Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
This inscription, which is found on the Statue of Liberty, greeted years of immigrants who passed through Ellis Island to America. It describes the idealized view of the United States as a nation of immigrants, where anyone can achieve the American dream. However, does this accurately describe our immigration policy today?
Refugees have two basic choices. They can return to their home country, or they can try to settle in another country. Most refugees, however, cannot return home because conditions in their native country have not changed sufficiently to eliminate the problems from which they originally fled. Curiously enough, the United Nations Charter of Human Rights "bestows the right to leave a country, but other states are not obligated to allow entry" (Richmond 114). Basically, this says that no refugee may be forced to return to a country of persecution; however, no United Nations regulation specifies that another country must take the refugee in. This leaves the poor, equally unstable bordering countries to host millions of refugees. Over 80% of the world's 15 million refugees are living in the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. (Singer 249)
Resettlement is the only solution for those who cannot return to their own countries in the foreseeable future and are only welcome temporarily in the country to which they have fled; in other words for those who have nowhere to go. There are millions who would choose this option if there were countries that would take them. For these refuges, resettlement may mean the difference between life and death. It certainly is their only hope for a decent existence. (Singer 252)
For four hundred years, immigrants have been coming to the United States for whatever reason, whether it be job opportunities, conflicts in their native country, or to give their children the chance to grow up in a free nation. The first U.S. Census, taken in 1790, the population was around four million and this country still has thousands of foreigners relocating to the states. The immigrant population has increased ever since; therefore, America can still be labeled as a melting pot.
From 2000 to 2007, the U.S. experienced the biggest influx of immigrants in its history over a seven-year period with 10.3 million immigrants (legal and illegal) making their way into the Land of Opportunity. In 2007, the Census Bureau estimated that out of the 38.1 million aliens currently living in America, 54% of that number were Latin American, 27% were from Asia, 13% were of European descent, and four percent came from Africa. About one in eight people living in the country today are immigrants. The highest ten nationalities of those immigrants are, in order, Mexican; Chinese; Philippine; Indian; Salvadorian; Vietnamese; South Korean; Cuban; Canadian; and Dominican.
As with any issue, however, there are two sides to the debate. One of the first arguments against increasing immigration is that an influx of immigrants will drain our resources. The United States already has poverty-stricken families who require aid, why should we admit more? Information on immigrants, however, shows them to be a group of people valuing work and education. A study conducted on ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese, and Lao immigrants found their unemployment rate dropped from 90% in the first months of resettlement to under 30% after three years in the country. (Caplan 53). Almost 80% of the children of these immigrants held GPAs in the A or B range. (Caplan 66) "The refugee children not only excelled in local schools but performed as well or better than the national average on standardized achievement tests" (Caplan 70). A second study, concerning Mexican immigrants in the Los Angeles area, found that overall unemployment rates dropped after an influx of immigrants. (Heer 185-186) Immigrants do not come to America to take advantage of our welfare system. If they wanted to do so, why not go to a socialist country that provides even more public services for its residents? They come with hopes and dreams shared by current American citizens: the hope for a better future for themselves and their children, the American dream.
Many Americans argue that we should not admit more immigrants because they will take away jobs from current citizens. Immigrants are known as hard-working, so this is a legitimate threat. For example, one Chinese male from an aforementioned study received a medal from his company. "He was chosen among three hundred employees as the hardest worker of the company" (Caplan 52). This man earned $4.37 an hour as an assistant cook. A survey conducted among employers in the restaurant and hotel industry found that Hispanic immigrants were the preferred employees. Employers said that the immigrants had friendlier attitudes than native African-Americans and worked harder than native whites, of which one employer claimed, "They tend to be lazier. They figure they will get paid the same whether they work or they don't, whether they bust their butts cleaning the place up and making it look nice, or just kick back" (Heer 188). If immigrants are willing to work harder, they deserve our jobs. Our country has, after all, a free market economy. One might also inquire as to what the difference is between American companies who use immigrants for a source of cheap labor and those companies who move production to Mexico or China and use cheap labor there. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves if refusing immigrants entrance to our country simply because they will compete for American jobs is morally permissible.
Another common argument against increased immigration claims that we do not have enough natural resources or land to support more immigrants. Consider this environmental example from North Carlolina: Using recycled instead of virgin materials in manufacturing processes requires less energy. Energy savings for aluminum is 95%, 30% for glass, and 60% for steel. For every 30,000 tons of material recycled in North Carolina, 100 jobs are created compared to just 14 jobs if the same tonnage is placed in landfills (North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance). If we were all this environmentally conscious, we would have plenty of resources to go around. The money saved from lower energy costs due to increased recycling could be used to pay salaries for the 86 new jobs created. The new jobs would provide employment for the immigrants, and at the same time, we would be improving the environment by lessening the amount of garbage in landfills and using less energy.
In conclusion, immigration serves as positive developer of the economy as well as enrichment of cultural diversity. This does more good for the host nation and should be taken as a positive impact of immigration. Immigrants are an asset to the economy of United States. Allowing these hardworking people to work in United States will help the country a big deal. In addition, they provide a ready market for the internally produced goods thus boosting the economy. Immigration creates a cordial relationship between countries, and this places United States in high social class, in the eyes of other nations.