Immigration Reform. Pros and Cons

¶ … immigration reform.

Pros and Cons of Immigration Reform

Briefly state two facts presented by each side.

Lamm (2002) presents several facts in his case for significant immigration reform, some of these facts were quite powerful. The first fact he presents is aimed at the heart of the American reader. Lamm notes that 19 Islamic fundamentalists were the murderers of more than 3,000 innocent people on September 11th and that all of these murderers entered the United States legally.

His second fact expounds on this information. Lamm further explains that some of these 19 terrorists legal visas had expired, and that this is not an uncommon occurrence. He states that approximately one-half of the 8 to 11 million illegal aliens in the United States are those who entered the country legally, but have overstayed their approved duration.

Campbell (2006) also uses facts in her argument against immigration reform. Her first fact involves President Bush's current plan to send 6,000 National Guardsmen to police the approximately 2,000-mile long border between the United States and Mexico. Campbell's second fact involves her theory that increased border control would lead to migrant's into crossing the border at more dangerous points, which she underscores with the fact that in 2005, 463 migrants died trying to cross into the United States, from Mexico.

Briefly state, in your own words, two opinions presented by each side.

One of Lamm's (2002) opinions presented in his speech is that the United States is a country basically with open borders, despite all of the immigration controls currently in place. He surmises that this is due to several factors, including: the lack of border control agents for thousands of miles of border, as well as the inability to effectively background check immigrants coming in from countries such as Jordan, Libya, and Egypt. Lamm's second opinion is that the implementation of a national I.D. would prohibit illegal aliens from obtaining employment. However, he fails to acknowledge the millions of workers that currently work under the table, with absolutely no documentation at all, and a national I.D. would fail to change this.

Campbell (2006), on the other hand, uses the opinion that an increased border control is a repressive action taken towards Mexican citizens specifically. This action would not only affect Mexican migrants but also anyone who would enter the country illegally, whether it be for work or for terror. Campbell's second opinion is that somehow the desire for a better life supercedes America's need for security. She theorizes that illegal Mexican workers fill a need for cheap labor in the U.S. And that this combined with the fact that these workers are just looking for the American dream, that their entry is harmless.

Briefly identify as many problems on the Pro-side as you can.

The most significant problem with the pro-side for immigration reform is Lamm's (2002) assumption that programs like a national I.D. would truly be an effective means of monitoring people within the United States. As mentioned, this method would not prevent the occurrence of workers working under-the-table for cash.

Another problem with Lamm's speech is the belief that a 6-month moratorium on visas would have a positive effect. What possibly in 6-months could change the ability of the United States to accurately perform background checks on the thousands of visa entries from countries such as Jordan and Libya? This accuracy depends also on the data collection within the home state of the immigrant, which is unlikely to change.

Briefly identify as many problems on the Con side as you can.

The primary problem in Campbell's (2006) article is the supposition that the American economy truly needs illegal aliens to function. The author makes no mention of guest-worker programs that would allow for workers to enter the country, to fill jobs that are not being filled by American citizens, but also require them to have a background check, pay taxes, and leave after a specified period of time. She also fails to acknowledge the very real possibility that America's borders include much more than simply the U.S./Mexico border, and that the concerns go beyond simply illegal Mexican migrants.

Identify, in your own words, any propaganda techniques used by either of the authors.

Propaganda was used by both sides. Lamm (2002) uses the horror of September 11th to evoke emotion in the reader. He notes that those murderers were allowed into the country and lived, worked and played here before taking the lives of thousands of innocents. He exacerbates that emotion by continuing with the note that there are still terrorists among Americans, waiting for a chance to commit acts of terror, and thousands of Islamic schools training children to hate America, prepping them to do the same thing.

Campbell's (2006) propaganda centers on the American Dream and the desire for honest, hard-working people to just make a living. She too plays on the reader's emotions, noting that poor Alfredo's son, who is an illegal alien in New York City, won't be able to come home to visit his family, because he would then have to risk sneaking back into the States. She further victimizes the illegal alien in question by noting how the kind soul sends his hard-earned money home to his family in Mexico each month. Of course, she fails to recognize that this money, although hard-earned, was also illegally begotten,

How credible is each author? What are the author's credentials for writing this presentation?

Both authors are credible in some ways. Lamm is a notable politician that has done much research on the issue of immigration, the need for reform, and it's effect on terrorism. This comes through in the extensive use of facts and figures. Campbell too is credible. She is a writer for a respected periodical, and has interviewed Mexican citizens first-hand as support for her position.

Which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why?

The author that impressed me as being the most empirical is Lamm (2002). Clearly, Lamm has done his homework on the statistics surrounding this hotly contested issue. Most importantly, his facts are relevant to the topic at hand, whereas some of Campbell's (2006) facts are ancillary. As an example, Lamm notes that to place Federal Marshalls on all flights, 14,000 Air Marshals would be needed, which is more than the total number of FBI special agents, and therefore not practical. This is clearly supportive of the need for another plan of protecting America, like immigration reform. Campbell, on the other hand, uses figures such as the number of deaths of migrants trying to cross the border, which really is not an effective reason to negate reform implementation.