The United States has often been called the melting pot of all countries because of its copious diversity of different ethnicities, cultures, and traditions, which makes America the great country it is today. This is derived from the opulent tradition of immigrants coming to the United States legally and illegally looking for a better life and the pursuit of happiness. Although many Americans believe that immigration has an unconstructive outcome in the economic development of the United States, sociological inquiries have proven otherwise, but the U.S. government still considers immigration as an austere problem for America. As a consequence, over the past two decades the U.S. Senate has failed to pass an immigration reform bill that would likely answer many of the questions people have towards immigration. Furthermore, supported by the Bush administration are the pragmatists that say that America should acknowledge the fact that there is a projected twelve million illegal inhabitants in the U.S. and that they are here to stay, so we should find a way to offer them a path to citizenship (see left). On the other side are the optimists who dispute that illegal immigrants are no more than criminals who are breaking the law. They argue that illegal immigrants should not be remunerated and in doing so only encourages more illegal immigration into the U.S. While different views of immigration will continue to take place in the White House, the uncertainty of whether immigration is good or bad for the United States still remains.Buried in this ongoing deliberation is the question of the prospective economic effects on a measure that could change the composition of the labor force of America in considerable means. The United States Senate believes that by cracking down on illegal immigration, they can constrict the future supply of workers in the provinces of agriculture, construction, and the restaurant and hotel industries. By moving to an evaluation form for visas that is weighted more on the skills of a person rather than the family ties they might have in the U.S., the senate judges that they can provide more jobs for flourishing industries such as technology and biotechnology. Peter Cappelli a professor at Wharton in the University of Pennsylvania was quoted in a television report by its local news center utv13 “saying that what is troubling him about the legislation is that it is being marketed as if it does not involve any tradeoffs, that the move to employment-based criterion will be good for the economy and good for the country.” In fact Cappelli argues it will create winners and losers, and whether one approves of the legislation or not depends on how one feels about those winners and losers. However, the matter of fact is that majority of the jobs in the U.S. are not high-tech, most of the obtainable jobs concentrate within the fields of agriculture, and manufacturing for illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, many Americans still believe that by reducing the number of immigrants, whether legal or illegal that come into the U.S. would help alleviate some of the unemployment problems that America is facing today.
Conversely, Bernard Anderson, a practice professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania, “says he is not worried about the economic implications of immigration reform, mainly because he sees it having little long-term effect.” As a former assistant secretary in the U.S. Labor Department during the Clinton administration, Anderson also states, “that illegal workers already in the United States are likely to remain, regardless of whether they are offered citizenship or not.” Despite that, many traditionalist still rail against reprieve, but they do not offer a resolution on the twelve million people that are already in the U.S. Many if not most of the illegal immigrants that come to the United States looking for employment concentrate in the areas of agriculture, food preparation, construction, and hospitality and personal service. Numerous jobs in these industries are considered and are part of what labor economists call “non-competing” jobs. The truth is that many natural born citizens are not rushing to fill the job vacancies provided by these businesses. Take California for example, it is one of the most diverse states in America. When examining California’s construction sector, a television report aired by CNN stated that there are no illegal immigrants constructing high-rise buildings in Los Angeles or Sacramento. Instead these jobs are being filled by native-born citizens that belong to unions such as the Operating Engineers Union or the United Steelworkers Union. On the other hand going into the suburbs or residential housing developments, most of the work is being done by illegal immigrants. So ask yourself, whose jobs did illegal immigrants really take? The answer is simple, they did not take anyone’s jobs because native workers were simply not willing to do these jobs or take the salary or hourly wages that are being offered.

1 comment:
Very interesting post on a hot topic facing the United States of America. Your knowledge of the issue at hand is prevalent in your post and you did a wonderful job of conveying the information in a non-biased way. I thought that the part about ‘non-competing jobs’ was very intriguing and until reading your blog I was unaware of the fact that illegal immigrants don’t do construction work on high rise buildings in big cities.
Most of your links were very pertinent to the subject at hand, but some of the links could have been linked to more information packed sources. A few examples of this would be the link for ‘Clinton Administration’ and the ‘American Dream.’ If you replaced those links with articles that explain each, I feel those would be more suitable links.
I observed a couple of things I thought you might be able to tweak and make your blog even more effective. First, would be the pragmatist and the optimist; you did a good job indicating that the Bush Administration is pragmatic, but you didn’t give any examples of who the optimists are, I would assume that it would be the democrats, but an example or two would be better. Also I feel like it would be interesting for you to incorporate where McCain and Obama stand on this issue. Secondly, when you go into the part where you are quoting the scholars, the section would be crystal clear if indicated whether they were pragmatics or optimist before their quote. Thirdly, I as a reader of your post would be very interested in having you explore education, crime, and whether or not the American dream is a realistic goal for the immigrants or their children.
All in all, this post is a very good post that has educated me on this topic that is so important to American society. I look forward to reading your future posts and I am eager to continue my education on this subject as we head towards the presidential election and into the future.
Post a Comment