with this and has included it as the first step in his immigration reform plan. Personally, I would like to see even more discussion on how we can make all our borders a little safer. And as Punnoose pointed out, many illegal immigrants are not draining social programs but adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services(2). I think that this issue will come together with bipartisan effort without too much help form President Obama. Democrats have counted on the large (and rapidly growing) Latino population in order to win elections. Republicans hope that by helping to reform immigration they may make some new friends and bring more diversity into the party. Not everyone is on the immigration reform bandwagon however. Numbers USA continues to be against all forms of immigration reform. I don’t know why, but if a reader is interested, they could check out their website, (3), below. Well, so long AP Government. It’s been real.
(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fixing-immigration-system-america-s-21st-century-economy
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/the-real-problem-with-immigration-and-the-real-solution
(3) https://www.numbersusa.com/content/
I am choosing to respond to Dylan “Swag Me Out” H.. Well first, I would like to give him props for how easy it is to understand his position and how he described the proposed legislation simply. I also am all for reform that makes it easier for people to immigrate. Our country is the “melting pot” so much of our heritage and history depends on immigration and the mixing of cultures. Currently our borders are more secure than they have ever been. I personally, as does dylan, agree with Obama’s reform plan. I think that Dylan brings up a very good point about the education. The United States wants educated children and I believe that if the reason a family moves here, whether legally or illegally, the children will be more motivated to do well because they have family goals and pride that they are working to uphold. In my research I found that Obama’s plan also included reforming the citizenship test and I agree with that idea as well. It will focus the test on things that are more relevant in today’s society.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fixing-immigration-system-america-s-21st-century-economy 2. http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/perspectives/immigration-reform-3-points-from-the-view-of-a-child-of-immigrants-20130207
2.http://www.usaimmigrationreform.org/
In response to Kangqiao
After reading the blog post written by KQ, I found it to be well written. I agree with almost everything that he says. He brings up many valid points. The issue of immigration reform is a hot topic in both the Republican and Democratic parties, especially because of the voter turnout in the latest election. Hispanics could have been the tipping point with the GOP, if they fail to aggressively court the Latinos, the future of the Republicans looks bleak. Considering that almost 70% of hispanic voters voted the Democratic ticket in the last election, this could prove to be no easy feat (1). It is possible, however, for this to happen. GOP Senator Marco Rubio is a prime candidate for appealing to the Hispanic vote (2). He is the son of Cuban immigrants, and so is more related to the Latinos than many of the other middle-aged, white men that make up the bulk of Congress. Immigration reform has once again become a hot issue because the Republicans are looking to steal Hispanic voters, while the Democrats are desperately trying to maintain or expand their current lead. I agree with KQ that because of the importance of looking like they got something done on immigration reform, Congress will pass some legislation. However, I also agree that due to the nature of Congress and their fear of offending anyone, it is unlikely that the reform will be terribly meaningful.
1)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/undocumented-immigrants-voted-2012/story?id=18357147
2)http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases
I’m responding to Sam (aka Samwise, aka Falfy, aka Supersam, etc) Lindvall’s post on immigration. Sam, like me, spent the majority of his time discussing the viability of the White House plan (though his claim that the White House misspelled “competitiveness” is maybe a bit off task...). Like Sam, I believe that the Obama plan is well designed and viable. Sam mentions that he would like to see further emphasis on border control, but I maintain that it should not be a priority over naturalization reform. The borders are more secure than they’ve been in forty years (1) and while I’m all for enforcement, I doubt that we can make our borders more secure without a drastic overhaul of the current system, which should not be a priority. The way I see it, border control is sort of like fuel efficiency in cars- you can only make a gas engine so efficient before you have to find a new fuel. Likewise, the border is about as secure as it can possibly be without a new system (like a fence), so throwing money at it seems really wasteful and an overhaul seems like a poor use of government funds when there’s not exactly a surplus (right, Trevor??). Illegal immigrants are a net gain to our economy and put more into the government’s pockets than they take out anyway, so border security doesn’t have to be absolute since it’s not as if this is a huge economic crisis (2).
Sam also questions Marco Rubio’s claim that illegal immigration will be reduced by making legal immigration easier. I agree- illegal immigrants choose to come here illegally for a variety of reasons, but I imagine that “it’s easier to be illegal” is not high on that list. I would assume “legal immigration is too expensive” and “legal immigration will take too long” are far bigger issues, and it doesn’t seem that Rubio’s plan will do anything to address them. I agree with Sam that it’s best to be skeptical of Rubio’s ideas pending further information.
Sam expressed optimism in his assessment of the likelihood of comprehensive reform, and I think that time will prove him right. There haven’t been any large setbacks in immigration reform since the time that Sam wrote his post and I would be very surprised if Congress doesn’t pass something noteworthy by the end of the year.
