“Immigration The article informs the reader of the proposals’

Reform” is an article that compares the Senate bill and the House proposal,
which focuses on their ideas and plans for immigration reform. The article
states that “…both proposals would allow many of these individuals to live
legally in the United States, permitting them to work ‘on the books’ and
subjecting them to taxation.” The article describes both of these proposals,
explaining how illegal immigrants would be affected by the two proposals. The
article informs the reader of the proposals’ similar goals and purpose. The two
proposals state that immigrants can earn legal status through certain criteria,
such as paying a selection of fees and passing a criminal background. In both
proposals, immigrants aren’t eligible for public benefits.

Abram’s “Immigration Reform Will Produce Economic Benefits” describes
the negative and positive effects of immigration reform.  Abrams claims that many citizens in the U.S.
aren’t in favor of the legalization of illegal immigrants because they believe
that doing so would affect the country’s economy in a negative way. The article
also says that they don’t want to allow the legalization of illegal immigrant
because if they do become legal, there would be more competition for jobs and
that many Americans could lose their jobs. Abrams presents the positive
outcomes of legalizing immigrants, stating that doing so would help the economy
and that the immigrants could also “… add new jobs to the economy
through increased income and consumption.” Abrams asserts that immigration
reform shouldn’t be “sugar coated.” He claims that negative outcomes could
arise from reform, but that the positive implications will ultimately outweigh
the negative ones. Although many may argue whether or not an immigration reform
will harm the economy, reform could also better it to a degree that it has
never reached before.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

“Expand Paths for Legal Immigration,” William F. Weld, ex-governor of
Massachusetts, and Susan J. Cohen give their opinion on immigration reform. The
two authors claim “it’s time for both Democrats and Republicans to recognize
the many compelling overhauling our current immigration system.” Weld and Cohen,
throughout the article, provide reasons to why these two political groups
should support immigration reform. One of the reasons they give is that
immigration reform could lead to the creation of many foreigners helping
advance the country in fields of study, such as engineering, mathematics, etc.
They also say that Immigration reform could ultimately help the economy due to
the creation of many new businesses owned by immigrants. Weld and Cohen argue
that undocumented immigrants should be given the opportunity to obtain some
degree of legal status. The authors support their argument by focusing on
Hispanic immigrants and stating that “they are hard-working, patriotic,
strongly committed to family, and by and large socially conservative.” The
authors show that they favor immigration reform, and throughout the article
they try to convince their main audience, the Democrats and Republicans, to
push for it together.

immigration reform is a controversial topic in the United States. Through the
example of these articles within previous paragraphs, it is evident that there
are many viewpoints on immigration. The articles present many of the possible
solutions to the many problems and issues immigration reform brings. The
articles show the views of both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants on the
topic, and why this issue is so difficult to solve today.

stated before, the issue is centered on trying to come up with a solution that
benefits both sides of the argument. Many people claim that the immigration
system in the U.S. is broken, but the problem lies within either side being
unwilling to consider ideas from the opposition. There is gray area when it
comes to considering whether or not to allow people to live in your country,
you cannot make it a quantitative matter. The solution to this matter is not
going to be found in the argument of one side or the other, rather by the
compromise of both.

most beneficial solution would involve the majority, if not all, of the ideas
that President Obama had proposed with additional consequences. All illegal
immigrants should receive the opportunity to work towards legal citizenship by
passing a background check and keeping in right standing with the laws of the
land.  Applicants should have strived to
improve the quality of life for themselves as well as their country, prior to
being considered for the immigration reform. 
People should be able to prove that their stay in the country has been
beneficial to society. This method would allow for everyone to have the
opportunity to enjoy the chance of becoming citizens, but it would be in their
hands whether or not they have lived worthy of such privilege. I cannot say
that people are wrong for wanting to protect their country from invaders, but
not all are trying to come and harm. I would want to protect something I love,
but protection does not mean keeping everything out, even when it includes good
things. I believe President Obama’s proposition would open doors for growth and
improvement for the United States, and at the same time it would allow the
country to weed out those who would not provide any positive fruits and instead
stagger its progress. This doesn’t mean only the wealthy or the well-educated
get to stay. This would include those who may not have had the opportunity to
gain wealth or a job worthy of economic praise, but are willing to better
themselves and in turn better the nation. This nation cannot be blocked off
from the world, but it can conserve its high standards while accepting change
within its community. This is why I believe that allowing undocumented
individuals to earn a way to applying for citizenship instead of just proposing
a generalized amnesty would be the most effective route for immigration reform.
In conclusion, an immigration reform decision cannot please everyone, rather
everyone has to compromise a little of their idea in order to choose what is
better for everyone; not just one side.