Park 1

BOSTON TRINITY ACADEMY

Senior Symposium Thesis

The Injustice of Legal Immigration: Considering the Policies and

Social Context

by

Daniel Park

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Boston Trinity Academy Diploma

2012

Advising Teachers:Mr. StassonMr. ChenMr. Emmet

Park 2

Park 3

Abstract

Analysis of legal immigration and the social context of immigrants demonstrate the injustice of the immigration system and the United States’ lacks of an effective way to integrate immigrants into the community after they are processed through the legal immigration system. The social policy analysis entails an analysis based on how effectively the policy implements it goals and how well it serves the people it affects, while the community building framework contains the three dimensions of serving the needy, community building efforts, and shared values to analyze a community based on these three criteria. The immigration system is unjust because it cannot implement its goals effectively and the people it serves often end up poorer than average. While the United States does serve its immigrant poor, it does so in a way that keeps them poor, and because the immigrant and native communities are separated geographically, culturally, and economically, developing shared values becomes extremely difficult. In closing, while the current immigration system is unjust, the ideal reforms demanded by the analysis are unrealistic, therefore, shifting the focus of the reform efforts to increasing support for legal immigrants would be the better solution, for it will lessen the gap separating and positively shape the relationship between immigrant and native communities, and thus positively impact the common flourishing of the Americansociety as a whole.

Park 4

Introduction

The American legal immigration system is hotly debated

topic. Many argue for a more lenient policy that allows more

people, while others argue for a more exclusive policy. The

argument is over whether or not the legal immigration system is

just. Justice is a difficult concept to define and understand,

because it means something different to every person. However, in

the case of legal immigration and for the purposes of this paper,

justice is about the respectful treatment of the immigrants, and

mutual prosperity for and positive engagement between the

immigrant and native communities. However, in reality immigrants

face the opposite, as they must all pay a $595 application fee,

yet must often wait years for their application to be processed

(Flynn & Dalmia, 2008). Although the requirement of an

application fee is understandable due to operating costs and

such, one would expect the immigrants to receive faster results

after paying such money. In addition, immigrants often have to

hire lawyers simply to help them navigate the immigration

process, which adds to the costs of immigration for the

immigrants, who are usually among the poorest classes in the

Park 5

United States. Through examples such as this and analysis of the

legal immigration system, the legal immigration system has been

shown to be unjust. While the current immigration system is

unjust, the ideal reforms demanded by the analysis are

unrealistic, therefore, shifting the focus of the reform efforts

to increasing support for legal immigrants would be the better

solution, for it will lessen the gap separating and positively

shape the relationship between immigrant and native communities,

and thus positively impact the common flourishing of the American

society as a whole.

Description of Problem

The immigration system has often been criticized as slow

moving and unfair. For example, for family based visas, the

amount of visas is limited and the wait for a visa depends on the

immigrant’s relation to the relative who is sponsoring their

visa. Spouses will usually obtain a visa immediately, but

siblings wait from 12 to 20 years to obtain a visa (Flynn &

Park 6

Dalmia, 2008). Ideally, the visas would take the same time to

process, instead of depending on what sort of relation one has to

their sponsor. For the employment based visas, applicants often

wait 7 to 8 years because the government limits the amount of

visas granted every year (Flynn & Dalmia, 2008). Placed on all of

the visa categories, these limits also dictate the amount of

immigrants allowed from a single country, and every year the

State Department produces a list of countries that bars citizens

of those nations from acquiring certain types of visas. For

example, in 2008, immigrants from Brazil, Canada, China,

Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica,

Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Korea,

United Kingdom, and Vietnam were not allowed to enter into the

diversity lottery (“The Legal Immigration Process,” n.d.).

Although the limits and the long waits may be understandable in

the sense that the US does need to control overpopulation and

that there are millions of people who apply for immigration to

the United States, it does not dismiss nor excuse the problem.

The problem with the immigration system is that it places

too much emphasis on how the immigrants will affect the nation

Park 7

and that the immigration system does not place enough emphasis on

the people behind immigration. The limits are in place so that

there will not be an influx of too many immigrants, but there are

many others who dream of coming to America and raising their

living standards. However, the limits prevent many people from

entering, and for those who do get access granted, the process

often takes multiple years. In regards to placing too little

emphasis on the people behind immigration, the United States has

focused too much on the numbers and statistics of immigration,

dealing with overpopulation and costs, and with many making

arguments about the economic benefits and disadvantages regarding

immigration. People who argue for immigration often argue that

immigration has a significant sociocultural impact and that it

aids the continual diversification of society. Nonetheless, that

argument still deals with the impact immigrants have on the

nation, not the impact the nation has on the immigrants, who are

at the heart of this entire issue.

