Comprehensive Immigration Reform Opposition

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Opposition Arguments against Comprehensive Immigration Reform Perhaps the most widely held objection to comprehensive immigration reform is that it is amnesty  for people who have broken the law, and amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigrants to  come into the country. Opponents point to immigration reform efforts during the Reagan administration, the Immigration  Reform and Control Act of 1986, that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. That reprieve opened  the door to a new wave of illegal migration, opponents say, and so will the plan to allow 11  million illegal residents to stay in the country. But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the Senates Gang of Eight who helped fashion the  framework for comprehensive reform, makes the case that doing nothing about the 11 million   illegal residents is in itself a de facto amnesty. Because the federal government has no  realistic capability to deport the 11 million, or to incarcerate them, there long-term residence  in the country is virtually assured. Ignoring the problem is a form of amnesty, McCain and other  reformers argue. New Reform Efforts Come With Tougher Conditions Also, unlike the amnesty provision of 1986, 2013 reform proposals impose stringent  requirements on illegal immigrants. They must learn English. They must clear background checks.   They must pay fees and taxes. And they must move to the back of the line, behind those waiting  to enter the country through the legal process. Comprehensive reform is unfair to those immigrants who are playing by the rules.Even many immigrant advocates argue that it isnt right to give the 11 million who entered the  country illegally special status that is unavailable to other immigrants who are going through  the legal process and trying to come here the right way. But President Obamas plan and the one negotiated by the Gang of Eight both require that the 11  millions pathway to citizenship starts behind those already in line. Both plans reject the idea  of expedited treatment for undocumented residents and want to reward those who have been working  their way through the legal system. These illegal immigrants will take jobs from American workers and promote a decline in wages  overall, which is bad for the U.S economy. Study after study and anecdote after anecdote have refuted these arguments. They are both   factually incorrect. First, there are tens of thousands of necessary jobs across the United States that American  workers just will not do at any price. There are also thousands of jobs that go unfilled because   no qualified American worker can be found to do them. Can U.S. Economy Run Without Foreign Labor? The reality is that immigrant labor is essential to filling necessary jobs that make the U.S.  economy run. States that have enacted harsh laws against illegal immigrants have found this out  first hand. Arizona and Alabama, in particular, endured severe damage and costly labor shortages in their agriculture  and tourism industries after passing laws designed to drive illegal immigrants out of the state. Even states without immigration laws are dependent on immigrant labor. In Florida, immigrants  are essential to agriculture and the hospitality industries. Tourism would collapse without  them. Undocumented workers have a negligible impact on the wages of documented workers that work at  the same firm, according to a paper released in March by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.   Documented workers at firms that also employ undocumented workers earn 0.15 percent less or  $56 less per year on average than they would if they worked at a firm that does not employ  undocumented workers, according to the study. In fact, workers in retail and leisure and hospitality actually earn slightly more money when  their firms hire undocumented workers, since having more employees allows them to specialize,  according to the research paper.