1. http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/02/26-homeland-security-napolitano
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
In response to Jeremy’s post, I agree with several of his points. Obama is enjoying the most political capital now since it is still the first few months into his second term (1). He will never have this much pull again because he will begin to lose it due to time and the natural cycle of getting tired of the same administrative tactics. I also agree with Jeremy that the issues of immigration reform and gun control are the most prominent right now and deserve the most attention by Obama. Another point I agree with is that immigration has several underlying topics and ways to go about fixing the problem. The one that seems to be secure across the aisle is border security (2). Whether Republican or Democrat, they seem to all support having secure borders and protecting the citizens living near these borders. It is what comes after that causes the controversy. Supporting another one of Jeremy’s points I would say that since the Hispanic voting block is becoming much more influential in elections, something has to be done about this growing minority group and especially by the republican party. Lastly I agree that Obama having the same amount of success with gun control as he might with immigration reform is going to be a “Herculean feat” because gun control has many more opponents across the board than does immigration reform (3).
There were also some points I slightly disagreed with Jeremy on. First, I am not sure that even with Obama’s relatively high political capital now, I am not sure he can successfully tackle both issues in a “big” way. Obama needs to realize that he probably has more pull in the area of immigration even though gun control seems to be more popular with the public and with the media. I also disagree with Jeremy’s tepid view of what the possibilities for immigration reform could be focusing on bipartisanship. I think that Obama will have to do less with immigration because Republicans need to show their sympathy to that particular voting block or will never win another election. Republicans are being forced to be sensitive to the issue because of this and I think they will go down with little fight when it comes to immigration reform.
1)http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/opinion/avlon-obama-deficit
2)http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/global-immigration-us.html
3)http://www.policymic.com/articles/21399/immigration-reform-obama-to-make-major-push-in-2013
I would like to disagree with Akorede. We should not make it easier to get citizen in the United States if you are an illegal immigrant. We have rules in place and if we just now say, "Hey guys, breaking that law from before is okay, you're forgiven," it would send a confusing message about the strictness of our laws. Akorede mentioned that incorporating illegal aliens into America would benefit GDP and taxes. It is true that illegal immigrants use government benefits but do not put into the system because they are off the record (1). I propose that a solution to the problem, instead of fixing the supply side, would be to fix the costs side of the system: remove those that are demanding government programs and benefits. Additionally, by more strictly enforcing laws on illegal immigrants, we remove a substantial amount of workers from the labor supply. When the supply of labor drops, the wages of workers grows (2). Of course, I have nothing against Akorede or illegal immigrants that may or may not be Mexican. I have no doubt that they are normal and hard working people. My argument is that if they really want to live and work here, we have rules in place and they should respect those rules.
(1) http://www.citizensforlaws.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=101
(2) My Econ text chapter 17
I agree with Noah, that the leaders will come to an agreement in the near future. The republicans need to work with the democrats to come to an agreement regarding the immigration issue. They all seem to agree that reform needs to start with the students and children who come to this country in search of a better future(1.) It is also helpful that both parties have agreed to work together to fix this problem. They are providing a unified front on this issue. (2.) There is also data suggesting that republicans are increasingly becoming in favor of this reform which is helpful to the legislators as they can make difficult decisions that are impacting the nations future, with the support of their constituents (2.)
(1.) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/house-republicans-immigration-changes/
(2.) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/immigrant-advocacy-may-not-help-gop/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
I agree with Marco. The White House is making a strong effort to reform current immigration policies, and it is more likely that immigration reform will happen before gun reform. The biggest reason behind this is the fact that the Republican Party knows they cannot alienate the Latino community. If they want to remain a major political force and avoid elimination as a national party, or becoming a minor party, they need the support of one of the fastest growing minority groups in the future minority majority. This last election proved just that. In addition, the fact that some Republican Party leaders in Congress already support overhauling this unsuccessful system only increases the odds that something will be done in Congress this year (1). The probability behind the imminent decision to pass legislation can be seen in the fact that recent polls show a majority of the public desires immigration policy changes (2). They admit that the current system is flawed and that it needs to be reformed so current families, especially children, are not persecuted by a system that does not work properly (2). I also agree with Marco on the fact that the time at which this policy gets enacted will depend on the economy. I do not believe that, with the sequester cuts tomorrow, this is the number one priority in Washington at the moment. However, there can be no denying the fact that this is one of the president’s main agenda focuses. The fear behind the future actions of the Latino community in the midterms in a year and a half will be the only weapon the president needs in his arsenal to make sure that reform is passed by the end of the year.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/eric-cantor-immigration-_n_2657794.html?utm_hp_ref=immigration-reform
2. http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3215
I agree with Sam A position on immigration reform. Republicans were handedly defeated in the Latino vote by president Obama. With his first State of the Union since reelection Obama made it known that he wants to reform immigration. Right now there is a slow change coming in the GOP. “A key House Republican lawmaker is softening his stance against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a positive sign for comprehensive immigration reform's chances of passing Congress” (1). Obama wants there to be a pathway for illegal immigrants to become citizens. While some in the GOP are softening initially they were completely against it before the election. Goodlatte is the key House Republican, “he won't rule out legislation that would permit undocumented immigrants in the United States to eventually earn citizenship” (1). The Latino community is calling for immigration reform, and showed they were serious by voting for Obama more than Romney. Janet Murguia said “In many ways, the Latino community has borne the brunt of this broken system, but we are by no means alone. The system does not work for anybody” (2). Clearly immigration reform is a priority for many people. I agree with Sam that since there is more bipartisan support for immigration reform than gun control, I feel that immigration reform will pass before gun control.