In addition to being flawed from a secular standpoint, the

immigration system does not fit in with what the Bible has to say

regarding immigration. In the Bible, God often chooses

Park 8

immigrants, outcasts of society, as His chosen people to carry

out His will. Abraham and Moses, to prominent biblical figures,

were both immigrants who God utilized extensively. Even the

entire Israelite population at one point consisted solely of

immigrants, because the Israelites did not have home country

until they entered and conquered Canaan. God commanded the

Israelites that “when a foreigner resides among [them] in [their]

land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among [them]

must be treated as [their] their native born.” (Lev. 19-33-34).

Placing quotas on immigrants, limiting the amount of immigrants,

and denying someone the opportunity of gaining a new life is not

acceptable from a biblical justice perspective. Also, no human is

considered fundamentally above another, because “from one man He

made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth;

and He marked out their appointed times in history and the

boundaries of their lands” (Acts 17:26). This shows that God set

up the countries and God created all men from one source, Adam,

and therefore there is nothing better about any one man that

gives them the right to deny another man anything that belongs to

God.

Park 9

In regards to what belongs to God, the Bible says that “to

the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens,

the earth and everything in it (Deut. 10:14). God owns everything

in the world, therefore the United States should not technically

have the right to deny immigrants access to the land, because “if

anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet

closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?”

(1 John 3:16-18). The United States is the wealthiest nation in

the world and possesses the world’s largest economy. In 2011, the

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the United States was $15,064.816

billion, roughly three times the size of the next largest nation,

China, whose GDP was $6,988.470 billion (International Monetary

Fund, 2011). China’s population is triple the population of the

United States, while the United States has a GDP triple of

China’s. The United States definitely possesses “the world’s

goods”, and the immigrants who apply to immigrate every year are

definitely “in need”, as they are among the poorest when they

immigrate to United States. Yet every year the United States

“closes [its] heart against” thousands of immigrants, many of

Park 10

whom desperately need the opportunities. For others, it takes

years and years for their immigration problems to sort out.

In comparison to the rest of the country, immigrants have a

lower median income both individually and for each household

(Kochhar, 2008). In 2007, immigrant households had a median

income of $44,230 while native born households had a median

income of $50,233 (Kochhar, 2008). However, when the categories

switch from citizen households to non-citizen households, the

difference becomes $52,092 for citizen households compared to

$37,637 for non-citizen households (Kochhar, 2008). The two

statistical comparisons differ because not all immigrants are

citizens, only those who have resided in the United States for a

number of years are qualified to apply for citizenship.

Immigrants who have just entered the country would fall under the

category of non-citizens and immigrants, while immigrants who

have been in the United States for several years could fall under

the category of immigrant, citizen, or non-citizens. This

comparison shows that there is still a gap between the immigrant

and native communities, even after the immigrants and their

children have resided in the United States for several years or

Park 11

generation, the immigrant community, as a whole, experiences a

lower starting point and more limited social mobility compared to

the native community.

While some may argue that after several generations the

immigrant’s situation will improve, this is not entirely true.

The second generation of immigrant children does improve on the

parents’ generation substantially, but that is not the point

(Papademetriou, Somerville, & Sumption, 2009). The second

generation of immigrants still show evidence of a downward social

trajectory compared to the native second generation, largely due

to the many obstacles they encounter. These obstacles include:

educational differences, residential segregation, difficulty in

accessing services, discrimination, and low parental incomes

(Papademetriou, Somerville, & Sumption, 2009). This is a problem

because if in the Bible it says to treat foreigners as if they

were the native born, then this evidence is showing how that

command is not being followed. Also, from a moral perspective, it

is not fair that immigrants do not have as much success if they

work just as hard and in many cases come from difficult

backgrounds. Ideally, the median incomes of each group should be

Park 12

the same so that every group had an equal amount of people in

each social class.

History of Immigration

Throughout American history, immigrants have entered the

country in large waves and bursts (“U.S. Immigration” 2005).

These bursts of immigration have in turn been followed by periods

with meager amounts of immigration (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

The United States first began recording immigrant arrivals in

1820, and from then until 1860 has been called the second wave of

immigrants (“U.S. Immigration from Immigration” 2005.). The first

wave consisted of the immigrants that immigrated to America

before 1820, and they consisted almost exclusively of Englishmen,

Germans, and Spaniards. However, the United States did not record

annual arrival data until 1820, and therefore there is not as

much data on the first wave of immigrants (“U.S. Immigration,”

2005).

