Arguments over our country's immigration policies have engulfed the political landscape since the Naturalization Act of 1790. Since those times over-hyped issues concerning the harmful effects derived from immigration have doomed migrants searching for opportunity beyond the Third World countries they are fleeing. Whether or not this essay convinces the reader that immigration is beneficial to society, its primary goal is to challenge the current laws that deprive millions of foreigners of reaching their dreams based on the misconception that immigration is detrimental to our nation as a whole. The current policies that control migration to protect American jobs, taxpayers, culture and government benefits are excessively harsh and should be replaced by cheaper, more efficient alternatives that will be advantageous for Americans and immigrants alike.

Migrants stealing American jobs is the most widely believed myth and fear of immigration. President Donald Trump used this fear to construct what would be the winning presidential campaign. Trump complained in 2015 that, "While there are many illegal immigrants in our country who are good people, this doesn't change the fact that most illegal immigrants are lower-skilled workers with less education who compete directly against vulnerable American workers." With 51.9% of immigrants employed in low-skilled service occupations and 22.4% having no high school diploma (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), numbers show that migrants are at quite a disadvantage when competing with foreign workers. So how exactly, if they are less educated and adept in speaking English, do they steal American jobs? In small part, it is due to their willingness to accept lower wages, but mainly it is because Americans do not have the desire to fill these occupations. The truth is that pivotal industries such as agriculture and construction rely heavily on immigrant labor. The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico" (qtd. In Goodman). The USDA has also warned that "any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry" (qtd. In Goodman). Our major agricultural corporations rely heavily on labor provided by immigrants, a loss of this supply of labor could leave these businesses without any workers. These are "backbreaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do" (Felbab-Brown).  If these people from poverty-stricken areas are not born with the luxury of being American and are more determined to provide for their families, who are we to stand in their way? 

Using demographics to determine that an American is entitled to a job over an immigrant with a higher work ethic is discriminatory. Economist Daniel Costa and Jennifer Rosenbaum estimated that "1.42 million temporary foreign workers were employed in the United States with nonimmigrant visas in fiscal 2013." With over 43 million immigrants currently participating in the U.S. labor force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), the number of visas given out does not represent the amount of labor provided. Michael Corkery reported David Zalesne, an executive of Owen Steel Company, as stating, "some of the Trump administration's economic policies are probably going to be good for his industry. President Trump has vowed to bolster American manufacturing — and domestic steel production in particular. But a push to end a program that shields the children of undocumented immigrants from deportation, a move the administration has been considering seems "self-defeating.”

The DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, which protects those immigrants who entered the country at a young age by way of illegal entry, shows our legislation was on the right track with the Obama Administration. However, President Trump has recently expressed his desire to bring this program to an end. Zalesne is not the only major CEO to come to the defense of DACA, for as the chief executive of Best Buy, Hubert Joly, also wrote, "There are hundreds of thousands of young men and women whose futures are at stake." Limiting immigration to protect American jobs is not justifiable, or even an idea supported by our major business leaders. Many economists, such as Caplan, have concluded that it is not necessary,

"to restrict migration to protect native workers from the consequences of immigration. There is a cheaper and more humane alternative: Charge immigrant's surtaxes and/or admission fees, then use the extra revenue to compensate low-skilled Americans. For example, you could issue green cards to Haitians who agree to perpetually pay a 50 percent surtax on top of their ordinary U.S. tax liability. Haitians used to earn a dollar a day would jump at the opportunity, and the extra revenue could fund, say, tax cuts for low-income natives." 

Whatever conclusion our government comes to, there are more humane options than deportation and limitation.

 Another common attack on immigration is that they don't pay taxes and deplete or social welfare system. It is understandable to believe this fear, as our country provides for idleness more than any other. An influx of non-working immigrants could drive our nation into the ground, correct? But research on the fiscal effects concerning our national GDP confirms "The estimated net fiscal impact of migrants also varies substantially across studies, but the overall magnitudes relative to the GDP remain modest. This variance is partly due to different settings and policies, but also due to differences in methodology and assumptions. The more credible analyses typically find small fiscal effects [Kerr and Kerr 2011: 21]." Also, most government benefit agencies such as Social Security and Medicaid target the elderly, not the poor, and 85.8% of immigrants are under the age of 65 (Migration Policy Institute). Overall, they are providing for the elderly American population as opposed to sucking it dry. They are also feeding into the system with fake social security numbers; this leads to pure profit for our government.  As Porter stated, " the system's long-term funding hole over 75 years would be 10 percent deeper" (qtd. in Caplan) if we did not have the large number of immigrants feeding into the system while receiving nothing in return. These statistics provide evidence that while we do suffer in the short term from an increase in immigration, the long-term effects are much more substantial if we cut them out altogether. These immigrants aren't skipping out on taxes, at the very least they pay sales tax, and are not the leading cause by any means for the depletion of social security and Medicaid among other welfare systems. There are also some government resources that do not change or become depleted if our population is increased. Consider our U.S. military, if a surge of one million immigrants were to enter our country would be able to protect our society just the same as it did without them. Even still, regardless of whether or not their effect is a negative or positive one, simple changes to our policy towards immigrants could potentially eliminate the problem. Suppose we completely deny all government benefits from immigrants until they provide a certain amount of revenue through taxes. We could impose time sanctions that require twenty years of living here until they can receive benefits. These rules may seem harsh but are nothing compared to the unfairness of denying their opportunity to live here in the first place. 

