The article, in a general context, raised the question on whether the concept of diplomacy and democracy has come back into the ideologies of the United States Government? After utiliziation of progress reports on the issue, the writer came up with a central argument suggesting that the United States government, with direct intervention by The Whitehouse, finally came up with a well-crafted solution that does not require the use brute force.
Article writer David Silverberg (2007) stated that the compromise stipulated the following:
Existing illegal aliens in the country (United States) can apply for residence Visas and eventual citizenship. Up yo 4oo,oo temporary employees can be admitted into the country for temporary employment but would have to leave after 2 years. The act will then open new portals for educated, skilled English-Speaking illegal aliens that have long conformed to the old system of family ties prevalent in the past. (2007)
A certain premise of the article pointed out that the United States government had promulgated a possible solution to a problem that had been plaguing several of its major policies. The first policy violation was on illegal immigration, which caused disorient on the government funding because anti- illegal immigration efforts brought additional costs and damaged the American economy in general.
The other was the destruction of the myth of the connection between illegal immigration issues and terrorism which affects the United States government’s war against terrorism. In connection, it was without a doubt that the United States have started filtering the country of foreigners particularly of Middle-Eastern heritage as an initial reaction to the Al Qaeda attacks in 2001. In spite of the fact that most illegal immigrants were quite useful in doing menial tasks, immigration policies intended for homeland security threats would not be efficient if it did not consider illegal immigration matters (Farnam, 2005, p. 168).
The said issues answered the “So what?” question due to the fact that issue of illegal immigration in the United States draw mixed opinion from American citizens and political figures (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006, p. 1). It was in this regard that the main point of the article was very convincing in giving the importance to the matter, for the United States government appeared to have lost the sense of diplomacy in executing its policies directed toward national security after the 9/11 attacks. The compromise mentioned by Silverberg then was the first non-hostile resolve on a national security matter.
The issues that the article tackled was not unique in any way for illegal immigration was already a serious matter in the United States since the late 19th century. The issues of illegal immigration started in the United States in 1882 (Lui, 2007), wherein the United States government banned most Chinese laborers because of threats of cheap labor which undermined the economic stability of the country (Smith & Edmonston, 1997, 23).
Silverberg articulated several points, primarily on how the compromise became reasonable and fair, and how it will be beneficial to all the parties involved. The reason behind Silverberg’s judgment was grounded on the logic of the advocates who, because of their conflicting points of view, created dilemma in the legal and ethical perspectives. The dilemmas also affected the United States constitution, particularly immigration laws and human rights of the illegal aliens.
Silverberg first bequeathed the side of the anti-illegal immigration advocates who argued that the United States constitution never tolerated mass law-violations, therefore such neglegeance should be punished accordingly. Sileverberg conversely showed compassion over poverty stricken individuals who sought for a better life in the United States, he also argued that penalizing illegal aliens was not a viable option for it will violate the policies of human rights. Second is the explanation of the side of the liberals who contested that illegal immigrants cannot afford legal fines that would be imposed. However, a simple humane point cannot justify the unconstitutional act of massive law breaking, hence, this is also not the perfect solution to the predicament.
In a different note, Silverberg also attempted to pesuade readers in a securing perspective, that proposed counter-measures against illegal immigration such as investments on additional border patrol officers, more sophisticated border security technology, as well as construction of new detention facilities and extra efforts on identification of undocumented immigrants will tremendously affect the results of the compromise. In spite of the cost, Silverberg argued that the American government will reap a lot of fruit in their investments. Furthermore, Silverberg believed that despite all of the expenditures, the act and the counter-measures will provide favorable opportunities for the United States.
Silverberg also pointed out careful and proper timing in implementation was a key factor for a rush in implementation may cause a difficulty in the process or disastrous results. Given the account that the proposition was a compromise, a wreckless execution of concepts may cause discrepancies in the status of illegal aliens.
Silverberg only provided the idea of the compromise which is the only element close to literature in the article. However, the articles arguments were solidified by cited comments from key contributors such like Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Senators Ted Kennedy, Jon Kyl, and John McCain who supported and rejected the idea of the compromise respectively.
The given sources provided Silverberg with ingenuity in crafting solid arguments which highlighted the importance of the subject matter at hand. Though the method of data collecting was not well explained or expounded, Silverberg managed to analyze the nature of the problem, the objectivity of the proposed solution, and plausible solutions to avoid the problem from repeating again. In this sense, the study can be replicated for the compromise generated numerous ideas for preventive methods. Furthermore, conducting a more formal study may serve as an eye -opener to the parties involved because the concerns of the article were inclined on how the United States government could lessen the violation of human rights in implementing policies.
The variables Silverberg used were the parties involved, the “against” party and the “pro” party together with the points argued by the two opposing sides. Because as previously mentioned, the article pointed out the irrationalities and flaws of the advocacies which lead to the connotation that the article’s premise was the alternative point of view on the matter.
There were no exact findings or results yet as the compromise is still under the stages of development. However, Silverberg managed to give a rough estimate that the compromise can practically give a positive light to all the parties involved. Silverberg gave particular emphasis on the universal nature of the compromise in how it addressed all the concerns of the parties involved. He also concluded that the efficiency of the compromise , regardless of ammendments, would be solid if ample time is given to perfect it.
The findings were therefore comprehensive and complementing with the central argument and main points for Silverberg was capable of explicating how the compromise satisfied all sides in conflict. Judging from the arguments and the plausible solutions given, Silverberg successfully stimulated the importance of the matter. The article’s conclusion then proved to be full-proof for one of the conditions included careful implementation and sufficient time for ammendments and revisions.
Silverberg thoroughly addressed the implications of his conclusions particularly on how he gave emphasis on the dilemma created by the opposing sides. Through explanations of the advocacies, Silverberg made a comprehensive defense of his main arguments about the advantages and impartiallity of the compromise.
Farnam, J. (2005). US Immigration Laws Under the Threat of Terrorism. New York: Algora Publishing.
Lui, C. (2007, May 7). How Illegal Immigration was Born. American Heritage. Retrieved 23
May 2008, from http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20070507-chinese-exclusion-act-california-chester-a-arthur-immigration-san-francisco-earthquake-of-1906-paper-sons.shtml
Silverberg, D. (2007, May 22). The Immigration Debate and Homeland Security. Homeland
Security Today. Retrieved 21 May 2008, from http://hstoday.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=284&Itemid=151
Smith, J.P., & Edmonston, B. (Eds.). (1997). The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
The American Public Opinion on Immigration in Spring 2006: A review of Major Surveys (2006). Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
The aim of our service is to provide you with top-class essay help when you ask us to write my paper; we do not collect or share any of your personal data. We use the email you provide us to send you drafts, final papers, and the occasional promotion and discount code, but that’s it!Order Now