The immigrants that came during the second wave of

immigrants bolstered America’s efforts to continually push into

the frontier (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). These were people who

Park 13

were suffering in Europe, such as peasants whose farms had

failed, and artisans out of work due to the industrial revolution

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). Many, of these immigrants who came

took low paying jobs, such as factory work; or they traveled

inland, where there was much land to be explored and gained

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). However, out of the 5 million

immigrants who resettled in America during this period, 40% of

them, 2 million, were from Ireland (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

The Irish Potato famine had driven millions out Ireland, and most

came to America, bringing Roman Catholicism with them. The influx

of large amounts of Roman Catholics actually led to the creation

of one the first anti-immigration groups, the Know- Nothing

Party, which was founded by protestant Christians who wanted to

deport or discriminate against the immigrants (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). From 1860 to 1880, there was a drop in

number of immigrants who came to America, largely due to the

American Civil War and the period of reconstruction that followed

it (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005)..

The third major wave of immigration began around 1880, after

reconstruction, and ended in 1914, with the onset of World War I

Park 14

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). During this wave, most of the

immigrants stayed in the cities on the East coast or Midwest,

because by then the frontiers of America had been almost

completely explored and settled (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). More

than 20 million new immigrants entered the nation during the

third wave, with people originating from many different places,

such as southern Europe, eastern Europe, China and Japan (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). Similar to the immigrants of the second

wave, these immigrants generally took low paying jobs in

factories, and by 1910, immigrants made up more than 50% of all

the workers in the steel and meat packing industries, and more

than 90% of public works employees for New York (“INDUSTRIALISM

AND IMMIGRATION from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of American

Regional Cultures: The Mid-Atlantic Region,” n.d., “U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). In 1914, the number of immigrants began to

drop sharply because of the outbreak of World War I (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). After World War I, immigration once again

resumed in the 1920’s, but it was short lived, because of the

Great Depression of the 1930’s (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). Then,

Park 15

immediately after the Great Depression, World War II began, and

immigration decreased once again (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

The fourth wave of immigrants began in 1965, and has

continued until the present (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). During

this wave, the primary origins of immigrants entering the country

shifted from Europe to Asia and Latin America (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). This was due to a governmental shift in

policy (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). The government decided to

shift from utilizing national quotas to focusing on people who

had family ties to the United States, and those who American

businesses wanted to hire (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). Also, the

rising level of prosperity in Europe eliminated the need for

Europeans to emigrate from Europe (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

History of Immigration Policy

United States immigration policy has undergone three major

phases, laissez-faire, qualitative restrictions, and quantitative

restrictions (“U.S. Immigration”). At the beginning, until 1875,

the United States government encouraged all types of immigrants

Park 16

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). There were no real restrictions on

who could enter and who could not; everyone was welcome (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). This phase of immigration policy is known as

the laissez-faire phase (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). Although

there were groups such as the Know Nothing Party who discouraged

and protested against immigration, these groups did not

accomplish anything significant, other than the Know Nothing

Party securing 70 House seats in 1854 (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

However, even with the House seats, the Know Nothings still did

not accomplish much, because the major political issue of the

time was slavery, so immigration was brushed aside and regarded

as a second priority issue, or not even an issue at all in many

cases (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

Starting in 1875, the United States outlawed convicts and

prostitutes from entering the country, and this signaled the

beginning of the qualitative restriction phase (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). Then, in the Immigration Act of 1882, the

government added paupers and people with mental defects to the

list, and most significantly, outlawed anyone of Chinese origin

as well (Borrego, n.d.). In 1917, anyone who was over the age of

Park 17

sixteen and could not pass a literacy test was barred from entry

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

In 1921, Congress began to impose quantitative restrictions

instead of qualitative restrictions (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

The Immigration Act of 1924 set out a certain amount visas that

would be issued to citizens from each country each year

(Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006). Also, it set a national

origins system, that stated that the number of immigrants allowed

from any nation in the eastern hemisphere would be a number that

has the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants of the

United States in 1920 over the number of white inhabitants of the

United States (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). This system was set up

to favor immigrants from western and northern Europe, and over

the next 30 years, over 80% of all visas granted were issued to

people from western or northern Europe (“U.S. Immigration,”

2005).

