Immigration Twenty-First Century\" This Synthesis Essay; Involves

¶ … Immigration Twenty-First Century" This synthesis essay; involves essays "Amnesty?" John

Immigration in the Twenty-First Century

Immigration in the twenty-first century is one of the most widely debated issues in the United States. Many different states, liberals and conservatives have denoted varying stances on this topic, which seemingly becomes more pressing every day as the number of undocumented workers continues to grow. This phenomenon is widely discussed in a pair of essays by John Kavanaugh and Fred Reed, respectively. In the latter's piece of literature, "Why Blame Mexico?," the author deconstructs this topic from the perspective that the United States does not actually want to stop illegal aliens from coming into the country. In the former's literary work, "Amnesty?," the author discusses humanitarian and even religious reasons for tolerating and even granting amnesty to undocumented workers. As I see it, all humans deserve a fair chance to succeed in life and illegal aliens are humans so they should be granted Amnesty when they enter the U.S.

One of the basic notions that the United States was founded upon was that it would be the land of the free and that opportunity could abound for those here who could not find it elsewhere. As such, the country quickly developed a reputation as the place where anyone could achieve success and happiness simply by working hard and applying himself or herself. This very notion upon which the country was built upon is predicated on the fact that there is an inherent equality between people, regardless of their personal circumstances or fortunes (or misfortunes). On paper, at least, the laws of the U.S. now reflect the fact that people have equal rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, I believe that all humans are deserving of this chance for a good life, a notion which is essential to Kavanuagh's essay. The focus of this article is that illegal immigrants are people and should be considered as such when they enter the country. This belief is in alignment with the fact that all people deserve a fair chance to succeed in life, and since immigrants are people too they deserve amnesty upon entering the U.S.

The crux of my thesis and of my argument in general is that undocumented immigrant workers are people too. Because they are people and not some sub-class of humanity because they are not native Americans, they deserve the opportunity to have happiness and success like others do. One of the most important things that one must realize about all of the people who are debating the concept of amnesty for illegal immigrants is the fact that there are a lot of people in the U.S. who seem to ascribe to my point-of-view. Reed alludes to this fact in the subsequent quotation. "The problem of immigration, note, is entirely self-inflicted. The U.S. chose to let them in. It didn't have to. They came to work. If Americans hadn't hired them, they would have gone back"(Reed). This relatively simply series of statements emphasizes the fact that there are many people in the U.S. who want undocumented workers, which is why they routinely have and will continue to hire them when they enter the country. However, they are not merely hiring robots or some scion of humanity when they choose to give these people jobs and the means of providing a livelihood for themselves. They are hiring people who also need housing, healthcare, and food so that they can continue to provide labor for and assist the U.S. economy and societal structure by performing what is largely unwanted labor. These employers are hiring people, and since all people deserve to be able to pursue the shared dream of equal rights and freedom, illegal aliens deserve amnesty when they come to the country.

This fact is also buttressed by several different passages in Kavanaugh's article. The author primarily alludes to the humanity of these migrant laborers by asserting the relevance of such an idea within a biblical context. Actually, it is fairly evident that Kavanuagh places the value of the humanity of these illegal aliens over other aspects of their situation -- such as the fact that they have transgressed the law as well as the borders of America. The following quotation readily reinforces this notion.

"They have broken the law." This is an interesting standard of ethics, justice or charity for a nation that sees itself as Judeo-Christian and humane…As for making the law our bottom line, do Christians know how many times Jesus was in trouble with the law…" (Kavanuagh).

It is clear from this quotation that Kavanuagh considers there to be more pressing issues related to the debate regarding undocumented worker amnesty than merely legal affairs. Those more pressing issues include the fact that these workers are people with dreams, hopes, aspirations (and names, a fact which he references at the outset and the close of his article) who deserve the right to pursue them as much as any other person does. Doing so is one of the basic rights of humanity and one of the tenets that America was founded upon, which is why undocumented workers certainly deserve amnesty.

It is interesting to note that chief among Reed's ideas for why illegal aliens should be lawfully permitted into the U.S. is that certain socio-political structures within the U.S. are designed to allow them. These structures are not in place in other countries, such as Mexico. The author describes Mexico's immigration policy as "reasonable,," and notes that the country "doesn't do illegal aliens" (Reed). The implication is that there are certain people -- some of with considerable social, political, and even economic power -- who do want these migrant workers to labor within the U.S. If these people are good enough to work in the U.S., they should be good enough to legally stay here.