Two Opposing Views on the Effect of Immigration’s Multiculturalism on American Society: Clinton Versus Auster

Immigration Benefits and Threatens America

In the article “Immigration Benefits America,” Bill Clinton; the forty second president of the United States claimed many revelations regarding immigrant’s impact in America. For several reasons, the U.S. strengthens the bonds of the community when allocating the allowance of diverse and varying cultures. Many of these immigrants feel comfortable while living in the United States. He asserted that Immigrants and Americans should blend their cultures and traditions to expand the country. As Americans, they should respect immigrants and in return immigrant should follow suit. Not only should this respect be extended, but also hospitality and inclusion, according to Clinton. On the other hand, in the article “Immigration Threatens American Culture,” Lawrence Auster, an American racialist conservative essayist who wrote about immigration and multiculturalism claimed that immigrants are destroying America and they are harming the economy. Auster believes that these problems are occurring because of the American belief system. The American belief system implies concepts of individualism and equality. Clinton’s argues a rather convincing argument throughout his writings, where prejudices and biases are not provided. On the other hand, Auster’s argument was very judgmental and oppressing in many ways.

The truth can only be evaluated by facts, which both authors used. Clintons essay is convincing and relevant, and he encourages both immigrants and Americans to live in harmony with one another. Clinton assured immigrants and citizen’s accepting different memories and honor different heritages, which equivalents to acceptance from both parties. The way to keep America unified is to act hospitable to foreign guests. It is the responsibility and duty of America to do so. Some of these responsibilities include; welcoming immigrants help them to succeed, treat them well like treating your own grandparents. In return immigrants should work hard, honor the laws, learn English, and accept the culture while studying its history. Hard working for example there is found in the teenager from Vietnam who does his homework and watches the cash register at his family’s grocery store. Also, in the example of an immigrant from Mexico, Mago Gilson who came to the states without a high school education but now she is receiving her Master’s Degree in Education.

On the contrary, Auster is totally contradictive in his ideas compared to Clinton. He doesn’t encourage immigrants allowance in the States at all, and doesn’t seem very convincing. He stated numerous times, through this essay that immigrants are “harmful” to the wellbeing of this country. He wants immigrants to get out from America because they are giving a negative impact to the country. Clinton’s solution is to change the meaning of America as “individual freedom and opportunity” because the belief system tells that everyone is the same and equal under skin, culture, and history. Also, he asserted that America should change immigration laws to halt travel entirely. Clintons essay is more convincing that Auster’s because of tone elements, along with no cases of biased viewpoints.

The tone of an article can help reveal a lot about the author, as well as their opinions on certain issues. Each essay sets a different tone for its readers. Personally, I feel more people would accept the claims that Clinton posits. Clinton’s tone is neutral and unbiased. Throughout such articles, he was relaxed, mindful, and rational about such cases. He said to the immigrants, “to all our immigrants, you are welcome here.” (89) and for the citizen’s, “Citizens share a responsibility to welcome new citizens.” (85) He treated both sides in an equal way. Also, when he said, “We should treat new immigrants as we would have wanted our own grandparents to be treated.” (88) Clintons shows that he isn’t racist and talks by his heart through this quote. One can easily notice that the care of these refugees is every citizens duty and these requests should be followed.

Nevertheless, Auster’s tone is biased and very different from Clintons. He utilized a very negative tone and disregarded respect entirely. This author is hostile and unrealistic. The author gave the readers some racism of his tone; he didn’t mention European immigrants in a negative way at all only for the non-Europeans, for example, when he wrote about the Pakistani man who believes in forced marriage is not suitable for American society. Also, he insulted Muslims when he called them all terrorists. This is completely ignorant and unacceptable for someone to state. The degree of negativity in the tone of this author can certainly make one dismiss all his claims and immediately dislike him.

Each of the author have totally opposite views of their perspective. Clintons sees that immigrants are growing America and they are benefiting for it. On the other hand Auster sees it differently that immigrants are a huge destructive problem that needs to vanish. Clinton essay is convincing in his way of explaining the solution and his unbiased tone. Controversial issues such as the ones presented in these articles, it can sometimes be difficult to discuss in open forums. However, something needs to be said about the treatment of immigrants. The lives of these people are very difficult, some are even refugees just trying to escape troubling circumstances in their home countries. Americans should be somewhat empathetic, and understand that one person should not be judged on the actions of others. America is claimed to be a mixing pot, therefore it should be celebrated and explored.