Opinion: Reflecting on Immigration Around the Globe

Do we have an obligation to accept immigrants if our social systems are inept to accommodate them?

In the United States, we have an intricate social welfare system that supports those in need by providing them with rental assistance and food stamps, among many other goods and services. Generally, these services aren’t easy to get, but once obtained, can provide an enormous amount of aid for low-wage workers. Ideally, they should act like a trampoline for people who get too close to rock bottom. With a constant influx of immigrants, the United States is forced to spread its resources too thin, preventing some Americans from getting the aid they need. 

Is it the faulty system or the increase in population that is causing constrain on the American social services?

It can be argued that American taxpayer dollars should be prioritized to Americans in need, instead of immigrants, because the country has an obligation to help its citizens first. On the contrary, one could claim that people from other countries don’t receive any social support from their home country’s governments and lack basic human needs like food and a roof over their head.

As well-framed by Ezra Klein of the New York Times, the fundamental liberal belief is that some people are lucky enough to be born into a life situation better than others. Therefore, those with the upper hand have an obligation to provide the necessary assistance to those behind. Support for those born into a worse life situation may need to even leave their country in search of a better life, but whose job is it to accept them?

In the United States and across Europe, right-wing resistance to immigration is at an all-time high. Consistent disapproval and rejection of many liberal immigration policies which encourage open borders are deeply rooted in nationalism rather than racism. Nationalism is cyclical, especially in the U.S. Many Americans like me, are descendants of immigrants who came through Ellis Island, or somewhere similar, in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. As the immigrants settled and raised families, often values were instilled in the youth to appreciate the country that gave your family opportunity. As time progressed, these first-generation born Americans continued to instill this appreciation in their own children, evolving into national pride. Not only are the second-generation Americans appreciative of the U.S. for giving their grandparents opportunity, but they are also grateful for the lives they’ve had and firmly believe it wouldn’t have been possible without the U.S. The nationalism we see today in American politics is deeply engrained in the lives of many immigrant-descendants based on their belief that their families made America what it is today. Their pride is admirable, for both the opportunity their country provided and the opportunity their family took to create the lives they have today. 

Why wouldn’t they want to provide the same opportunity for immigrants today that their families were given roughly a century ago?