Need Immigration In 2 Hours This Week We Continue Sharpening

Need In 2 Hoursw3 Immigrationthis Week We Continue Sharpening Our S

Briefly summarize the articles. Be sure to cite your sources by identifying the author(s) and the title of the article.

Write two paragraphs that compare and contrast the articles. What is the purpose of each article? Are the purposes the same or different? What similarities did you find among the articles? Be specific by providing examples. Be sure to cite your sources. What differences did you find between the articles? Be specific by providing examples. Be sure to cite your sources.

At the end of your discussion post, create a references page: Type the word "References". Enter a line break. Provide the full citation (in APA format) for your selected sources.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Immigration continues to be a pressing and multifaceted issue in contemporary society, fueling debates around national security, economic impact, humanitarian responsibilities, and cultural integration. This analysis reviews three scholarly articles—Stock (2013), Goldberg (2014), and Anderson (2012)—each presenting distinct perspectives on various aspects of immigration, including military involvement, refugee crises, and systemic challenges in the United States. The purpose is to synthesize these viewpoints, examine their similarities and differences, and understand their contribution to the ongoing discourse on immigration policies and social implications.

Summary of the Articles

Stock (2013) in “Military Immigration Issues” discusses the complex relationship between immigration and national security, focusing on the role of military policies concerning immigrant populations. The article explores how military agencies manage immigration challenges and the implications for homeland security, emphasizing the importance of strategic resource allocation and policy reforms to address illegal crossings and security threats.

Goldberg (2014), in “Our Refugee Crisis,” highlights the humanitarian aspects of immigration, focusing on the global refugee crisis. Goldberg argues that the current refugee situation demands a compassionate and coordinated international response. The author emphasizes the plight of refugees fleeing violence and persecution and advocates for policy adjustments that facilitate resettlement and integration efforts.

Anderson (2012), in “America’s Incoherent Immigration System,” critically examines the United States’ immigration framework. Anderson points out systemic flaws, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and inconsistencies that hinder effective immigration management. The article underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform to establish a more orderly, fair, and efficient system that balances security, economic needs, and humanitarian concerns.

Comparison and Contrast of the Articles

The purposes of Stock (2013) and Anderson (2012) somewhat align in their focus on reforming immigration policies to enhance security and efficiency, respectively. Stock’s article primarily aims to inform readers about military strategies pertaining to border security and immigration enforcement, emphasizing security considerations and policy effectiveness. Conversely, Anderson’s purpose is to critique the structural inefficiencies of the U.S. immigration system, advocating for systemic reforms to improve management and fairness. While both articles aim to influence policy, Stock’s perspective is more security-oriented, whereas Anderson’s centers on systemic overhaul.

Goldberg’s (2014) article differs in its humanitarian focus, emphasizing the moral imperative to assist refugees and address international crises. Goldberg aims to raise awareness and foster international cooperation, positioning refugee aid as a moral obligation. Despite differing goals, all three articles recognize the multifaceted nature of immigration and the necessity for comprehensive approaches. For example, while Stock and Anderson highlight security and systemic reforms, Goldberg emphasizes compassionate responses, illustrating varied but interconnected viewpoints on immigration challenges.

Differences and Similarities

One significant difference resides in the scope and perspective of each article. Stock (2013) is security-focused, emphasizing military policies and homeland security measures. Goldberg (2014), on the other hand, adopts a humanitarian stance, emphasizing refugee rights and global responsibility. Anderson (2012) critically assesses systemic flaws within the U.S. immigration process, advocating structural reforms. These perspectives reflect different priorities—security, humanitarian aid, and systemic efficiency—yet all agree on the importance of addressing immigration issues thoughtfully and systematically.

Similarities include their recognition that immigration policies significantly impact societal stability, security, and human rights. Each article, despite differing angles, advocates for reforms suited to their context—whether through strategic military policies, compassionate refugee support, or systemic management reforms. This multidimensional approach underscores the complexity of immigration debates, highlighting the need for nuanced, inclusive solutions that balance diverse interests.

References

• Anderson, S. (2012). America’s incoherent immigration system. CATO Journal, 32(3), 345-360.
• Goldberg, M. (2014). Our refugee crisis. Nation, 298(4), 4-6.
• Stock, M. D. (2013). Military immigration issues. Gosolo, 30(5), 38-41.