Download - Senior symposium paper
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 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