As per Kinsley the actual problem is we do not know what the limits of immigration should be. Democrats in one form or another oppose immigration because of the economic impact it has on 'unions' and some support it because of the cultural dimensions it offers. The fact is our forefathers were immigrants and there are so many diverse groups in America that one would find it hard to oppose immigration as a whole without seeming to be against the US foundation itself.
The Republicans on the other hand oppose immigration for the very opposite reasons. As Kinsley (2007) writes, "Among Republicans, support for immigration was economic (corporations), while opposition was cultural (nativists)."
There is actually no basis of debate for or against immigration. However, today maybe due to the political unrest only one part of society, the entrepreneurs; the business minded people and President George Bush [the writer states tongue in cheek] support immigration, the rest oppose it.
The opposition maybe arising from the fact that immigration is actually damaging the social and economic structure of the US society or it may be just a trend. Whatever, the reason immigration has to have a limit that's not the topic of debate. The debate is should there be immigration
The writer does not want anyone to argue under false assumptions. ...
erring to the newest immigrants or the immigrants of our forefather's time When opponents talk about illegal immigration are they willing to consider raising legal immigration The question is not whether legal or illegal immigration is opposed the question is do we as a nation oppose immigration
The answer can only be through a democratic decision but as a nation of immigrants the author as a supporter of immigration asks about the immigrant community and what it gives back to the society. He questions the US citizens, (Kinsley, 2007)
"But who loves the U.S. most On average, probably, the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals, doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction, getting thrown out and returning again and again."
Kinsley creates an argument that is simple. He uses sarcasm and logic, cynicism and facts to create a sense of reality that is false. In order to satisfy our conscience when we create scenarios around the depth and affect of immigration but without the facts we fails to give credit to the immigrants who have made our country, who we are actually a part off.
In another article Steven Malanga (2007) writes that Hilary Clinton in the Presidential Election was responsible for bringing the debate of immigration to the forefront. While the debate focuses on illegal immigration and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed a drivers license for an ID, Malanga believes, there is more to the debate then being argued about.
The debate should not be focused on the immigrants rather the focus should be on the immigration system. The immigration system we have today is a fallback to the mid-1960 when the quota system was replaced by the visa preferences for applicants with family in the US and the broader