The

Different Perspective of Immigration

Immigration is a modern day issue as well as a historical one. The problem of

acquiring citizenship is problem to individuals as well as nations. Both the nation

and the individual either benefit or are negatively affected by the policies regarding
immigration. More or less immigration has drastic effects on everyone within a
nation and immigration is not only an economic issue, but a moral one that asks
each of us to ask things about ourselves. In differing fields, reasonable people bring
varying arguments to the table and present those arguments in various ways. One of
the main questions regarding immigration is the fiscal effects immigration has on a
nation and the study of economics best attempts to answer this question. Another
prominent issue in regards to immigration is the question of how far nations can go
in excluding citizenship versus the natural rights of human beings. The field of
global studies will discuss immigration in terms of the well being of the nation and
in terms of individuals rights to freedom. These two discourses work together along
with many other academic fields to describe the issue of immigration.

The discourses of Global Studies and Economics morph immigration into an

issue that involves people of all levels of society. The immigrants, the natives, and
the entities of both the economy and nation are affected by immigration. Therefore,
in their respective discourses these are the topics that the academic articles and
texts of the subject center around. Immigration becomes a study of people and how
each of these individuals affect society as a whole. The conventions and literary
devices of these practices contribute to efficient and effective communication within
the discourse community.

Economic rhetoric regarding immigration centers around the monetary

aspects of immigration. For instance, Freeman (1975) discusses how strict

immigration policy based on racial discrimination affected the labor force of France
in the 1970s. Economics discourse will only focus on the fiscal effects of
immigration policy and makes conclusions based off the benefits and disadvantages
certain policies have on a nations economy. While reading an Economics article the
reader must be aware that at all times the goal of an economist is to increase
efficiency and lower the amount of lost capital in an economy. An economist wishes
for as many people as possible to be working along with those people making and
spending as much money as possible. All questions than these articles will ask and
than try to answer derive from this need for efficiency. For example, Borjas book
(2006), Economics of Immigration tries to answer such questions as, What effects
do immigrants have on the employment opportunities of natives? Readers of the
Economic discourse community must also be aware that the discourse of economics
does not value opinion as evidence but rather is a science rooted in logic,
mathematics, and the assumption that people act in their best interest. No claim is
made within this field that is not based upon statistical evidence and the consequent
predictions of economic output or profit margins. But in the same sense, economics
is a field of predicting and whoever predicts the future better is always the winner.
Therefore as a discourse community, the discussion revolves around whose advice
to take and whose to throw away.

The human element to immigration can be found in the discourses of global

studies. Global studies is not only a field of explaining what has happened and what

is currently happening happening but also attempts to predict future events and
solve problems facing the globe. In a global studies discourse a reader can find
multiple perspectives of a single problem within one essay. Any particular rhetoric
may speak of the economic, political, and social issues regarding immigration. Global
studies discourse will often speak of the people involved in an issue and how they
are affected. Habermas (2008) personifies immigration in his article, Citizenship
and National Identity, by stating, With immigration, new forms of life are imported
which expand and multiply the perspective of all. Rather than talk about gross
domestic product or unemployment, the rhetoric of global studies focuses on the
people affected. The problem is also spoken in terms of transnational and
international identities but also in the terms of cultures, local governments, and the
populous. A reader of global studies should also be aware that the study of
globalization, the main theme of global studies, is attempting to discover the
tendencies and characteristics of the present and past while at the same time
attempting to put into words what we should strive for in the future and why these
goals should be the goals we focus on. For instance, writers often challenge social
models and ask the reader Why do we believe what we believe. This view of the
individual comes to fruition when debating immigration. Wellman references
individual liberties in his article, Immigration and Freedom of Association when
he writes, Freedom of association is widely seen as one of those basic freedoms
which is fundamental to a genuinely free society. With the freedom to associate,
however, there comes the freedom to refuse association. In conclusion the
argument of immigration in the field of Global Studies is centered around the

natural rights of people to live freely in any way they see fit, even if that way of life
includes excluding those culturally different.
Authority in global studies is gained through popular opinion. The more
widely accepted a theory is the more other works will build on the work of the
accepted theory. These theories than assimilate into canon of the discourse and
become near fact. All proceeding arguments will than assume these theories are
true and either build on them with more analysis or challenge the theory and give
other reason for explanation. Another common practice of global studies discourse
is to end each article with a conclusion that clearly presents the main argument and
than to offer up further questions that need to be answered. Articles will go into
detail on many specific phenomena, which can skew what the reader views as the
main argument. By explicitly including a section labeled Conclusion the discourse
community as a whole can easily identify and categorize where the text fits within
the entire field of global studies. The addition of definitive conclusions also
facilitates the discussion of the discourse to always be moving forward. Writers do
not waste time summarizing an issue but instead only write when there is a new
argument or idea to be explained. This is essential when talking about a political
issue such as immigration because debate is key to resolution of such an issue.

Different discourses exist to discuss the varying aspects of a problem.

Without separate academic communities existing on their own, the information

highway would become a jumbled, traffic-ridden mess with no map to guide our
way. We thank the customs of each discourse community for laying out for us the
road map to knowledge. These communities such as Global Studies and Economics

have built networks and customs that allow for efficient and effective
communication throughout. The ideologies and general principles of each discourse
work together to formulate the relevant issues of each genre. The Economics
discipline adequately provides debate on the fiscal effects of immigration while
Global Studies views immigration through the eyes of the people and how our
separate ideologies and morals shape the issue that we call immigration.

Citations
Borjas, George J. "The Economics of Immigration." Journal of Economic Literature 32,
no. 4 (1994): 1667-717.
FREEMAN, GARY P. Immigrant Labor and Racial Conflict in Industrial Societies: The
French and British Experience, 1945-1975. Princeton University Press, 1979.
Habermas, Jurgen. Citizenship and National Identity. Thinking Globally: A Global
Studies Reader. Berkeley: U of California, 2014. N. pag. Print.
Wellman, Christopher Heath. "Immigration and Freedom of Association." Ethics 119,
no. 1 (2008): 109-41. doi:10.1086/592311.