Current Immigration Situation

In 1965, the Immigration policy of the United States was

altered so the national origins system was abolished, and

Park 18

priority would be given instead to people with family ties to the

United States and people who possessed special skills (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). However, while the national origins system

was abolished, the new system does possess certain quotas for

certain nations (Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006). The system

has placed limits on people from the western and eastern

hemispheres (Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006). Currently, the

limit for both hemispheres 675,000, but it can exceed that number

if there are any unused visas left over from the previous year

(Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006). However, the system also

has limits for people with certain qualifications (Immigration

Policy in the United States, 2006). For example, the current limit for

Family sponsored visas is 226,000 per year, and within that,

there are several categories such as unmarried sons and daughters

of U.S. citizens and their children or brothers and sisters of

citizens (Monger & Yankay, 2011).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of

Immigration Statistics estimates that as of 2010, there are 12.6

million legal permanent residents residing in the United States

(Rytina, 2011). The United States Citizenship and Immigration

Park 19

Service (USCIS) admits about 800,000 to 1 million immigrants as

legal permanent residents (“U.S. Immigration from Immigration and

Asylum from 1900 to Present,” n.d.). In 2010, that number was

exactly 1,042,625 legal immigrants (Monger & Yankay, 2011). The

immigrants arrive from all six inhabited continents, with

immigrants from Asia being the most numerous, comprising 37% of

legal immigrants in 2009 (“Immigration,” n.d.). Immigrants from

North America are the next largest group at 33% of all legal

immigrants in 2009, immigrants from Africa follow, comprising

11%, and immigrants from Europe and South America come next,

comprising 9% (“Immigration,” n.d.).

Immigrants are predicted to make a much more significant

impact in the future (Passel & Cohn, 2008). By 2050, the

population of America has been projected to increase to 438

million, up from 296 million in 2005 (Passel & Cohn, 2008).

However, among the 117 million people projected to be added to

the population, 67 million will be first generation immigrants,

and 50 million will be either children or grandchildren of

immigrants (Passel & Cohn, 2008). Due to the projection of a vast

number of immigrants, non-Hispanic whites are also projected to

Park 20

become a minority by 2050, comprising only 42% of the total

population (Passel & Cohn, 2008). Immigrants have been found to

cost more to the government (not economy) than they contribute.

In 1996, legal immigrants cost the government a total of $122.94

billion, while paying $82.38 billion in taxes (“FAIR: The Cost of

Immigration,” 2003). That significant difference of $40.56

billion is enough to pay for the education of all immigrant

children from kindergarten through 12th grade 2.82 times over.

In terms of impact on the economy, it has been generally

supported that immigration has a positive effect on the economy.

In a poll of economists conducted in 1989, 81% said 20th century

immigration impact on the nation’s economic growth had been “very

favorable”, and 19% said “slightly favorable” (Simon, 1995).

Then, when asked “what level of immigration would have the most

favorable impact of the U.S. standard of living?”, 56% answered

“more”, 33% said “same number”, 11% said “don’t know”, and none

said fewer (Simon, 1995). Included in this poll of economists

were 38 people who had been president of the American Economic

Association, and also others who were members of the President’s

Council of Economic Advisors (Simon, 1995). While the poll was

Park 21

referring to legal immigrants, a 2009 study published by the CATO

Institute concluded that legalizing the undocumented workers

living in the United States would provide a benefit of $180

billion to the GDP over the next 10 years (Dixon & Rimmer, 2009).

Currently, immigrants hold about 21 million jobs in the United

States labor force, or 15% (Lowenstein, 2006).

Analysis of Immigration System

I have chosen to utilize two analysis frameworks for this

issue, the Community Building framework and the Social Policy

analysis framework. The Community Building framework involves

passages from Acts 2, and takes aspects of community that were

mentioned in Acts 2 and applies them to present day situations.

This allows one to analyze communities today in relation to the

community set up by the first believers. The Social Policy

analysis framework involves four sections: historical background,

problems that necessitate the policy, policy description, and

policy goals/analysis based on political, administrative, and

economic feasibility.

Park 22

For the sake of this topic, I propose changing the

political, administrative, and economic feasibility to how

effectively the policy implements it goals, and how well it

serves the people it affects. From there, I will make a

conclusion as to if the immigration system is just and what

should be done in the future. That raises the question, what is

just? In my opinion, in the case of immigration, justice involves

the people behind immigration, the immigrants themselves and the

people that they affect. Justice is ensuring the best results for

the immigrants, because they need the opportunities America

provides more than America needs them. It also entails putting

the immigrants as the first priority, not their amount of benefit

to the nation or the costs of taking in the immigrants, because

immigration at its heart is about human beings, not money or any

other factors.