1.http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/top-house-republican-softens-stance-citizenship/story?id=18608498
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/immigration-reform_b_2761565.html
I agree with Sam A position on immigration reform. Republicans were handedly defeated in the Latino vote by president Obama. With his first State of the Union since reelection Obama made it known that he wants to reform immigration. Right now there is a slow change coming in the GOP. “A key House Republican lawmaker is softening his stance against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a positive sign for comprehensive immigration reform's chances of passing Congress” (1). Obama wants there to be a pathway for illegal immigrants to become citizens. While some in the GOP are softening initially they were completely against it before the election. Goodlatte is the key House Republican, “he won't rule out legislation that would permit undocumented immigrants in the United States to eventually earn citizenship” (1). The Latino community is calling for immigration reform, and showed they were serious by voting for Obama more than Romney. Janet Murguia said “In many ways, the Latino community has borne the brunt of this broken system, but we are by no means alone. The system does not work for anybody” (2). Clearly immigration reform is a priority for many people. I agree with Sam that since there is more bipartisan support for immigration reform than gun control, I feel that immigration reform will pass before gun control.
1.http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/top-house-republican-softens-stance-citizenship/story?id=18608498
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/immigration-reform_b_2761565.html
Sam A. and I have much in agreement, so if you were expecting a polemic Aby then prepare to be disappointed. Firstly, both Sam and I agree that the growing Latino electorate is too important to ignore(1). However, I disagree with Sam's stance on English. ESL courses are very important for transitioning citizens. This importance increases as the new population does. It has been shown that proficiency in English is vital to the success of immigrants (2). I think that the government has a legitimate reason to fund ESL classes for new immigrants and that spending on it would be entirely justified (2). Honestly though this point wasn't integral to Sam's argument and it would be presumptuous of me to discard her thesis out of hand. The last point that I would like to comment about Sam's post was that new immigrants represent 'new ways of thinking'. In a nation whose growth rates are slowing with an aging population, it is important to embrace the new opportunity that 'fresh blood' brings to America (3). Sam is therefore mostly correct in her post and I applaud her efforts.
1) http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2013/02/post-5-215-immigration-reform.html
2) http://cccie.org/immigration-and-education-resources/higher-education-facts
3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/us-birth-rate_n_1779960.html
I am responding to Jacob’s post. I agree with many, if not all, of his points. Particularily, I agree with his statement, implied or not, that the biggest problem with illegal immigration does not involve American workers losing their jobs, but rather the fact that these illegal immigrants do not pay the nessecary taxes. I also agree that the proper route to resolve this issue is via a worker program, not shutting down the border, as some far right individuals propose. A work-via program has numerous benefits that satisfy a variety of individuals on both ends of the political spectrum (2). On one side, it satisfies those who desire cheap labor, namely large agribusinesses. On the other side, it satisfies the Latino electorate by loosening immigration restrictions and making the reuniting of families much easier. The political costs are few, and the potential gains are enourmous. There is really no good reason not to pass a work-visa program, which is why I believe that Congress will not do anything of the sort, resorting to the same pattern of amnesty-crackdown that has proved ineffective for the last fifty years. Further, I share Jake’s skepticism that Congress will act and produce meaningful legislation to combat the roots of the problem. While they will create legislation, due in no small part to the Republican’s drubbing among the Latino electorate in the 2012 election (1), politicians from both parties have shown again and again that they are unwilling to make the tough, and often unpopular, choices nessecary to create the best outcome for the United States. This is unfortunate, but it is reality, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
1. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567106-election-drubbing-changes-minds-time-its-different?zid=302&ah=601e2c69a87aadc0cc0ca4f3fbc1d354
2. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79771.html
I’m responding to Sara’s post. I agree with Sara that reforms on immigration need to happen soon if we want to see real change. Sara mentioned how she thinks Obama will be the most successful if he pushes for a huge bill that demands massive reforms in one giant swoop. I agree that Obama should do one huge bill because there would be lots of attention from Congress and the public on the bill and would put pressure on Congress to debate the bill. Sara brought up how Obama has a tough road ahead in Congress because there is some stubborn Congressmen who will not reform immigration. I think it will take a while for Congress to focus on immigration in the wake of Gun reform and the fiscal fiasco unless the public puts pressure on Congress. Without pressure from the public other hot topics will be in the foreground and immigration will be on the back burner. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated that he will have a “go-slow approach on immigration” and that Obama’s pressure will not speed up the process (1). On the other hand various Congressmen support Obama’s push and want to see reforms take place soon, “ we will take time to hold hearings on each part of immigration reform and focus immigration as a top priority,” (1). It seems to be another Republican versus Democrats debates with Republicans wanting Obama to lay off Immigration bills. Republicans have been voicing that they don’t like Obama’s ideas that call for an easier way to citizenship. Republicans need Hispanic and Latino voters but unless they want to completely destroy that possibility they will need to loosen ways to citizenship (2).
