Immigration Policy (Second In-Class Essay)

We have all heard of the saying, “We must help ourselves before we help others.” Basically, in order to help others, we must be fully capable in our own mind and body before we advise others, in case we advise them to their demise. Though the beginnings of immigration reform were initiated between U.S. President, George W. Bush and Mexican President, Vincente Fox, things came to a standstill after the tragedies of September 11, 2001 that resulted in thousands of deaths. As our country began to build up in economic strength and morale, the housing market bubble crashed and created one of the deepest recessions the U.S. has faced since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

The editors of the Contra Costa Times published the article “Revamp Immigration” in which they call upon the United States to integrate a “guest-worker” system that would aid the Mexican government in boosting their economy. Although our nation is especially known for its opportunities of success and prosperity, we are at a time in our economy in which we must focus on our own economic wealth. A major factor in improving our economic health is immigration control. Due to mass legal and illegal immigration, our already weak economy is simply not capable of supporting its own citizens and the citizens of other countries that are undocumented. The CCT’s article, “Revamp Immigration”, is full fallacies in which they wrongly-accuse the U.S. as both the solution and the problem of their fiscal health.

The article provides background for us in which they speak of the United States’ and Mexico’s Presidents coming together to work on immigration control between their countries. In this section, the CCT makes a misstep in logic behind the reasoning to why the U.S. no longer supports immigration. They propose that due to the events of 9/11, the U.S. began to “view all foreigners as potential terrorists”, evident in the fact that the “Immigration and Naturalization Service became part of the Department of Homeland Security”. In combination with President Fox’s public opposition to the “[U.S.’s ]war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, talks of relations were “put on the backburner”. First, the United States still accepts people from every country to legally emigrate so there is no prejudice against foreigners. Second, “viewing all foreigners as potential terrorists”, is going a bit extreme. Our nation had been attacked in which thousands of Americans had been killed because another country hated the U.S. for having dissimilar religious beliefs. By combining the INS and the Department of Homeland Security, we are simply exercising our right to limit the influx of immigration in order to do thorough background checks on whoever comes to our country to ensure our people’s safety. If we are not confident in ensuring our own citizen’s safety, how are we expected to take on increased amount of lives for a work-program and guarantee their safety as well? By implementing the “solution” of a guest-worker program, we will have only created another problem by failing to maintain our guests’ well-being.

The CCT tries to appeal to pity by implying that “if the big-rig victims had reached their destinations safely [instead of suffocating to death, then] they would have found jobs in the United States in a variety of industries that depend on undocumented workers.” It is a gross attempt to try to distract people from the actual problem but they also lie to us and create a false dichotomy. The CTT tries to tell us American industries will go without the employees they need to “harvest our food, clean our offices at night, fix our hotel beds, and work in the kitchens of some of our fanciest restaurants.” By saying these “various industries” specifically “depend on undocumented workers”, the CTT only gives us one option and denies the solution of having documented, or legal citizens work in these industries. The actual problem of the “variety of industries that depend on undocumented workers” is the fact that these industries should not be employing undocumented workers in the first place. As of October 2012, our current unemployment rate is at 7.9% which documents the rates at which American citizens who are looking for a job and cannot find one. It is not that “jobs go begging because no one else will do them”, it is because tax-paying Americans are not able to compete with the low-wages and long hours that undocumented workers are willing to work for. It is unethical and wrong for a government to financially help another country’s citizens when such a large portion of their own population is unemployed and without medical benefits.

While the article tries to set up the premise of undocumented workers doing jobs that no one else will do, their second premise goes off on a tangent that “Mexican workers sen[d] up to $10 billion back to their families, according to a 2002 report. These two statements may try to imply that in working unwanted jobs, undocumented workers were able to create enough growth in the economy to live off of and send back to family members abroad as well. Sending money to back to family members in Mexico does not stimulate U.S. economic growth, if anything it depletes from the overall money supply which results in a decrease in the country GDP and overall standard of living.

The editors say that “both countries would benefit” from a “‘guest-worker’ system that allows hard-working people to legally cross the border without becoming permanent residents” but in actuality the U.S. hurts more than it benefits. Studies have shown that a third of immigrants are without a high school diploma so many of those coming to work would be working low-paying labor jobs. In these jobs, workers will hardly make enough to be required to pay taxes and would even be qualified for a low-income tax return of up to $3,500 per person. While workers have “sent up to $10 billion back” home, it doesn't even cover half of the $24 billion state deficit that is mainly caused by the education system being overcrowded with immigrant children- and it costs $7,000 a year to educate just one child! Besides, how are we going to keep track of the people on a guest-worker visa and ensure that they will leave the country when necessary? They will do anything it takes to stay in the country even if it makes staying illegally.

During the U.S’s shining moment we became known to other countries, especially ones experiencing high levels of poverty, as a country to achieve our dreams. During the Clinton administration, unemployment rates were as low as 3.9%. Before the decline of the housing market, everybody was able to own a home because they were able to secure loans. Things like this made the American dream shine so much more brightly however things are not as glamorous anymore. It’s not that we don’t want to be able to help our neighbors in their time of need, our high unemployment rate, and overcrowded education system just cannot support any more people. Besides, creating a guest-worker program is not a solution to the problem of immigration, it is a solution for Mexico’s not being able to create “the millions of jobs it needs to lift..people out of poverty. People who aren’t able to get into the guest-worker program will illegally cross the border in stuffy big-rigs anyways. This is not a solution but rather a mere band-aid to a scraped and broken leg.


Response
    
    In this section I learned about many different types of fallacies and then applying it to texts when I read. It was enjoyable to look closely at a writer's piece to find that his points were certain kinds of fallacies. 

   In learning how to identify fallacies, I was able to become a better writer by analyzing my own points and the evidence supporting it. After understanding the standard form of argumentation, I was able to look at my essay to make sure that one piece of evidence in addition to another piece of evidence would support my main point. What I found was that my paragraphs were slightly off-balance in that the evidence and the main point would not align very well. I now understand that it is the difference between my own understanding of my essay versus what the reader is actually reading.