As the immigration system of the United States is a type of

social policy, it can be analyzed effectively using a framework

of analysis that is designed specifically for social policy. The

Community Building Framework is an effective way to analyze a

community in comparison to the community set up by the original

Park 23

Christians. Also, it will allow me to analyze how immigrants fare

after they have entered through the immigration system. Although

the immigration system itself is not a community, The United

States is, and it is heavily influenced by the immigration system

and the millions of immigrants processed and allowed into the

nation through the immigration system. The Social Policy

framework will be used to analyze the system itself, and the

Community Building Framework will be used to analyze the

community that the immigrants enter after they are processed

through the immigration system.

The Social Policy framework consists of historical

background, problems that necessitate the policy, policy

description, and policy goals/analysis based on how effectively

the policy implements it goals, and how well it serves the people

it affects. The historical background of the American Immigration

policy begins with the birth of the nation. America is a nation

of immigrants, it always has been. It was founded by immigrants

so everyone in America is descended from immigrants of some form,

and a significant percentage of the current population is

classified as immigrants. United States immigration policy has

Park 24

undergone three major phases, laissez-faire, qualitative

restrictions, and quantitative restrictions (“U.S. Immigration”).

At the beginning, until 1875, the United States government

encouraged all types of immigrants (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

There were no real restrictions on who could enter and who could

not; everyone was welcome (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). This phase

of immigration policy is known as the laissez-faire phase (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005). In 1921, Congress began to impose

quantitative restrictions instead of qualitative restrictions

(“U.S. Immigration,” 2005). The Immigration Act of 1924 set out a

certain amount visas that would be issued to citizens from each

country each year (Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006). Also, it

set it a national origins system, that stated that the number of

immigrants allowed from any nation in the eastern hemisphere

would be a number that has the same ratio to 150,000 as the

number of inhabitants of the United States in 1920 over the

number of white inhabitants of the United States (“U.S.

Immigration,” 2005).

There are a wide range of problems that necessitate the

immigration policies of the United States that do serve to

Park 25

somewhat justify some of the shortcomings and complaints people

may have. The limits the policy enforces are in place so that

overpopulation does not occur, and the costs of bringing in more

people may cause problems in the future financially. Also, the

number of jobs in America, as in any other nation, is limited,

and the more people are allowed in, the fewer number of jobs are

available for people already in America and immigrants, which

negatively affects both parties. The policies also protect the

nation from criminals who would come in and cause chaos, and in

some cases diseases that foreigners could bring into America and

cause a potential public health crisis. For example, in the past,

immigration has led to an increase of cases of leprosy, malaria,

and tuberculosis, among others.

The current immigration system is one that places limits

based on qualitative and quantitative factors. In 1965, the

Immigration policy of the United States was altered so the

national origins system was abolished, and priority would be

given instead to people with family ties to the United States and

people who possessed special skills (“U.S. Immigration,” 2005).

However, while the national origins system was abolished, the new

Park 26

system does possess certain quotas for certain nations

(Immigration Policy in the United States, 2006).

The goals of the immigration system are as follows: “First,

it serves to reunite families by admitting immigrants who already

have family members living in the United States. Second, it seeks

to admit workers with specific skills and to fill positions in

occupations deemed to be experiencing labor shortages. Third, it

attempts to provide a refuge for people who face the risk of

political, racial, or religious persecution in their country of

origin. Finally, it seeks to ensure diversity by providing

admission to people from countries with historically low rates of

immigration to the United States.” (Immigration Policy in the United

States, 2006). The United States immigration system does try to

implement these goals, but it does not implement them

efficiently. There are millions of people who apply for

immigration, but the process takes years on many occasions, and

so it causes much inconvenience and stress for the people going

through the process. In my family’s experience, my father’s

immigration situation took twenty five years to completely sort

out. Much can happen during twenty five years, and often times

Park 27

immigrants need to start again quickly and cannot afford to waste

or wait years while the immigration system processes their

application. In fact, that could be a small contributor to

numbers of illegal immigrants, because they cannot afford to wait

any longer, so they come illegally. However, even with all of

these goals, there are limits that have been set on how many

people from each category are allowed per year. If those are

truly the only goals set by the immigration system, then why are

they placing limits on accomplishing their goals? If there were

no limits, the goals that have been set by Congress would be

accomplished faster. To me, this indicates that these might not

be the only goals or guiding principles of the immigration policy

makers. It shows that they have placed something as a higher

priority than the immigrants, because they set limits. The policy

makers have placed worries about finances and the effects of

overpopulation above helping the immigrants. The immigration

system does implement its goals to a certain extent, and even

that extent is a slow process that causes inconvenience and

confusion.