One of the main question seems to be whether to push immigration in one huge bill (how Sara and I see it) or divide up in pieces. It might be easier for some Congressmen to swallow the bill if it is in pieces and that way they can pass the parts they like. I believe that one bill is better because than Congress doesn't have to take so long to debate multiple bills and can get it done in one step.
Personally I don’t think that learning English should be required for citizens because the United States doesn't have a national language. ESL classes should be increased so if citizens looking to learn English have a way of doing so but requiring them I don’t agree with.
Overall I agree with Sara that immigration reforms will pass and they should do one huge bill to make the process faster. Hopefully Obama will be able to get Congress to act fast and make immigration the next big debate in Congress.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/house-refuses-to-rush-on-illegals/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-house-chairman-obama-immigration-reform-20130227,0,7128297.story
I'll make my response to Dylan "Swag Me Out" H. Dylan's first point was that the president is currently in a position of power and can "basically pass what ever legislation is he chooses with no repercussions to himself". I get where Dylan is coming from, but I doubt that Obama would be able to get anything too radical passed through the Republican controlled House, and don't think he is going to try anything that far out in left field for the sake of keeping his party in a favorable light with moderates. But I digress. Dylan wants the president to make channels for legal immigration easier, which is an opinion that we share. He then states that we wouldn't need our borders as secure if it were easier to enter the country legally. I disagree here. In my (and other people's) opinion, illegal immigration will always be a problem. Unless the system is so ridiculously loose that we are basically letting people over with reckless abandon, there will always be those that find it easier and more cost/time effective to simply cross the border illegally. Therefore, I am a proponent of stronger borders and an easier path to legal citizenship.
Dylan's next point was that all children, regardless of their citizenship, have a right to education. Sure, I may sound heartless, but why should the US have to pay for the education of children who aren't even citizens here? We already have issues with our education system that threaten our student's competitiveness (not 'competiveness', like on the WH website) in the world arena. Adding more students (who aren't even American citizens) to the school system certainly isn't going to contribute to a solution. Dylan's last point is that businesses readily exploit illegal immigrant workers. I couldn't agree more with this stance, which lines up with President Obama's plan to enforce stricter penalties for this exploitation.
Finally, Dylan predicts that immigration reform will not be passed this year. I disagree, both parties have significant motivation to pass some form of reform. The Democrats want it to be easier for immigrants because Latinos traditionally vote for them. The Republicans desperately need to appeal to those same voters, because they will have an extremely hard time in the near future getting elected if they don't.
I am responding to Mike's post. We seem to be on the same page when it comes to the issue of immigration and the president's goals. We both believe that Obama has this issue high on his list of things to accomplish for his second and final term. However, it is apparent that Congress isn't so gung ho about getting it done soon (1). Maybe Obama won't have as easy of a road to reform as he would like. We also both seemed to have a consensus that reform law wouldn't be passed in the very near future because of this issue, but will probably be accomplished before Obama leaves office. Other factors addressed by Mike and I were the importance of the Latino vote to Obama's success and the success of the Democratic party in the recent election and the multitude of factors that will play in to Obama's decision (2). Socially, any large-scale reform pursued by the president will have a large impact regardless seeing as there are 11 million illegal immigrants in America. Politically, the Latino vote was key for Obama in his election win. And economically, Mike and I agreed that there is going to be a large impact on the number of businesses that immigrants currently work for. Another point that Mike makes that I also addressed in my original paragraph was the consensus of Americans on the subject of immigration reform, with the overwhelming majority being in favor. I think this may be a great test for the effectiveness of our government. When the population supports taking action on an issue, how long will it be until our government can put aside partisan problems and respond to these needs? Hopefully soon.
(1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/house-refuses-to-rush-on-illegals/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/latino-vote-key-election
In response to Marco’s immigration post, I tend to agree with his ideas. He opens up by talking about the political agenda currently facing President Obama and the U.S. Congress. With the economy, gun control, and immigration as the primary issues at hand, the country has a lot on its plate. Marco states that Obama is most likely to pass immigration reforms because congressional Republicans are likely to compromise on this issue. This is because a massive amount of Latino voters supported the Democrats on immigration in the election of 2012, and the Republicans should be eager to win some of them over (1). Even Latino leadership in the conservative party has stated that they are eager for a change in Republican policy (1). This potential willingness to act will allow legislation to pass. Furthermore, Marco goes on to analyze the effects of immigration and undocumented immigration on the economy. Many people blame some of the present economic situation on problems caused by illegal immigration (2). With this issue affecting multiple policy areas, its resolution becomes all the more important (2). Like Marco, I agree that some type of reform legislation will be passed. Due to the need for compromise by the right and widespread effects of this issue, politicians will hopefully band together to get something done. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so sure that reform will pass that he offered the media a personal guarantee of passage (3). Proposed changes would send our country in a different direction; whether for the better or for the worse, we’ll have to wait and see.
