Analysis of a Disagreement over Immigration

The authors of the 3 articles on immigration reform all seem to agree that the 1990 immigration law is inadequate, but they agree on little else. They find different impacts on the workforce, positive and negative. And they differ sharply over whether recent levels of immigration help or hurt the economy: one writer suggesting higher levels of immigrants and the other two suggesting a reduced level.

The disagreement by the disputants is so heavy because the issue of immigration effects something that couldn't be more weighted, the United States. Arguments over facts and values are covered by all three authors, one using graphs to show annual numbers of immigrants in the U.S. Various polls and studies are used by all of the authors to provide means for their standpoints.

Between the three authors many arguments are doubted, taking for instance, cultural considerations. The pro writer implies diversity improves quality of new ideas and strengthens the economy. The "anti writers" explain that diverse people need time to adjust to our society, that there would be too much disorder in trying to mix all the recent immigrants together.

In my opinion arguments towards immigrants adding to the economy more than taking away are stronger. They add necessary skills to the workforce and come here at the peak of their strength and skills. Before I am completely swayed, I need to see more evidence of immigrants paying a higher rate of taxes.