Park 28

The immigration system at its heart is about the people

involved in it, the people who are going through the process of

immigration, and the people that these immigrants will affect. So

how well does the immigration system serve those that it affects?

How well are the immigrants treated by the policies? It seems

that it does not serve those that it affects as well as it could.

The immigration system is not completely broken and at fault, but

that does not excuse what it has done. The immigration system is

slow, and as mentioned before, often takes years to process

applications. This causes inconvenience and stress to those who

are applying, because applying for immigration is already a

confusing process with all the laws, conditions, lawyers, and

different visas, but the fact that the process often gets

stretched out over years makes it worse. Also, for those that are

granted permission to settle in the United States, most take low

paying jobs and will not be able to succeed because of language

barriers, discrimination, and other factors. The immigration

system could be helping the immigrants through this process more,

instead of granting them access and then leaving them. However,

that would take more money and manpower, which would raise costs

Park 29

and potentially lower the amount of immigrants allowed in because

of the rising costs. Also, if manpower is being devoted to that,

then the immigration system could become even more backlogged

because less people are reviewing applications and processing the

information. The immigration system does not serve those it

affects as well as it could. While it does provide the most

important factor, which is permission to settle, it does not

address the other needs of immigrants, such as the long process,

language and culture barriers, education, discrimination, and few

opportunities for better jobs. Immigrants who are granted access

to America do not prosper for the most part, as many of them are

forced to utilize the welfare system, and immigrant family

incomes are consistently lower than native family incomes

(Camarota, 2011; Kochhar, 2008). In 2005, the average native

household earned $50,946, while the average foreign household

earned $44,230 (Kochhar, 2008). However, that data included

immigrants who were citizens; so when citizens were taken out of

the picture, the average non-citizen household earned $37,637

(Kochhar, 2008). This data shows how the immigration system does

Park 30

not serve the people it affects as well as it could, and

therefore is not completely just.

My understanding of the Community Building framework as it

relates to the topic of legal immigration has led me to believe

that there are three dimensions to it. These are: serving the

needy, community building efforts, and shared values.

Dimensions Documentation Analysis SolutionServing theNeedy (Acts2:45)

2001-50% immigrant households with children use welfare2009-57% immigrant households with children use welfareWelfare is high for new arrivalsand established residents – 60%,55%, respectivelyLow education levels leads to welfare trap

While the US does help the poor, the welfare system keeps the immigrants thatway. Welfare use has even increased, and this trend is bound to increase even more because ofmore new immigrants and data has shown being in America longer has little impact on if immigrants use welfare.

The welfare system keeps immigrants poor and it creates more poverty because more immigrants are let in. Therefore, I propose the immigration system should take over what happens after theimmigrants enter the US, not simply leave themafter granting them access. It should help find jobs and education for

Park 31

immigrants.Community Building Efforts (Acts 2:42,46)

Immigrants concentrate in cities with large populations of same ethnicityEducation and likelihood of being with fellow countrymen are key for locationchoice for immigrantsInternal migration happens more amongst immigrants

The immigrants in the US concentrate with people of the same ethnicity, and therefore do not build as many relationships with the natives. This may be due to the fact that they are already in a foreign countryso it is logical for them to move toa place that has good education for kids and populated by familiar people. The internal migration phenomenon may suggest dissatisfactionwith education or a continued desire for acceptance by the immigrants

The immigrants have already taken a step by coming to a foreign country, so the natives should take the next step to get closer to the immigrants and welcome them. Integration from this point on is in the hands of the natives. The government could continue to improve educationacross the board and maybe settle immigrant families in native communities that are willing.

Shared 37% immigrant There is a gap Continue to aid

Park 32

Values (Acts 2:47)

household use welfare22% native households use welfare53.1% of immigrants are Latin American

in wealth between native families and immigrant families, so therefore it isdifficult to continue to share values ifthere is a class difference and if most immigrants do live in concentrated communities. Also, immigrants havea different background and culture, which poses an obstacle to reaching sharedvalues. The obstacle of language also poses a threat

the poor and integrate the communities. The solution to this will take time, because communityvalues are built up over time. Integration and unification will eventually lead to shared values.