1) http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/10/latino-voters-will-drive-2013-political-agenda/
2) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/26/290958/us-immigration-policy-damages-economy/
3) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/03/news/la-immigration-reform-reid-predicts-senate-pass-20130203
In response to Marco’s immigration post, I tend to agree with his ideas. He opens up by talking about the political agenda currently facing President Obama and the U.S. Congress. With the economy, gun control, and immigration as the primary issues at hand, the country has a lot on its plate. Marco states that Obama is most likely to pass immigration reforms because congressional Republicans are likely to compromise on this issue. This is because a massive amount of Latino voters supported the Democrats on immigration in the election of 2012, and the Republicans should be eager to win some of them over (1). Even Latino leadership in the conservative party has stated that they are eager for a change in Republican policy (1). This potential willingness to act will allow legislation to pass. Furthermore, Marco goes on to analyze the effects of immigration and undocumented immigration on the economy. Many people blame some of the present economic situation on problems caused by illegal immigration (2). With this issue affecting multiple policy areas, its resolution becomes all the more important (2). Like Marco, I agree that some type of reform legislation will be passed. Due to the need for compromise by the right and widespread effects of this issue, politicians will hopefully band together to get something done. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so sure that reform will pass that he offered the media a personal guarantee of passage (3). Proposed changes would send our country in a different direction; whether for the better or for the worse, we’ll have to wait and see.
1) http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/10/latino-voters-will-drive-2013-political-agenda/
2) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/26/290958/us-immigration-policy-damages-economy/
3) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/03/news/la-immigration-reform-reid-predicts-senate-pass-20130203
In response to Noah’s post, and I do apologize for the terseness of my reply. I do agree that without some appealing to Latinos and other immigrant groups the GOP will quickly become extinct. (1) Of course, nobody keeps on their current path until they die, they’ll adapt and survive. I also agree that there’s some political pressure to get it done, and that Obama and the Democrats are especially pushing for major reform. (2) The things that we really need, in order of priority, for immigration reform are as follows: better, more streamlined, simple and open immigration and visas for those who will contribute to society (tech sectors, people with degrees, business founders, etc.), vastly opened up immigration channels for new immigrants and easier access to visas for all people, some path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US who have done nothing wrong & increased border protections. What we should not do is hurt those illegal immigrants who have done nothing wrong but are only here because it was their best choice and because our system is too moronic to handle them correctly and let them in, that includes any sort of employer-enforcement program, any programs that depart massive numbers of illegal immigrants by some arbitrary factor, or anything that generally makes life hard for those who otherwise are just another one of us.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/politics/gop-census-latino
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-house-chairman-obama-immigration-reform-20130227,0,7128297.story
Allow me to lay the smack down upon a certain Mr. Samuel Wagner, and by smack down allow me to agree with him one hundred and 12/57th percent. Although Samuel doesn't answer the question in its entirety, he does state that Congress will pass some sort of immigration reform, and that Republican's can no longer ignore this issue if they wish to WIN a national election. Though after reading some recent events, I feel that is is unlikely that Republican's will compromise THIS YEAR. This is not an election year, no one is up for re-election so therefore no one feels that their jobs are in jeopardy at the moment. Republican's apparently do not mind reform, so long as it ties into securing the already very secure border (1). I don't understand how or where they can get the money to fully secure our borders, and then just allow immigrants to enter freely. To me it does not make sense, if Republicans are trying to get votes from Latin constituents, they are doing it wrong. President Bush accrued 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Mitt Romney only obtained 27% in the 2012 election. Not passing immigration positive immigration reform will only drag that number lower and lower for Hispanic Americans will feel more inclined to vote for a party that is at the very least stating they want to pass legislation rather than a party that won't all together (2). Allowing illegal aliens, and potential immigrants, a safe and easy way to becoming a US citizen greatly benefits the United States more as a country, than not allowing them. The only concede I will give is that many illegal aliens are below the poverty line or extremely low income, as T-Poon pointed out. This means that legalizing these persons will create a large burden upon Medicaid and other welfare type programs. Though, I feel that as more educated workers enter the labor market, the potential taxable amounts will balance out the costs. Especially if we raise dividend and capital gains taxes.
