1.Synopsis of Hardin’s argument
Hardingives an unreasonable argument for the conclusion that immigration isnot good for the United States. He argues the conclusion in thefollowing way: His first premise is that current laws on immigrationfail to take into consideration people who are criminals in thecountries of their origin. As a result, by accepting such personsinto the country, there is bound to be a case whereby the countryends up importing crime and other anti-socially acceptable behavior(Hardin, 1974). Where importation of a large number of criminals intothe country is sustained, these people are bound to cause a lot ofharm to native residents of the Country as they shall act in a mannerthat is inconsistent with systems established in the country togovern law and order. The native dwellers will, therefore, be on thereceiving end as they shall be subjects of ill vices committed byimmigrants.
Thesecond premise of Hardin indicates that the influx of migrantcommunity in the country pushes the government to put focus onquality for both new residents and original residents of the country.It, however, ends up failing in that it puts more focus on thequantity of immigrants rather than the quality. It, thereby, allowsmore people to come into the country. In such a case, the needs ofnatives of the country are ignored and, they end up receiving a rawdeal compared to people who move into the country (Hardin, 1974).Therefore, where there is a continuous show of preference towards theimmigrant community, there is bound to be a show of discontent byoriginal residents of the country which could lead to a lot ofresistance, in the end, the immigrant community could suffer cases ofdiscrimination by those who were, earlier on, citizens of thecountry. There could also be cases of confrontation between the twocommunities.
Thethird premise of Hardin is that, while new policies are aimed atmoving food banks closer to the people, United States has relaxed thelaws on immigration, allowing people to move from where food istermed to be scarce to its source (Hardin, 1974). With such anaction, the moving population creates an imbalance, especially in thearea of environmental protection whereby it creates a big strain onthe environment and makes it hard for the government and the currentpopulation of United States to go about their duty of taking care ofthe environment in the most acceptable manner. Therefore, the countrycould suffer from environmental concerns that are normally associatedwith an increase in population (Hardin, 1974). These issues includewaste disposal and management as well as overuse of naturalresources, especially, land. He also blames employers who have beenpushed by the need to have cheap labor in their businesses, thereby,providing a leeway for the influx of immigrants into the country. Heclearly indicates that many more problems are bound to be experiencedwhen the country fails to face the real issue that immigration is abig problem to it and there is, therefore, need to come up withactions that are likely to turn the situation around and be one thathelps to curtail the problem.
1.1Formal Reconstruction of argument
According to Hardin, immigration allows into the country, a large number of immigrants who end up making up a huge proportion of the entire population. He indicates that the problem of immigration is built on the background of actions done in the past which have now come to haunt the United States. The population of immigrants is growing, especially given that there are about 400,000 immigrants a year. Hardin argues that the figure could even be about 600,000 if the number of illegal immigrants to the country was to be factored in. He has also noted that there has been a considerable increase in resident population that is now set at 1.7 million annually. Such a figure is quoted to be very high. The case could be because the annual gain from immigration may be set as about 19% and could easily increase to the tune of 37%.
He also indicates that immigration could, in the end, deny the original residents of the country ownership to their own country as with the growing number of immigrants in the United States, these people are bound to get into the intricate structures of the country that are concerned with making vital decisions. In the end, the original owners will lack the capacity to make decisions that are of their help because of the reduced proportion that they shall have generally, in terms of their population.
Hardin also puts across that immigration makes the United States experience chaos as people from different parts of the world having varying cultures and values get together. With the increased number of people, the problem of lack of control comes into place and the government experiences the major problem of not being able to handle the specific problems affecting people. Current residents of the country could suffer in a major way in the end as its own government will not have the ability to roll out actions that are bound to protect them in the end.
Hardin is also of the view that immigration provides room for continued growth of the population of the country, which could bring up problems of overuse of available resources. All countries are built on planning and regulations and where it is clear that current occurrences threaten the said plans, then there is bound to be problems in the end.
The fifth argument provided by Hardin is that increased immigration denies the country its own identity as it is quite hard to establish commonalities among people found in the country. The fact that people from diverse cultures get into the country brings in the whole element of failing to provide the country a clear definition of the kind of people that are found in it.
2.Response to Hardin’s argument
WhileHardin holds that high cases of immigration into the country have ledto the development of vices experienced around the country such ascrime and environmental degradation, the argument is invalid (Hardin,1974). The argument is unreasonable because the current situation ofthe economy does not allow people to have many children as they wanta situation where they are in a position to take good care of thesechildren. There is, therefore, need for people from other countriesto get into the country and fill in the deficit. Moreover, even if itwere valid, it is not sound because premises four and five are wrongfor the following reasons
Theargument that immigration provides room for continued growth of thepopulation of the country is not true because the government controlsthe migration of people other countries in such a way that they donot cause a strain on existing infrastructure and resources (Hardin,1974). The argument put across that immigration denies the countryits own identity is far-fetched. The identity of a country is moreoften given by the type of people found in it and immigrants who getinto the country help to bring in the blend required for properassociation of people in the country.
3.Argument for immigration
Inaddition to having Hardin who is a proponent to immigration, there isa clear justification why it is good. One argument that confirms thatthere is nothing wrong with immigration into the United States isthat is the United States is a country that gives room to freedom anddemocracy (Hardin, 1974). The first premise of this argument is thatearly immigrants to the United States came from Europe where theyescaped the totalitarian monarchical rule that had been in existencefor many generations. Most of the migrants felt that they needed togo to a place where they could experience some level of freedom andautonomy. They would also need to create a governance structure inwhich they get to decide on the person that they would want to rulethem. In such a situation, the said person would have a great deal ofresponsibility and the need to remain responsible for the actionsthat do.
Thesecond premise is based on the fact that, where people from othercountries share the same ideologies that those of the United Stateshave, they may, also, develop the need to move into the country. Theyshall, as a result, reside in an area where they are in agreementwith the beliefs that are poised by people in the area as well asable to enjoy the great level of freedom that is faced by people inthe country (Hardin, 1974). The great motivation of immigrants tomove to the United States is also bound to make them adhere to rulesand policies that are created to guide the lives of people in theland. As a result, they are bound to live harmoniously with hostpopulation. The most important reason is that they shall, most often,be sharing the same values and concepts and agree on most of theprovisions that are set in the country. The immigrant population isalso bound to be of help to the resident population because itsupplements it.
3.1Formal Construction of My argument
If most of the current inhabitants of the United States came from other lands, then they should not deny other people from getting to the country, too. Hardin brings in the point of shutting the door after one has entered.
Where there is a chance that new immigrants to the United States are bound to bring in high cases of crime into the country, then current inhabitants of the country also have the likelihood to engage in crime.
Crime, therefore, exists among both current and new immigrants to the country. Therefore, the issue of immigration should not be argued based on whether is will import crime.
As well, all people have freedom to come to the country.
They migrant populations have the same rights just as current populations in the country.
is not bad
1Thisargument can be put symbolically as follows
4.A (MP, 2,3)
5.B (MP, 1,4)
Hardin,G (1974). Living on a Lifeboat Areprint from BioScience