Two Perspectives on Refugees and Immigrants in the U.S
By Sadia __________________ April 10, 2018
AP Photo/Matt York
In January of last year, the Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as the travel ban, was issued by Trump’s administration, unfolding a new era of anti-immigration sentiment in the United States. Although Trump has claimed that the ban has morphed into a “watered down” version, the seven Muslim-majority countries whose citizens were denied entrance to the United States are still on the list for almost a year and a half. More counties have been added to the list since then.
The United States has always been a top destination for immigrants from around the globe. But despite being the home for a population of immigrants or descendants of immigrants, this country repeatedly fails to fully embrace any new wave of immigrants. It is almost as if every group must go through an arduous journey of adapting and paving the way for their descendants, who will eventually be “real Americans”.
Although certain immigrant communities are more welcomed than others, immigrants in general are still considered a burden to this nation, if not an eminent plight. The truth is that immigrants are not a pure bless or curse, rather both. Every human being has the potential to be a good or a bad person and so do immigrants. So the impact of immigrants, including refugees, varies. And depending on one’s perspective on immigration, the positive impact can outweigh the negative impact or vice versa.
As civil war in Syria, violence in South America, and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar are taking place, the number of refugees continues to increase. Many of these refugees seek refuge in stable countries like the United States. But the opinion on refugees among Americans varies greatly. Some people are against taking in more refugees because they are seen as disabled people, due to all the trauma they have gone through. Thus, they are likely to somehow retard the development and progress of this country. According to the Clinical Psychiatry News, “ Nearly one-third of adult Syrian civil war refugees who have resettled in the Detroit area meet diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder,” (Jancin). This study also shows that of these PTSD victims, 90% reported significant levels of anxiety and 85% suffered from depression.
The ramifications of incorporating such mentally disabled population to the American society are not limited to the potentiality of having a partly dysfunctional society due to severe mental issues. Jancin quotes Doctor Javanbakht, who presented the study, as saying “mental health care for Syrian refugees resettling in the U.S. is highly needed,” Therefore the consequences include a dependency on the American government for health care and other assistance programs.
Moreover, since there is a link between mental illness and crime, these PTSD diagnosed refugees combined with their mostly humble socioeconomic statuses, might pose a safety and security threat to the United States. So according to this realpolitik approach to the refugee issue, the latter not contributing anything to the American society is the best case scenario.
Alternatively, there are people who look at the influx of refugees from a different point of view. Although they admit that accepting more refugees involves some level of risk, they choose to welcome them because they believe it is this nation’s obligation to shelter the homeless, as a historical refuge for millions of immigrants. The peer-reviewed article “The American way of refuge” hones in on this notion when the author, Kori Schake writes, “[we] Americans pride ourselves on being a sanctuary for people fleeing violence, injustice, and political and religious persecution. We have a proud history of sheltering those who fear remaining in their homelands,” (Schake). So many Americans do not see immigrants as a problem, rather as carriers of a long legacy of pride in being a home for “the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free” as the poet Emma Lazarus puts it.
The International Rescue Committee, which helps people in conflict zones to survive and resettle, published an article on its website that informs readers about the facts and figures on refugee admission followed by several reasons to why admitting more refugees is good for the United States. The IRC’s article states that “President Barack Obama set a refugee admissions target of 110,000 for 2017. In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would slash that number by more than half,” This causes significant concern to many people since this cut renders thousands of refugees, who are in dire need for humanitarian aid, stuck in brutal war conditions.
Because self-interest is sometimes the sole motivator for people and countries, the IRC’s article lists some reasons to why taking refugee in is good or at least not harmful for this country. The security threat card is often raised in arguments about refugee admission, but the IRC affirms that “[t]he hardest way to come the U.S. is as a refugee. Every refugee is hand selected for resettlement by the Department of Homeland Security and screened by security agencies in an exhaustive process that can take up to three years.” So it is unlikely that refugees would commit acts of violence or terrorist attacks given this very strict vetting process.
In an article by the National Interest, the author, Howard. W. Foster, argues that when it comes to the economy, more immigration is bad for America. Foster starts his article by posing the question, “why do we have immigration when unemployment is high?” He also expresses his concern about the impact immigrants have on American workers and the overall quality of the service and products they provide to the American consumer. “We have a million legal immigrants per year, and the vast majority of them enter the labor market competing with Americans for scarce job opportunities. The result is wage depression” Foster writes emphasizing his point. Since most immigrants come from developing countries, Foster worries about the level of skill and education that they have because they are likely to become “public charges”.
Foster’s point on competition is resembles that of president Trump who has claimed that immigrants “compete directly against vulnerable American workers” (Preston). However, according to the New York Times article “Immigrants Aren’t Taking Americans’ Jobs, New Study Finds” Trump’s and Foster ‘s claims seem to have no true basis. Author Julia Preston reported that the study that was conducted by Cornell economics professor Francine D. Blau found “little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term.” The only group in this study that report a reduction in work hours are minors who did not finish their secondary education. This indicates that immigrants’ competition can affect only people who are low-skilled, like teenagers who dropped out of school.
The study also found that immigrants can actually create jobs for skilled American workers as opposed to taking their jobs (Preston). Apple and Khan Academy are two examples in which the child of a Syrian immigrant, Steve Jobs, and a first-generation Bengali immigrant, Salman Khan, create not only products and services, but also hundreds jobs for skilled American.