1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/house-refuses-to-rush-on-illegals/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
2. http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2013/01/17/3-reasons-why-immigration-reform-may.html?page=all
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In Maddie A's post, she cites a couple of things that I disagree with. First, building a wall along the border is not only costly, "2.6 billion plus millions for upkeep and repair", but it is also not effective. As border spokesperson Mike Scioli said, "The border fence is a speed bump in the desert (2)." In fact, despite this wall, it was found by the University of California San Diego that 97% of those who attempt to cross the border succeed (1). This situation was not helped when it was discovered that the wall could be scaled in a mere 18 seconds(2). The wall also has a significant impact on the environment. With the construction of this wall, the Tijuana River has been polluted by the rubble from exploded rock and separated many animals from their hunting and breeding territories (2). Another way the wall is damaging is because it effectively divides an animal population causing less diversity in its gene pool. With less diversity, small changes in predators or environmental conditions could lead to the extinction or a severe drop in population (3).
Otherwise, I agree with Maddie's idea of increasing the fines on companies because it will cause them to hire more Americans and, as a result, the unemployment rate would decrease. I also agree with Maddie's belief that the immigration reform will be passed because Republicans will want to use this as an opportunity to win over a percentage of Latinos to prevent the Democrats from dominating future elections.
1.http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico704/video/video_index.html
2.http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0227/Costly-fence-on-US-Mexico-border-is-effective-only-in-hurting-nature
3.http://www.sagepub.com/healeyregc6e/study/chapter/cq/87318_08fence.pdf
In response to Sam A-
I agree with Sam’s opinions on the reform of immigration. She explains that the Latino votes were largely in favor of Obama. This is proven by the Pew Hispanic Research Center (1). The PHRC shows that 71% of Latino votes were for Obama. It seems as though Obama wants illegal immigrants to BECOME legal citizens of the United States and his stance is clearly reflected by the number of Latino votes. As Sam points out, the State of the Union Address given after Obama’s reelection, he clearly explained that immigration needs to be reformed. The Republican presidential candidate, Romney, had 27% of the Latino’s votes (which means that the remaining 2% of voters had voted for candidates from other parties) (1). Since the Democrats had the clear advantage of this specific ethnic group (which can largely be credited to his stance on immigration reform), Republicans have seemed to slowly agree with the Democratic position on immigration in order to hopefully acquire more Republican-voting Latinos. I completely agree with the Sam’s opinion on having more legal immigrants would benefit new innovations and society. Hopefully, this could boost America’s development in both the economic and technological aspects that seem to be rising in importance around the world (4). I like Sam’s comparison of immigration reform to gun control, I agree that there is definitely more support from both parties.
1. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-obama-speech-immigration-idUSBRE91C0A920130213
This comment has been removed by the author.
…….…..\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;”,-“;;;;;;__„-~"¯¯:::,-~~-,_::::"-„
…….……\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„~”;;;;„~"¯::::::::::::::"::::::::::::::::::\
…….…….\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-~”__„„„-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,
…….……..\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-~”-~"::,-':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,
…….………\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;„~"::__„-~":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,
…….……….\;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;_„-~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_„„-~,~~~~--,:|
……_„„„----~~\.……;;;;;,„-~”¯¸„„--~~-,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_,-~":'\'-,:\:|:\|::\|\:|:\:|
.,-~”¯;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;”-;_„„-~”::::::,-‘::::_::::::\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,~':\'-,::',"-\::'':"::::::::\|:|/
.”-,_;;;;;;;_¸„„--~~””_,-'"~----":|::/,~"¯"-::::|::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,~"::\'-,:\;;'-';;;;;;;;;;;,-'::\::|/
….¯¯¯.………,-':::::::::::::::\'-\~"¯_/:::/::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-',::\'-,:|::";;;;;;;;;;;;,-':\:'-,::\
…….…………|::::::::::::::::::\¸:'~'::::,-'::,':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-':\'-,:\'-,';;';;;;;;;;;;;;;,-':\:::'\-,|''
…….………...|::,-~"::::::::::::/"~-~"::,-'::::::::::::::::::::::::_,-~':\'-,|:"'";;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'¯::'-,:',\|
…….………../::/::::::::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::_,„-~"¯\:\'-,|;''-';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'--,::\-:\:\|
…….………/::::|::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::::::::,-';;'-';;;;',/;\/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-.,|:::\-,:|\|..\|
…….……./:::::::\:::::::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::,-';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-~'''("-.,\:::|\:|::''
…….…...,':::::::,':::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::,-'/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,--'::::::/"~'
…….…..,'::::::::|:::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::,„-~"::|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'::::::::,'::::/
…….…./:::::::::|:::::::::::::„-|--~~""¯¯¯::',:::::,';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,':::::::::::|_,-'
……...,'::::::::::::",:,-~"¯::::|::::"-,::::::::::|:::/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,':::::::|::::,'
……../:::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|:::::::"-,:::::::\:::|¯¯¯"""~-,~,_/::::::::,':::/
…..,-“::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|::::::::::"~-,_::|::\: : : : : : |: : \::::::::/:/