The three dimensions for the Community Building framework

are supported and based on biblical passages from Acts 2. The

serving the needy dimension stems from Acts 2:45, which states

that “[the believers] sold property and possessions to give to

Park 33

anyone who had need.” The community building efforts dimensions

originates from Acts 2:42 and 46, which state that the believers

“devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,

to the breaking of bread and to prayer” and that “they broke

bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere

hearts.” Lastly, the shared values dimension finds support in

Acts 2: 47, which says the believers were “praising God and

enjoying the favor of all the people”

In 2001, 50% of the immigrant families with children

participated in the welfare system, as opposed to 57% in 2009

(Camarota, 2011). While it is just and good that the United

States is providing welfare for immigrants who need it, the trend

has shown that welfare usage increased over the course of 8

years, which shows that even more people are utilizing welfare,

and the people who began using it before continue to use it. This

trend is likely to negatively affect the United States, because

immigrants are growing rapidly, and by 2050, the population of

America has been projected to increase to 438 million, up from

296 million in 2005 (Passel & Cohn, 2008). However, among the 117

million people projected to be added to the population, 67

Park 34

million will be first generation immigrants, and 50 million will

be either children or grandchildren of immigrants (Passel & Cohn,

2008). The increasing immigrant population coupled with the fact

that many immigrant families are increasingly utilizing welfare

means that poverty will become a much more significant problem to

add on the immigration troubles. Some may argue that the

immigrants will be prosperous enough to take care of themselves

by then, by research has shown that welfare usage is high for

both established residents and new residents (Camarota, 2011). In

2009, 60% of immigrant households with children who arrived later

than 2000 used at least one welfare program, compared with 55% of

those who arrived before 2000. This data shows that people who

use welfare from the start generally continue to use welfare. A

common misconception is that these people are trapped in the

welfare system because many are unwilling or have no desire to

work. However, that is not the case. In 2009, 95% of immigrant

households with children had at least one worker (Camarota,

2011). Instead, these people were trapped in the welfare system

because they had low education levels (Camarota, 2011). Since

more and more immigrant children are becoming educated, the

Park 35

levels of people utilizing welfare will decrease as a result of

that, but also increase as a result of more uneducated immigrants

entering in. In order to solve this issue, the immigration system

should take on the role of helping the immigrants become settled

and to give them more secure jobs and possibly even further their

education. The immigration system simply abandons the immigrants

after they are accepted, and often time even though they find low

paying jobs, the immigrants still depend of the welfare system.

If the state was able to further the education of the current

immigrants and continue to invest in the continued education of

immigrant children, this problem would become much less

significant.

The community building efforts dimension refers to the

personal relationships formed between the immigrants and the

natives. Immigrants have been found to settle in cities that

contain large concentrations of people of the same ethnicity

(Bartel, 1989). Also, education and likelihood of being with

fellow countrymen are important for location choice for

immigrants (Bartel, 1989). The fact that the immigrants who come

often choose to settle in the city where there are many people of

Park 36

the same ethnicity is logical. The immigrants have already come

to a foreign place, so choosing a location where they can get a

sense of what their home country is like is a good experience and

way to stay in touch with ones roots. Also, if the immigrant

speaks a different language, then they are not required to learn

English if they settle in a community where there are many people

who speak their native tongue. The immigrants have also been

found to have higher rates of internal migration than the

natives. This phenomenon may indicate dissatisfaction with the

education system or their environment or even with life in

general. The inner city schools do tend to have lower scores than

those in the suburbs, where many natives live isolated away from

the immigrants. In order to continue to build a unified and

trusting community in America, the natives must take the next

step. The immigrants have already taken a bold step by choosing

to move to America, and the natives must help to welcome them

with open arms. Also, the immigration system could take some

control in this area by helping to settle new immigrant families

in native communities in order to build up diversity and enhance

the community.

Park 37

37% of immigrant families (including those with and without

children) participate in the welfare system as opposed to 22% of

native families (Camarota, 2011). The gap between the two groups

in terms of economic prosperity makes it difficult to cultivate

shared values in the community. Furthermore, because immigrants

come from a different culture that has its own values,

assimilating them and their values into the constantly changing

American culture is difficult. Most immigrants also have a

foreign language that they speak, so that it becomes even more

difficult to learn what the American cultural values are and it

is difficult to communicate what the cultural values of the

immigrant’s culture. The solution to this problem is a

combination of the solution to the other two dimensions.

Continued aid for the poor will help to even out economic

starting points for immigrants and natives, thus making it easier

for both groups to understand the perspectives of the other

because they are on equal footing. Also, this will help to

integrate the communities and unite them because they understand

each other better. Also continued integration into society for

the immigrants will cause society to no longer see immigrants as

Park 38

completely different from the natives. Instead, if they can be

seen as the same human beings, than acquiring shared values will

become much easier because sharing values is done between people

who have something in common, and making sure immigrants and

natives have as much in common as possible will ensure the

acquiring of shared values. Also, reform to aid legal immigrants

could also lead to a decrease in illegal immigration, because

increasing prosperity for legal immigrants would increase the

socioeconomic gap between the legal and illegal immigrant

communities. This combined with the benefits that the government

could provide through programs for the legal immigrants could act

as motivation for potential immigrants to go through the legal

system, because the end result would be worth the hassle of the

unjust system.