A concern that some people have about immigration is that it can cause harm to previously existing minorities. This harm transcends the economic realm, which is a common source of uneasiness. According to Norman Matloff’s article “How Immigration Harms Minorities” it is asserted that the social consequences of widening the quota of immigration play a big role in harming minorities. One example that the article mentions is about creating a social hierarchy among immigrants. “The current high yearly immigration quotas are contributing to a pervasive (though largely unconsciously created and maintained) new American caste system among U.S. minorities, with Asian immigrants at the top, native blacks on the bottom, and Latino immigrants in between. This has the unfortunate effect of undermining America’s commitment to improving the condition of blacks” Matloff writes.
It is unclear how this “new American caste system” is caused by allowing more immigrants to the United States. The three minorities that are mentioned above have already established their existence in this country centuries ago. In other words, if there is a social hierarchy, it should have existed already. Restricting immigrants and refugees is not going to improve the lives of American minorities. Claiming that minorities live under inadequate conditions because the government is busy taking care of new immigrants and refugees is far from the truth because a rich nation like the United States can deal with minority issues while continuing to be the immigrants’ nation it has always been. So the argument that having less strict quotas on immigrants is creating a “new” social order lacks supporting evidence.
From the perspective of this article, immigration is a social problem for minorities than the white majority, which is often thought of as the antithesis of immigrants. To prove that, the author provides several statistical evidence. One of surveys conducted by Empire State Manufacturing Survey in 1993 found that “half of the immigrants in New York agreed with the statement, ‘Immigration has made this city a worse place in which to live’” (Matloff). Therefore, these surveys show, in essence, the dissatisfaction that some of the already existing immigrants experience due to letting more immigrants come to this country.
In response to this argument it can be argued that the mere negative opinion of a group of immigrants on immigration does not make it a bad thing. In fact it sounds counterintuitive for an immigrant to believe in such statement because he or she is insulting themselves indirectly as immigrants. In addition, many would find that this is selfish utterance because it is like cutting the rope after reaching the summit and letting those who are climbing fall into a hopeless abyss. Finally, the fifty percent of New York’s immigrant population does not represent the whole immigrant body in America, let alone the rest of the American population.
Contrary to Matloff’s article are the ideas that the article “Population Power: Ever since America began, immigration has meant strength” presents. As opposed to being considered a source of harm and distress, in the latter article immigration is seen in a positive light. As suggested by the title, this article focuses on the positive impact that immigrants had and still have on this country. It reminds the reader of how the founding fathers saw immigrants as a source of strength to the young nation. They were convinced, the author writes, that “[more] people meant more economic growth and diversity. More people were also seen as the basis of military strength” (Kane). Though the United States is not the “ever at variance” thirteen states anymore, immigration, for many people, is still as important to the strength of twenty-first century America and for the very same reasons the forbearers had.
To find out more about the impact of immigrants and refugees on the United States, especially in the New York area, the Magazine conducted an interview with CUNY Citizenship Now, an organization that help people apply to various immigration benefits. Andres Lemon, a representative at City College, expressed his frustration about the current hostile atmosphere toward immigrants when he told the magazine that “recently the USCIS’s mission statement used to include the words ‘nation of immigrants, but two weeks ago the sentence was removed.” Andres added sarcastically, ‘So it’s no longer a nation of immigrants?” When asked about the impact of immigrants in this country he responded that immigrants help strengthen ideals like diversity and open mindedness, in addition to creating a nation of hard-working population since most of the immigrants that come to the United States strive to provide for their and to have a better life.
Early last week, the Republic of Chad was removed from the travel ban seven months after it was added to the list of the banned nations. This move by Trump’s administration might be a sign of hope to the other blacklisted countries and for this nation in itself amidst this political tumult. The perspective that one has on immigration is what makes a person see immigrants and refugees in a positive or negative light. As long as there are different views, beliefs and interests this schism about how good or bad immigrants are for this nation will not cease to exist.
Work Cited
Foster, W. Howard. “Why More Immigration Is Bad for America.” The National Interest, 5 Sep. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2018.
Jancin, Bruce. “Almost one-third of Syrian refugees in United States meet PTSD criteria.” Clinical Psychiatry News, July 2017, p. 4. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A500682322/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=1f2f1fd4. Accessed 2 Mar. 2018.
Kane, Tim. “Population Power: Ever since America began, immigration has meant strength.” Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2018, p. 54+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, Accessed 16 Mar. 2018.
Matloff, Norman. “How immigration harms minorities.” Public Interest, no. 124, 1996, p. 61+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A18579237/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=15e60db7. Accessed 22 Mar. 2018.Schake, Kori N. “The American way of refuge: offering sanctuary to Syrian exiles is both compassionate and wise–and just might give the united states a chance for a regional ‘reset.’.” Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2016, p. 37+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, Accessed 5 Mar. 2018.
Preston, Julia. “Immigrants Aren’t Taking Americans’ Jobs, New Study Finds.” The New York Times, 21 Sep. 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2018.
Schake, Kori N. “The American way of refuge: offering sanctuary to Syrian exiles is both compassionate and wise–and just might give the united states a chance for a regional ‘reset.’.” Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2016, p. 37+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, Accessed 5 Mar. 2018.
Taylor, J. Edward, et al. “Economic impact of refugees.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, vol. 113, no. 27, 2016, p. 7449. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A461365069/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=b76d9bc0. Accessed 16 Mar. 2018.
“Why should America take in more refugees?” International Rescue Committee, 27 Sep. 2017, https://www.rescue.org/page/ircs-impact-glance.