...,-“:::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::|::",:::::::::::::"-':::\: : : : : :|: : :\::::::|::|\
.,-“::::::::::::::::::::::\::::::::::::|::::",::::::::::::::::::\: : : : : :\: : :|:::::|::|;;\
“:::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,::::::::|:::::::",:::::::::::::::/|\ ,: : : : : : : |::::,'/|::::|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::|::::::::::"-,_::::::::::\|:/|,: : : : : : :|:::|'-,/|:::|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,|_::::::::::::::"~-,_:::"-,/|/\:::::::::::\:::\"-/|::|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::"~-,_::::::::::::',"-,:::"_|/\:|\: : : : \::\":/|\|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::::::"~-,_:::::\:::\:::"~/_:|:|\: : : '-,\::"::,'\
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::"-,_:'-,::\:::::::"-,|:||\,-, : '-,\:::|-'-„
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::,-,'"-:"~,:::::"/_/::|-/\--';;\:::/:||\-,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::::::/...'-,::::::"~„::::"-,/_:|:/\:/|/|/|_/:|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::|……"-,::::::::"~-:::::""~~~"¯:::|
Because last post… YOLO!::::::::::::|….……"-,_::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Personally, I find myself largely in agreement with most of Sara’s points. The first thing that I found a bit of contention with was the idea of forcing everyone to learn English. I believe that this would be, while idealistically a good idea, next to impossible: the United States has, after all, no official language (1). At most, some states cite English as their official language, but how can we mandate that people learn a language that just happens to have a majority of speakers? It’d be nice, but I don’t see how that can be legally done without finding some loophole. As 12% of US residents now speak Spanish, and half of these “very well,” it would seem more pressing that those who don’t speak it learn Spanish, as it is projected that by 2050, Hispanics will eventually constitute 29% of the US population (2, 3).
I also agree with Sara that the reform should be sold to Congress and the public as a package. Like the Affordable Care Act, the public is less likely to scrutinize a sweeping, wide-encompassing reform bill, but it is more likely to be semi-informed in lots of concepts. Additionally, it would make it easier for the act to gain partisan votes based off of not necessarily all of the bill, but from support of parts of the bill. This would make it more effective than many, smaller bills, which would be more likely to get shot down over party lines.
Like Sara, I am also confident that we will see some form of immigration reform this year, and I also think that it will hardly be a carbon-copy of Obama’s plan. With Congress no longer in his control, it will be more difficult for him to get such a liberal bill through the two houses without it being at least edited; also, he has said that what he proposes will hopefully act as an impetus to get Congress out of the rut that it is in and get it moving in the direction he wants it to: towards serious reform that we haven’t seen in years (4). Regardless of Congress reaction, I think it will be difficult for President Obama to get this bill past conservative Americans. But I also think the Republicans in the House and Senate will see that comprehensive reform needs to take place, and that they need to be seen as supporting it, before they lose the entirety of the Hispanic vote—because, despite their somewhat jilted sense of how easy it will be to accomplish that, (when their viewpoints sit so far from those of Hispanic voters polled election night this past year, the results showed a discrepancy in almost all the Republican claims (6)), they have to in order to remain a viable party.
1. http://answers.usa.gov/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1000&PARTITION_ID=1&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&USERTYPE=1&LANGUAGE=en&COUNTRY=US&ARTICLE_ID=10629
2. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff18.html
3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-11-population-study_N.htm
4. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/biblical-politics/2013/feb/26/obamas-immigration-reform-plan-b-failed-plan/
5. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/22/17057820-gop-fears-obama-will-jilt-them-on-immigration?lite
6. http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/269685-gop-needs-latino-vote
In response to Mr. Sherman’s post, I would disagree with Mike in that I don’t believe Congress will take action on immigration reform. There is simply too much partisanship. Though there are new emerging Latino members of the Republican Party, there voice won’t be enough to sway the old white social conservatives. After all, Republicans have made it clear that their agenda is to promote small government (1). Extensive immigration reform would be just the opposite, and if the Republicans don’t want to seem like hypocrites, at least, any more than they already do, they won’t go for it. My theory is they will come out and say that our immigration system needs reform in an effort to gain Latino votes (Obama got 71% of the Latino vote last election, and the right needs them in they are to survive (1)). In fact Mark Rubio did just this in his response to Obama’s SOTU Address (2). However, after signaling their willingness to work with Democrats, they won’t and will do just what they did in the beginning of Obama’s first term, and block every piece of legislation he and his party puts forth. Mike claims that Obama has a honeymoon period after the election, and while I agree that presidents usually do, Obama has less of one how than he did in his first term, and look what good that did him. All his last “honeymoon period” gave him was a more vitriolic Congress. In summary, no I don’t think Immigration reform will happen in the end.
I maintain what I’ve been saying for a while now: Obama needs to put his eggs into the gun control basket, because the longer he waits after Newtown, the harder it will be to convince the 2nd amendment worshiping right. But still, I agree with Mike that something needs to be done about immigration, and I agree with his list of partial solutions, though they are broadly worded. One thing I really like about Mike’s post is that he mentions other ethnic minorities with illegal immigration issues. Any legislation considered should keep them in mind.
1. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/190803561.html?refer=y
2. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/marco-rubio-response-fact-check-87565.html
Dylan begins by saying that President Obama is in a position of power, one that enables him to do and pass whatever he wants, and yet by the end he is saying that legislation will not get passed in the next year, which is a confusing contradiction. Disregarding that, though, I think that Dylan makes a cogent argument. I agree that our efforts should not be to tighten our border security or regulations but to make it easier to become a citizen in the United States. There have always been immigration barriers in the united states (1) and they should continue, but the presence of people in our society that are not full members of our country is unacceptable. He also makes a good point that we should make it a goal to educate these immigrants so they can help improve our (and their new) country. Over 45% of immigrants right now return home or move to a new country within a few years (2), but even if we can provide quality education during just these few years we will have improved the lives of those families.
(1) http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws
(2) http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=40
I will be responding to Matt S. I agree with him that The United States has the ability to regulate immigration and that there is in fact a solution to the illegal immigration problem. It is true that that the U.S is not required to let everyone who wants to come into the country come in, however, one must realize that the American life is a type of life that some people in other countries try their whole lifves to get enough money to travel to and live in. One must realize that the American life that is taken for granted by those who were fortunate enough to have it is such a great thing, that it should be able to be enjoyed by others who aren’t as fortunate. I agree and disagree with his point on not allowing those with criminal records to not come into the country. There should be a line between what types of criminal records can disallow one to come into the country and which ones would be okay. The fact of the matter is “Many people see America as the land of opportunity - the land of milk and honey - the Promised Land.” (1). No matter what kind of past a person had in a previous country America is their path of change. “Whatever the reason people move to America, it represents a fresh start under one of the best political systems in the world that makes it much easier for immigrants to start a new life and make their dreams come true.” It is true that 70% percent of Hispanics have voted Democratic, but this doesnt neccesarily mean that we don’t have to allow hispanics to live the American dream, it just means that more political parties need to broaden their range of people to pertain to. Last election " exit polls found Obama had won 75 percent of Latino voters nationwide" (2). This didn't occur because we let immigrants into the country, it occurred because President Obama was pertaining to them the most in their opinion.
http://www.usa-job.org/why-people-move-to-america.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/latino-voters-election-2012_n_2085922.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would like to begin by commenting on Dylan’s post. I would have to agree with him when he says that Obama does have power in what he is doing right now. However, I believe that he will at least attempt to do something that involves immigration reform. I think that there have always been challenges to immigration policies and reform over the last several years(1). President Obama must take action to prevent Republicans from possibly taking advantage in the next election. That is why President Obama is agreeing to talks a=with Republicans who are desperate to gain votes from constituents with strong immigration concerns.(2) If Obama passes a new immigration reform he will be remembered for it, while Republicans can say they were part of the process as well. If Republicans oppose it is more likely that they will get blamed for not cooperating then President Obama being blamed for not taking iniative. However, there is a possibility that if Obama does not pass immigration reform, Republicans might in the future point that out to gain votes from those Obama had alienated during his terms.
http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/mccain-graham-obama-committed-immigration-reform/story?id=18601967
am respondig to KQ's post. He said that immigration reform would be addressed in a poor fashion by the divided government that we have and I believe it. With the republicans posting a major loss and most of it in the latino vote, they will be scrambling to get votes back by passing reform. Most of the reform, however, will not be very liberal as the house is republican and if it doesnt pass there it can't go anywhere. I don't share the view that nothing addressing the cause of immigration will be a true. I think that a few of the smarter politicians will be passing some sort of reform that makes a change. They will realize the weakness of the Republican Party at this point and use it to push something liberal down their throats. The whole thing might have a conservative gtaste to it but the democrats will come out with a few significant wins.
I am responding to Akorede's Post. I agree with most of what he said. He said, " Personally I believe that the area in which the president should put a little more attention to is giving citizenship to many illegal immigrants that are currently in the United States than deporting the mass majority of them while at the same time increasing the security to insure less and less illegal immigrants will try to come to the U.S, while also making it easier for immigrants to legally come to the United States so there would be fewer reasons to come illegally," which I agree with, except for the increasing security. I think that increasing security would be redundant because, illegal immigrants would still find a way in with or without increased security. He also said, "Economic factors come into consideration in terms of immigration because allowing illegal immigrant to attain citizenship more easily means that they would be able to get better jobs in which they wouldn’t be able to have otherwise thus allowing them to make more money thus allowing the country to make more money by having more people make more money." I agree with that. More legal immigrants means less illegal ones, and not only would they be stimulating the economy, they would also be paying taxes. However I disagree with the last part of this sentence, "I predict that the president and congress will come to a conclusion to the immigration question more easily than possible in the past because of the different ideas people in America have now than they did in the past." I believe that they will reach a deal more easily because most everyone wants it solved(2). Therefor more senators and representatives will be more willing to vote for it to be reelected.
1)Akorede's post
2)My initial post
3)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/obama-s-2013-state-of-the-union-and-the-immigration-reform-moment.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home