http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-28.html
In her column, Mrs. Schlafly presents a very open ended argument on the issuesof government spending revolving around legal and illegal immigrants. She notes how "today's low-wage immigrants and lower-wage illegals" simply don't earn enough because of their lack of American education to support themselves, and that "nearly half of immigrant households, 45 percent, are in or near poverty". This causes programs that support immigrants, who don't pay as great a sum in taxes, with taxpayer money from the rest of the coutry to arise. Such large-scale government spending is in part hurting the economy, but instead of taking solely one position, Schlafly argues that "walling immigrants off from government benefits once we've let them in is a fantasy" and that another solution must be found. Even though people "survived the Great Depression of the 1930s without a welfare state" and without social security and healthcare, such programs, she implies, are still essential and shouldn't be simply taken away, no matter how much they are damaging the economy. She leaves her argument open ended, offering each member of the audience to consider their own alternatives. Such a topic could be used for research that could be a continuation or a response to the argument, addressing such assumptions as that all immigrants earn low wages that she makes, or could focus on potential solutions, be it stricter immigration control, lower benefits for illegals, or educational reform that will allow immigrant children to earn higher wages in the future and not rest on the money of taxpayers.
In her column, Mrs. Schlafly presents a very open ended argument on the issuesof government spending revolving around legal and illegal immigrants. She notes how "today's low-wage immigrants and lower-wage illegals" simply don't earn enough because of their lack of American education to support themselves, and that "nearly half of immigrant households, 45 percent, are in or near poverty". This causes programs that support immigrants, who don't pay as great a sum in taxes, with taxpayer money from the rest of the coutry to arise. Such large-scale government spending is in part hurting the economy, but instead of taking solely one position, Schlafly argues that "walling immigrants off from government benefits once we've let them in is a fantasy" and that another solution must be found. Even though people "survived the Great Depression of the 1930s without a welfare state" and without social security and healthcare, such programs, she implies, are still essential and shouldn't be simply taken away, no matter how much they are damaging the economy. She leaves her argument open ended, offering each member of the audience to consider their own alternatives. Such a topic could be used for research that could be a continuation or a response to the argument, addressing such assumptions as that all immigrants earn low wages that she makes, or could focus on potential solutions, be it stricter immigration control, lower benefits for illegals, or educational reform that will allow immigrant children to earn higher wages in the future and not rest on the money of taxpayers.
Denis:
ReplyDeleteGiven that both of your entries thus far focus on immigration issues, and the challenges that sometimes confront immigrants, is there a possibility that some of your interest is derived from personal life experience? Is your interest also an economic one? Clearly you present the legal issues, and if you choose to research this further, consider focusing on a specific feature of immigration.
+10/10
Mr. Heller