¶ … 2005, the British publication, The Economist, published an article regarding immigration and the parties who benefit from it. At the time, a decade ago, Prime Minister Tony Blair failed in his attempt to rally support against illegal immigration throughout the European Union (EU). Countries across the continent experienced intense political division regarding this issue. Those who favored politics argued for illegal immigration to cease; those who prioritized economics supported immigration, legal or otherwise. The article explains that to ease tensions within the British government, Blair proposed official supporting of legal immigration and the intensification of stopping illegal immigration. Blair ensured that the administration and bureaucracy regarding legal immigration was streamlined. The article then proceeds to question which parties in society benefit from immigration and how. Immigration, from the perspective of The Economist is an occurrence that should be calculated, regulated, and firmly enforced. The article questions who benefits from immigration; why should this question be asked? Meaning, what is the point or what is the benefit of this question? Who benefits from this question being asked? This question does not seem relevant. Questions about immigration are necessary and inevitable, but this question seems rather useless. Who benefits from immigration? Who cares? It does not really matter who benefits from immigration....

Immigration is a fact of life in every country. Immigration and emigration happen constantly.
Immigration is supposed to benefit everyone ideally. Immigration helps the people who are immigrating, as there is a reason why they are and typically people move with the intention of a higher quality of life than what they presently have. Furthermore, immigration is supposed to enrich and benefit the community into which the immigrants immigrate. Though there may be difficulties and obstacles from many angles of the process, the potential benefits remain steady.

Perhaps the article should have been more specific in the topic. Instead of questioning who benefits from immigration, the question should have been more along the lines of who benefits from the regulation of immigration? That is a much more relevant and engaging question with potential for interesting discoveries. Before this reader could even engage the text, the process could not happen completely because of the central question, which this reader found pointless and counterproductive. The latter question more aligns with the content of the text anyway, but the slight change in semantics makes a huge deal for this reader and perhaps others. Moreover, if the author approached the article with the proposed question in mind, much of the present text could be used in addition to more relevant details. There is no mention of the social, cultural, and educational benefits of…