Immigration to the United States and America

Immigration Jennifer Lippert ENG/102 March 12, 2012 Dr. Kimberly Stanley In the united relegates of the arouses, we live in a sea of opportunity. Many people make out from other countries to live in the States to explore those opportunities, unless the live on philosophys presidential term in-migration guard failed to change with the ever-increasing immigrant world. We watch as ring States bundle with the rising constitute to support immigrants and wonder whether this was what the founding fathers had in mastermind when the first Immigration Laws were passed.We wonder about the effects on the Statess economy as our immigrant commonwealth work in this nation then sgoal these U. S. dollars to their home rustic to support their families. We observe an dynamic unloadscape continually affected by the legal and contraband immigrants who belt down in our great country. We contemplate whether America is the land of opportunity and the land of the free, or simply a place for immigrants to land and live for free. As citizens, it is non only our right, but in any case our duty, to question our leaders and our legalitys peculiarly when those laws no longer appear to fit Americas vision.Immigration laws guard remained stagnant for far too long and, although immigrants were the founding fathers of our nation, it is time to see Americas position to begin with the social and economic costs be acquire insurmount subject. Americas founding fathers believed that in-migration was necessary to step-up the nation of our country, but overly believed that they must prove a dedication only to America to become citizens. Beginning with George Washington, in the late 18th century, a statement was made that immigrants should be integrated into American disembodied spirit so that Fonte(n. . ) by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws in a word soon become one people. This then became a virgin basis for immigration. In this case, the term assimilates means to conform to a substance of life. In a 1790 speech to sexual relation about immigration, James capital of Wisconsin argued that America should welcome those immigrants who could be incorporated into our society, but exclude those immigrants that could not readily assimilate.doubting Thomas Jefferson was convinced that immigrants were not prepared for the bare-assed society America was building and thought the country should wait another 27 twelvemonth before opening its shores. In fact, when addressing immigration in Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote Fonte(n. d. ) They give bring with them the principles of the g all overnments they expire, imbibed in their early youth or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate libert y.These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, state of warp and bias its direction, and bear witness it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted crowd. In other words, by allowing a mass immigration into such a unsanded society, America could be allowing the immigrant population to distort the principles established by our clean laws and policies. To whatsoever degree, Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, but his emphasis was on the threat to national safety.His concern was in granting citizenship to every immigrant upon arrival in the country. He believed that there should be some proof of allegiance to America before any rights were given to new immigrants. However, both Jefferson and Hamilton shared the equal beliefs that immigrants should conform to the ways of America and leave their old government attachme nts behind. After much debate, it appeared that Jefferson and Hamilton could claim a picayune victory. The Naturalization Law of 1795 was passed, which required that before becoming American citizens, immigrants would have to renounce under fella all previous sovereign allegiances.This forswearing clause carcass part of the naturalization law and part of the oath to the U. S. Constitution that all new citizens must take. (Fonte,n. d. ). Changes in immigration laws over the past two centuries have certainly contributed to the overall rise in U. S. immigration statistics, but it would take most a century before the first amendment to that law would take shape. The Naturalization Law of 1795 required quint grades of residence and a three- course of instruction waiting period before citizenship was granted. This allowed new immigrants the opportunity to assimilate and demonstrate allegiance to America. However, by 1868, with he end of the Civil War, the population was burgeoning with ex-slaves and their descendants who had been brought to this country without the rights of citizenship. In fact, in 1857, the authoritative Court ruled that African Americas were not citizens and were not entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship. In order to rectify the situation, the Fourteenth amendment was passed which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the linked States of America. Interestingly enough, it would take another war and its devastation to bring about a new amendment to U. S. immigration law in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act.Following World War I, the country faced widespread unemployment and an anti-immigration uprising. This Act limited the number of immigrants allowed to come to America from any country on an annual basis to three pct of the number of residents from that same country according to the 1910 census with the hope of maintaining the ethnic composition of America. fleck the quota system remained in effect until 1965, there was one additional revision to the Emergency Quota Act in 1952 with the Immigration Act of 1952, which revised the quotas and eliminated racial distinctions from immigration policy. case quotas were eventually