Conclusion

The two analysis frameworks were the Social Policy analysis

framework and the Community Building framework. The Social Policy

framework came to the conclusion that the immigration system is

not just because it does not implement its goals effectively due

Park 39

to the slow, complicated process, and the possible implication of

ulterior goals that were not stated in the mission statement.

Also, the immigration system does not serve those it affects as

well as it could, because immigrants almost always have lower

incomes and depend on welfare much more. Also, there is a gap in

education because of the difference between inner city schools,

where immigrants mostly attend, and the suburban schools, where

natives tend to attend. The Community Building framework

identified three areas of a community that were essential:

serving the needy, community building efforts, and shared values.

In each of these three areas, the United States was found lacking

because of the socioeconomic gap between the immigrant and the

native communities. However, in order to solve these issues, the

United States can aim to make sure that immigrants and natives

have as much as possible in common, such as income and education,

because by doing so it will aid the poor, build understanding

between the two communities because they can relate to one

another, and eventually lead to shared values because the two

communities will become one.

Park 40

Although the immigration system is unjust, the ideal and

just solution would allow everyone to enter into the United

States, because at the heart every human is equal and everyone

deserves an equal opportunity. However, that is unrealistic and

would cause overpopulation, more debt for the government, and

also increased poverty. Therefore, shifting the focus of the

reform efforts to increasing support for legal immigrants, as

proposed through the Community Building framework, would lessen

the gap separating and positively shape the relationship between

immigrant and native communities, and thus positively impact the

common flourishing of the American society as a whole.

Works Cited

Bartel, A. P. (1989). Where Do the New US Immigrants Live? Journal

of Labor Economics.

Borrego, M. (n.d.). U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1882

Immigration Act. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1882_immigration

_act.html

Park 41

Camarota, S. A. (2011). Welfare Use by Immigrant Households With Children.

Center for Immigration Studies.

Dixon, P. B., & Rimmer, M. T. (2009). Restriction or Legalization?

Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform. Center for Trade

Policy Studies.

FAIR: The Cost of Immigration. (2003, July). Retrieved January

29, 2012, from http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?

pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters87d3

Flynn, M., & Dalmia, S. (2008, September 24). What Part of Legal

Immigration Don’t You Understand? Reason Magazine, (October

2008 Issue). Retrieved from

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/new-at-reason-mike-flynn-

shikh

Immigration. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2011, from

http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm

Immigration Policy in the United States. (2006). (p. 36). Retrieved from

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7051/02-28-

Immigration.pdf

INDUSTRIALISM AND IMMIGRATION from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of

American Regional Cultures: The Mid-Atlantic Region. (n.d.).

Park 42

Retrieved October 27, 2011, from

http://www.xreferplus.com.ezproxy.bpl.org/entry/abcarcmar/in

dustrialism_and_immigration

International Monetary Fund. (2011). Report for Selected Countries and

Subjects.

Kochhar, R. (2008). Sharp Decline in Income for Non-Citizen Immigrant

Households, 2006-2007. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/95.pdf

Lowenstein, R. (2006, July 9). The Immigration Equation. The New

York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html

Monger, R., & Yankay, J. (2011). U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2010 (p.

6). Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration

Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/l

pr_fr_2010.pdf

Papademetriou, D., Somerville, W., & Sumption, M. (2009). The

Social Moblity of Immigrants and Their Children (p. 22). Migration

Policy Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/soialmobility2010.pdf

Park 43

Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2008). U.S Population Projections: 2005-2050. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved from

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-

projections

Rytina, N. (2011). Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2010

(p. 4). Department of Homeland Security Office of

Immigration Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/o

is_lpr_pe_2010.pdf

Simon, J. L. (1995). Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts.

Cato Institute, National Immigration Forum. Retrieved from

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-

immig.html#contents

The Legal Immigration Process. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.mdcathcon.org/library/resources/documents/immigra

tion/process-immsupplement.pdf

U.S. Immigration from Immigration and Asylum from 1900 to

Present. (2005). Retrieved October 27, 2011, from

http://www.xreferplus.com.ezproxy.bpl.org/entry/abcmigrate/u

_s_immigration

Park 44

U.S. Immigration from Immigration and Asylum from 1900 to

Present. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.xreferplus.com.ezproxy.bpl.org/entry/abcmigrate/u

_s_immigration