Sources used in this document:

Martin and Midgley (2006) do not really present an argument in their paper, but rather an overview of the current immigration situation. The same is largely true of Currie's article concerning Medicaid (1997). Both of these articles detail the complexities ofteh problems this country is facing, but fail to provide any sense of appropriate direction. Martin and Midgley especially merely detail the trends that have been observed in immigration, without offering any real solutions on how to deal with the ongoing immigration explosion. In suggesting that we could be experiencing a historical immigration peak before dipping into the trough the follows, the authors reaffirm their own conclusions without providing any immediately useful value judgments. The converse, however -- that is, behaving as though this were not a peak but simply a new trend in immigration -- renders the rest of their historical argument moot.

Currie provides somewhat more useful exploration and analysis of the conclusions he draws from his hard data. Yet while clearly suggesting that Medicaid reform is necessary in regards to immigrants, if only to make the program more equitable across regional, familial, and ethnic lines, he fails to note the added costs of medical care for children and other immigrants who are either not eligible for or are not receiving Medicaid benefits. There is a brief mention in the editor's note of emergency costs outstripping preventative care, but more in depth explanations and analyses are needed to make this argument logically viable (which it certainly is).

The shorter articles that comprise this reading deal with specific areas of the immigration aid issue in similarly quantitative ways, while rarely mentioning the qualitative aspects or making recommendations. The logic used is impeccable, but the scant number of real conclusions drawn in these articles does not make this especially impressive. For instance, while Ku (2001) and Capps et al. (2005) respectively note the lower rates of heath insurance amongst immigrants and the lower success rates of immigrant children in the No Child Left Behind Act, neither provides information regarding a response to these issues other than suggesting that reform is necessary. The same is true of Ruby's (2004) article concerning the need to ensure success for children in the early years of formal schooling. Few would argue that things like health insurance and adequate education are less beneficial or necessary to immigrants than they are to U.S. citizens; the questions is who ought to -- and who is wiling to -- pay for these things. This country has always had an interesting relationship with the concept of taxation, and this issue lies at the heart of the matter.