abolished entirely in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 at the height of the Civil Rights movement, changing the face of America, as it was then known. tally to 2011 Census statistics, the U. S. immigrant population continues to change the face of America. Not only do non-whites account for ninety two percent of the U. S. population developing in the past go years, but also forty million foreign-born individuals now reside in the unify States, making up almost thirteen percent of our population.Most of this population lives in metropolitan areas rather than the suburbs, with estimates as high as fifty percent of the population in cardinal large cities across America. In fact, nine metropolitan areas saw their immigrant population double in the last ten years, but the five cities with the largest immigrant populations (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and Houston) actually decreased their share of this part of the population over the last ten years dropping to a total of 38 percent of the population in 2010 compared to 43 percent in 2000.In some areas of the country, rapid growth in immigration population may create policy backlashes, which could lastly threaten these places long-standing economic comfort. Given the contemporary economic climate and high unemployment rates, do the most recent census figures show any race with rising immigration levels? The best available deduction suggests that neither legal nor unauthorized immigration is the cause of high unemployment, and that the higher contend and purchase power which formerly unauthorized immigrants would enjoy were they to receive legal position would sustain new jobs (American Immigration Council,2012).In order to make informed decisions r egarding immigration reform, however, we cannot limit our assessment to the changing face of our nation we must also examine the economic cost to the United States. Recent studies have shown that the United States spends $113 billion annually to support both legal and illegal immigrants, but much of the total U. S. burden is borne by only a a couple of(prenominal) Border States. California, for example, reports spending close to ten billion dollars a year to support its immigration population, which now accounts for almost forty three percent of its total population.Texas reports spending $4. 5 to $6 billion per year sustaining its illegal immigrant population and Arizona drops $2. 7 billion on its immigrant population. While Border States would likely argue for more stringent laws to limit the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country in order to lessen their burden, there are also States that would argue against reform to the immigration system due to its projected waywa rd effect on their economy. For instance, Kansas has reported that it could possibly lose up to $57. 3 million in their income if stricter immigration laws come into affect.They claim that with change in immigration laws only comes a higher tax for their state. Kansas also claims that the State will lose millions of dollars in court costs alone if the law makes it difficult for immigrants to live and work in their State. As staggering as these numbers are, other studies show that immigrants have actually boosted the U. S. economy by bringing in $245 million to the gross domestic product. This estimate, however, is nothing compared to estimated wages of foreign employees working in the United States for less than one year which grew from $550 million in $1980 to $8. billion in 2003. These earnings, in turn, are partly returned to immigrant workers home countries to help support families in the form of remittances out of the United States. In fact, a study by the Bureau of Economic synopsis in 2003 reported that a considerable share of all immigration is motivated at least in part by the opportunity to send home remittances. According to the study, workers remittances from the United States went from $4. 1 billion in 1981 to $25. 5 billion in 2003. While these reported numbers sound staggering, remittances are not considered to have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, the study also notes that remittances exceed U. S. government provided development assistant to developing countries and may be partially responsible for keeping the cost of such assistance down. America is the land of opportunity. When we look at current immigration laws, our founding fathers vision for growth in this country remains intact. In fact, the ideas brought forth by Jefferson and Hamilton for allegiance to the country is still a part of the renunciation oath taken by all new citizens.By the numbers, there is evidence to support immigration reform and there is evidence th at the influx of immigrants to the United States actually help our economy. Until the country can come together as a whole to fully support immigration reform, it is likely that it will take another catastrophic event to slingback immigration to the forefront of American policy reform. References Kerwin, D. (2011). Fixing Immigration. (cover story). America, 205(18), 12. Fonte, J. (n. d. ). To Possess the National Consciousness of an American. Retrieved from http//www. cis. org Frey, W. H. , Berube, A. , Singer, A. & Wilson, J. (2011, December). Five things the census revealed about America in 2011. State of Metropolitan America, 48, 3-4. Retrieved from http//www. brookings. edu Shackleton, R. , Palriwala, A. , & Gordon, A. (2005, May). Remittances International Payments by Immigrants. The Congress of the United Stated congressional budget office. Retrieved from http//www. hsdl. org Bad for Business How Anti-Immigrant Laws throw out Hurt the Kansas Economy. (2011). Retrieved from http//immigrationpolicy. org American Immigration Council. (2012). Immigration Reform and Growth. Retrieved from http//immigrationpolicy. org