Comparison and contrast of thoughts of two different writers on the issue of

illegal immigration in America

Introduction
Why there are political boundaries? Why there are symbolic boundaries? Why people cross
boundaries illegally? What stops people from multiculturalism? These are some common
questions which people always asks to themselves and also to one another. Here two papers will
be discussed. First paper is If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely and the
second one is Immigrants, Aliens and Americans: Mapping out the Boundaries of Belonging in
a New Immigrant Gateway. The writers will be termed as first and second writers respectively
in the following discussion. These two papers are focused on the issue of illegal immigrants
crossing boarder of America, their miseries, problems arising due to their action and possible
solutions. Comparison and contrast of the ideas of these two writers will help to understand their
perception of the problem. At the end it will be discussed whether these two writers perception is
opposing or complimentary.
Comparison of thoughts
Type of boundaries
Both writers point out the fact that there are two types of boundaries existed. One boundary is
termed as legal boundary according to which any person who crosses the boundary illegally will
be termed as criminal. Second boundary is moral boundary according to which no person can be
termed as illegal and no matter what basic human rights should be granted to everyone.
General public perception
Both writers point out one common fact that general public is not as such furious or concerned
about illegal immigrants. As first writer quoted elections of 2008 to give evidence of his
statement in which those candidates who tried to get public vote with the help of illegal
immigrants issue were ignored by the public. Also the second writer quoted that during his visit
to Danbury he observed that most of the people were unaware of any kind of problem due to
illegal immigrants but rather they perceived Danbury as place of friendly multicultural people.
Also second writer observed non-immigrants to fight for immigrants rights.

Misery of immigrants
Both writers discussed that illegal immigrants are less paid in America and also their basic rights
are not respected by the employers. First writer discussed that government did not stop
employers properly to hire illegal immigrants though it is their responsibility due to which
immigrants are also suffering. Second writer quoted that illegal immigrants usually hired for
those positions which Americans refused to take and also employers paid them very less even for
those positions.
Economic boost
Both writers believe that increase number of immigrants will help to boost economy. First writer
supported its quote with example of France who open ways of immigration to boost its economy
thats why writer argued that there should be an open boarder between South and North America.
Whereas second writer argued that as illegal immigrants usually do those workers which
Americans refused to do this is the reason due to which economy will progress.
Types of support
Both writers discussed two types of groups in America one who stands with immigrants or has at
least sympathy for them and the others who are against them. First writer supported his thoughts
with political parties examples such as democratic and conservatives. Whereas second writer
quoted his experience of Danbury where he observed different slogans in support and also
against immigrants.

Contrast of thoughts
Perception of immigrants
According to the writer of the first paper immigrants are those people who illegally cross the
border between Southern and Northern America and get settle in northern America from Mexico.
Whereas, according to second writer immigrants are those people who legally cross the border
and get settle in Danbury. Second writer termed illegal immigrants as Aliens. Enforcers in
Danbury own immigrants as they thought they are legal but disown Aliens.

Scope of question
The scope of question is also different as first writer discussed the issues of illegal immigrants
going to come in future from Mexico as well as already present ones. In contrast to this, second
writer discuss three different perceptions of people or group of thoughts about foreign born
population in Danbury.
Employment of immigrants
According to first writer it is not true that illegal immigrants only work on those positions which
are left by Americans. Whereas according to second writer illegal immigrants usually work on
those positions which are Americans reluctant to work on.
Economic and cultural perspective
First paper writer believes that economic concerns are the main cause which prevent open
boundaries whereas second paper writer believes that material or resource circumstances are
important but the bottom line of symbolical boundaries is solely cultural like pure and impure or
black and white etc.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two writers after long discussion about the illegal immigrants their issues,
point of view of different groups and people against them and also how political parties are
making efforts to resolve this issue they come to a common ground. According to both of the
writers it is neither possible to open borders for immigrants nor it is possible to erase symbolic
boundaries of belongings among people. The first writer believes so because according to him
different political, practical and ethical reasons will not let it happen successfully. Also according
to second writer as people belong to different cultures it is difficult to erase symbolic boundaries
among them. Somehow one can say both writers agreed on common ground but in reality the
theme of two papers is same but questions are different like first writer is discussing about the
possibility of open boundaries and the second writer is discussing about the three different school
of thoughts like enforcers, activists and Tribuna about immigrants, Aliens and Americans and
how they draw symbolical boundaries among them. The comparison and contrast of two writers

thoughts here is best to the provided knowledge in two papers and effort has been made to draw
underlying meanings of statements irrespective of the scope of two different questions.