The United States Federal Government should implement an open door policy.

(Although some of my points may run at odds with theirs) I would also like to apologize for the length it took to provide my argument, but life has a way of distracting all of us. First of all the reason why the United States cannot have open immigration is quite simply that we don"t live in the same world we used to. This will be a short intro, but that is mainly because it serves as an overview towards my other points. All this really means is that the world is a LOT different than it used to be when full immigration was allowed. There are new technologies, new ways of thinking, and new rules that define what a society is. Now we move onto the real meat of my argument. This point regards the stress it would put on the taxpayers. In America, the top 1% of all Americans contribute 38.1% of the nation"s tax revenue. The top 50% contribute 97.2%. As for the bottom 50%, they contribute a collective 2.8% overall of the tax revenue. The people that an open immigration policy would let in will not be part of the top 50%, they will not be anywhere near as wealthy, as if they did possess this wealth they arguably could already be in the United States if they wanted. So this means that these people that come into our nation will contribute near to nothing in the grand scale of our nation regarding monetary value. In fact, these people will most likely contribute a negative amount, as they will receive a mountain of benefits, including but certainly not limited to social security, welfare, food stamps, unemployment subsidies, affirmative action programs, subsidized housing, health care subsidies, and reduced tax rates. Overall these people will contribute a net negative in tax, and would inevitably put even more stress onto an already overbearing economic redistribution system. Next we have to look at a fundamental truth. We have to understand that the people that are coming into the country now are different than the people that were allowed in 100 years ago. America was predominately settled and inhabited by Europeans with similar moral codes. When waves of immigrants came from Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s we find that they held a of similarities culturally, and therefore were able to become absorbed with minimal repercussions. Now with such a divide between the Modern western world and that of poorer countries, the cultural gap is massive. We find that people have a much harder time adapting to American culture, and thus create pockets of their native countries rules within America"s borders, something that defeats the purpose of immigration altogether. We find that the individuals that have come to us in the past come from not only similar overall cultures, but also similar systems of government, with minimal corruption and high amounts of legal rights, these things are not as prevalent with the current wave of immigrating groups. Now we have another very quick point, and this is the universality of morality. And for this I just have a simple question, if there is a boat that can only hold 5 people, and there are already 4 people on it, yet 8 people are drowning in the water, are those 4 morally obligated to let all 8 on? or even just 6 on? or even 4? even 2? What if 1 more person capsizes it? What if you let 1 on, how do you decide? what if the others take that opportunity to latch on and sink you? I think where I"m going with these questions is clear. should those that are established be forced to take more into a nation if it means dragging everyone down? We have no idea what the carrying capacity of the United States is, so should we really risk dragging all down? Next is an argument against changing the voting demographic. Arguably if we let enough immigrants in, enough to actually provide any kind of economic benefit imaginable, then we have also let enough in to change the established voting blocks. I simply pose a question" Does anyone out there think that these immigrants will continually vote to give their tax dollars to the old and the established Americans? Not to mention these individuals have a history of voting for further regulation benefitting themselves, leading to even more government expenditures, as well as voting to let even more outside individuals in, further damaging the strained systems. Along with the last argument is another question, this being what happens when this massive block of people hits retirement age? All one is doing by letting them in for this purpose is perpetuating and strengthening a time bomb capable of destroying everyone"s wealth. As a final point, I will hit upon economic regulation. Following the simple law of supply and demand, these people coming into the nation will shoot up the demand for available jobs. With a relatively static amount of jobs available, this will drive down wages, however now we run into a new problem, this being economic regulation. Minimum wage will prohibit wages from falling below a certain line, and when that happens the supply can"t meet the demand, leading to incredible amounts of unemployment, which will result in the government paying even more in order to support these immigrants. Businesses will also have a hard time creating jobs due to the mountains of regulations currently burdening, further hindering the economies ability to adapt to this influx. Now that my main arguments are out, I eagerly await your response. Works Cited: . http://www.economics21.org... . http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... . http://openborders.info... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...... . http://ec.europa.eu...... . http://www.theguardian.com...... . http://www.economist.com...... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...... . http://www.reuters.com......