The majority of countries with the high level of economical and social development face such problem as immigration, both legal and illegal. Today there exist two forms of immigration. The first type is legal immigration that is controlled and fixed by the country’s government, and the second is illegal one that exists out of law and is very difficult to control. As one can see, the immigration is usually perceived as a negate phenomenon (sometimes even without having strong arguments), and the illegal immigration is a total disaster for the country it takes place in. The main argument that can be established against the illegal immigration is that the emigrants are not fixed up in any official papers. This means that theoretically these people do not exist, while they do exist on practice. In such a way, the person that is not mentioned on any legal papers may commit a crime without being recognized, and the law as a principle is against the illegal immigration.
Legal migration also has its disadvantages. One of them is that the emigrants from other countries occupy the working places of the native citizens. This argument is rather disputable, as the immigrants are usually employed in low-paid jobs, which are not attractive for the citizens of the country. The other argument against immigration is the influence on the native culture and assimilation of national groups of immigrants in the society. Firstly, in such large countries like the U.S.A a wide rush of “new comers” led to the formation of national and ethnical communities, which sometimes have the so-called little countries in a big country. They establish own schools, attended by the children of their own nationality, they also have specialized shops and even whole districts. In this case such communities of immigrants have no need to adjust to the country they technically live in; they are not even obliged to speak the national language. This situation can rarely lead to any profit for the host country, but always leads to its expenses.
The situation is getting worse when the identity of the host country is influenced by one of the immigrants – this usually results to the constant argument between nationalists and those, who are more loyal for the other nation’s representatives. Overall, there should always be a balance between the quantity of native citizens and immigrants to save the ethnical and national peculiarities and treasures of the host country.
Hudson (2010) determines three democracy models. First one, the Protective Democracy, is based on cooperation of individuals and society for gaining a wealth. This model gives wide opportunities for the new-comers, as each person is free to reach their wealth in the proper way without infringing the law. The second model, the Developmental Democracy, declares the immigrants’ participation in the public life, doing good for the society, the new high-spirited citizens are aggrandized by this type of democracy. The immigrants can feel as an important part of the society, the members of big family, which increases their level of comfort in the host country.
The last model, the Pluralist Democracy, concerns the variety of social, ethnical and cultural groups presented in the democratic countries. The point is that each group can exist and function successfully only when it is represented in the government of the country. There is no doubt that this plays an important role for the immigrants, as in this case they may not just live in the chosen country, but also have an opportunity to represent their group’s interests in an equal part of native citizens. Democracy, according to Hudson (2010), contains the equal rules for all the citizens, while the public is a ruler of the country. All the citizens, despite their nationality, have the same political rights and absolute political liberty. In such a context, the democratic countries should be widely opened for the immigrants, which are usually running from the authoritarianism and pernicious tyranny in their home countries.
The dream of new life, where their rights will be protected, while views and work will be valued in a proper manner is rose-colored for them. In such a way, the democratic countries have got into their own trap – having the status of loyal countries they cannot be categorical with those, who ask for a shelter, they have to provide the emigrants with work, social benefits and make an effort to dignify their life. All these are financed by the government from the country’s budget, when the same money could be settled to satisfy native citizens’ needs. Additionally, after some definite terms, the former emigrants become the fully legitimate citizens of the country. By the way, in the number of countries, the U.S.A particularly, the child, whose parents are emigrants, but who was born in the country they immigrated to, is automatically considered to be the citizen of the host country. This law makes the immigration even more attractive as people believe that even if they will not see the gold future, their children surely will.
Hudson (2010) suggests that radical individualism can be treated as one of the major points of democracy. The countries, which are based on individualism, which the U.S.A. is an example of, are the main point of destination for immigrants. The principle of the radical individualism is that person is perceived above the society. Saying in other words, the private interest is more valued than an amorphous social interest. The positive side of the individualism is that according to its views each person is a self-maker – he or she is responsible for all good and all bad situations that one handles in life. Moreover, any given person decides on what kind of life he or she will pursue.
This life strategy, which entails that one’s whole fate depends preeminent on oneself, is more attractive for all those people, who try to hide from the circumstances. They perceive these challenges as imposed on them in their home country. The list of those includes the violent political regime, famine in the country, war, unemployment and many others. In practice, the immigrants in the United States do have the opportunity to start the brand new life; they can even start their own business there, as democratic country provides those opportunities. As the United States is a country of radical individualism, the new-comers do not feel uncomfortable because of their social status, which is determined by the birth, as it could happen in conservative countries. The individual skills and beliefs are valued before everything.
Immigration definitely is one of that features, which determines the American tradition. One may say that Americans are the nation of emigrants. Probably that is the reason of this country being so highly democratic – the wide difference of nations, cultures and ethnicities have made people look for the ways of coexistence and led to the mutual tolerance and respect.
This also has led to the formation of radical individualism, when everyone has own view and is entitled to the right of choosing how to look, how to earn, what to say and what to think. The immigration process is natural for the United States. However, these benefits are applicable only in the case of legal emigration. The illegal immigration, in opposite way, is a threat to the country’s economy and safety, so the measures of monitoring the illegal immigration should be surely taken.