Some might fear that if we allow a large number of non-English speaking foreigners into our country it would hurt our culture. A study conducted by "Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 70 percent of Americans — including 86 percent of Republicans — say illegal immigrants threaten traditional U.S. believes and customs” (Miller). If we wish to protect our traditions and values, it makes sense to restrict the number of people coming into our country who don't speak our language or even practice the same beliefs as we do. Refusing to admit immigrants based on this assumption would be a much more plausible solution if the inability to speak English was passed to each generation, but this is not the case. The Pew Research center ran polls on English usage among first, second and third generation immigrants. According to the results, only twenty-three percent of first-generation immigrants can speak English fluently, which backs up your fears. But when looking at second generation, who are eighty-eight percent fluent, and third generation, who are ninety four percent fluent, you can conclude that the longer they stay here the more they adapt. They do not come to here to take over our culture and change our dominant language. As a matter of fact, a majority come here wanting to fit in and partake in the sought out "American Dream." They want nothing more than a chance to put themselves and their families in a better position to achieve their goals and aspirations. 

One can also make the case that these immigrants even provide more for our culture. Daniel Griswold stated that "Immigration is not undermining the American experiment; it is an integral part of it. We are a nation of immigrants. Successive waves of immigrants have kept our country demographically young, enriched our culture and added to our productive capacity as a nation, enhancing our influence in the world." Providing new ideas, international cuisines, and multi-cultural backgrounds are all reasons immigrants strengthen our culture, not weaken it. Culture is defined as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively” (Dictionary.com). So, would it not be productive for our culture to include all "manifestations of human intellectual achievement" including that of immigrants? We are denying artists ranging from musicians to international chefs based on the idea that these people might lessen our culture. If you are still unsure about their ability to positively affect our countries’ culture, then we can require literacy tests. It would also be an option to require quizzes that measure their knowledge of our nation's history and beliefs. These are viable options compared to, as I have stated before, completely denying them access. A migrant attempting to pursue life outside of the poverty they have known their entire life, might have no difficulties with studying the ideas that create our American culture. To ensure fairness we would require Americans to pass these test as to truly measure how much even our own citizens know about our past and popular culture. Our very own President, Donald Trump, posted a plaque on his golf course stating "Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River." Historians quickly pointed out that no battle had taken place on the golf course and that his "historical fact" was certainly not true. If we have the President of the United States making mistakes such as this, how can we possibly back up the notion that immigrants are the ones ruining our culture?

The final point to be made of the unfairness of our immigration system is the idea that we are entitled to be the people deciding who is good enough and what kind of person we will welcome into our country. Yes, we do live here, and it is our home per say, but does that justify the use of deportation and other means of limiting immigration? Many people who support people's right to migrate here have begun referring to immigrants as "Dreamers." They leave their home and everything they grew up loving behind not because they want to, but because totalitarian governments and dangerous living conditions mixed with poverty leave them with no choice. It is difficult to understand the reasoning behind deporting these immigrants who come here as infants or young teenagers, start productive lives and must give everything up based on the sole reason that their visa has expired:

"To those who want these kids to go back home, they have no other home," says Senator Graham, R-South Carolina. "Most of them came here when they were six years old or less. They didn't break the law, their parents did. They are part of our society. If you deported all of these kids it would hurt our economy because most of them are in the workforce. It's not practical and it's not right" (qtd. In Thomas).

There is little evidence that makes it acceptable for us to force these people to leave behind everything they have worked for in their life. It is a moral injustice that is not necessary for us to execute. We can offer a helping hand to these people while they attempt to fulfill their dreams. Americans claim to be the most friendly, innovative and influential country in the world. If this is true, should we not take pride in being the number one destination for these people in need? Should we not accept this challenge and use our influence and wealth to create productive citizens regardless if they are of foreign descent. With more humane alternatives to our current immigration restrictions, we owe our pride to reach and help these Dreamers.

 There is very little evidence that proves immigrants undermine our economy, culture, government benefits. Nor is it a legitimate concern that they are stealing American jobs and avoiding paying taxes. The idea that they are destructing our American culture, a culture based off of people who migrated here less than four hundred years ago to create this country is no more than a biased opinion. Data support that whatever effect they do have is minimal, good or bad. We are given the opportunity to have an everlasting effect on these people's lives. The laws and limitations on immigration based on these fears seem even more unfair when you compare them to the alternatives. We can replace them with more humane, cheaper options. These complaints do not justify the immoral behavior we have towards immigrants and their worthiness of being here. If they are stealing American's opportunities to work, then we can charge fees od admission and raise their taxes to compensate those who can't find a job. We can enforce test of literacy and U.S. history to ensure that we are not admitting people who will not carry on our beliefs. To protect social benefits, we can deny them welfare until specific requirements are met. What makes the current methods of denying immigrants access and deporting the ones that have already established homes and livelihoods here absurd, to begin with, is the fact that they don't steal American jobs, don't abuse our tax system and don't negatively affect our culture. They take low-skilled jobs Americans don't want, they pay sales tax and their general population is younger than our native people and doesn't appeal to most welfare systems. The longer they stay here, the more fluent they become in English. They are adapting themselves to our views and beliefs with the hope that one day they will finally be accepted. That eventually we will look past these myths and realize that not only do they, but we also benefit from their being here. The current policies we have regarding allowing as little immigrants as possible into our country are insufficient solutions to the widespread complaints of immigration.
