Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, has been a big controversy for some time now. The law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration cards at all times so that police may easily check their status if they suspect that they are not U.S. citizens. A judge ruled on the law yesterday and found some parts of it unconstitutional, but upheld the majority of SB 1070.
Some claim this law encourages racial profiling in order to be effective, and I agree. The first question that a police officer would have to ask themselves upon acting in accordance with the law is, “Does this person look like an immigrant?” There is something very wrong with that, seeing as the U.S. prides itself with its acceptance of all of its citizens and residents. There are many immigrants in the U.S., who acquire their citizenship after a certain amount of time spent working in the country. Those immigrants don’t get rid of their accents or their looks upon receiving their new citizenship. They, therefore, become targets under this new law, and they are U.S. citizens. The generations that follow them, generations of U.S. born citizens, may not have the accents, but will retain the looks, making them targets as well. Will those U.S. born citizens have to carry their documents with them at all time because of their skin?
Supporters of the law claim that many jobs in Arizona are given to illegal immigrants, and not to unemployed U.S. citizens. The jobs that are given away though, are not jobs most people would like to have. Working conditions are usually not up to par and most U.S. citizens will not be willing to perform the jobs illegal immigrants perform.
Amongst other things states don’t have the power to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. That’s the job of the federal government. This law undermines and takes away power from the federal government, which may prove to be even more controversial in the long run, after the debate for this law has passed.
Illegal immigration has always been an issue in this country, but dealing with it in an unconstitutional way is not how we should go about resolving that issue.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Blog Stage 4 - Blog Critique
Joe Sudbay wrote a blog entry titled The anti-gay agenda exposed in Indianapolis. Joe Sudbay is a political consultant with more than 25 years of experience. He has a Masters in Public Administration and has managed “political operations and legislative efforts.” Because of his background, his words regarding public issues such as gay/lesbian marriage seem credible.
The blog is intended for those interested in the gay/lesbian marriage question, whether opposed to it or not. In his blog, Joe is says that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, members of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are sending “a message of hate against LGBT Americans.” He is claiming that message can make people think that LGBTs are “lesser humans” and that they “are not equal.” Basically Joe is claiming that Maggie and Brian are leading NOM’s followers down a dark path. He backs his arguments with a picture of a protest sign reading the following:
The Solution to Gay Marriage
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
It is clear from the way Joe is describing the effects of this sign that he is pro gay marriage. He says that the sign has the simple meaning of: “Gay Marriage = Death.” His argument that NOM wants to kill the LGBT Americans is strongly supported by the sign and what it reads. Along with the words on the sign, there is a picture of two nooses.
Though I agree with Joe’s stance on gay marriage, I think he is taking the meaning of sign as “Gay Marriage = Death” a bit far. Though the sign is vulgar and repulsive, and though it's literal meaning may be death, I doubt that it means that NOM wants to kill the LGBT community – it’s their cruel way of lashing out. Again, I’m shocked that anyone would ever write a sign with words that could be interpreted as death to a portion of the population, but I don’t think they mean literal death.
The blog is intended for those interested in the gay/lesbian marriage question, whether opposed to it or not. In his blog, Joe is says that Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, members of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are sending “a message of hate against LGBT Americans.” He is claiming that message can make people think that LGBTs are “lesser humans” and that they “are not equal.” Basically Joe is claiming that Maggie and Brian are leading NOM’s followers down a dark path. He backs his arguments with a picture of a protest sign reading the following:
The Solution to Gay Marriage
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
It is clear from the way Joe is describing the effects of this sign that he is pro gay marriage. He says that the sign has the simple meaning of: “Gay Marriage = Death.” His argument that NOM wants to kill the LGBT Americans is strongly supported by the sign and what it reads. Along with the words on the sign, there is a picture of two nooses.
Though I agree with Joe’s stance on gay marriage, I think he is taking the meaning of sign as “Gay Marriage = Death” a bit far. Though the sign is vulgar and repulsive, and though it's literal meaning may be death, I doubt that it means that NOM wants to kill the LGBT community – it’s their cruel way of lashing out. Again, I’m shocked that anyone would ever write a sign with words that could be interpreted as death to a portion of the population, but I don’t think they mean literal death.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Blog Stage 3 - Editorial
An editorial in The New York Times, titled Hiring and Fairness, claims that employment rights of past offenders should have greater protection by the government. The author states that “confining people with criminal convictions to the very margins of society is unfair and self-defeating.”
A number of states, such as New York, Connecticut, and New Mexico, recently passed such laws. The author claims these states made the right decision; by protecting former offenders’ employment rights, the states are dealing with a large part of their urban unemployment population, and thus being less “self-defeating”. A law taking effect in October in Connecticut restricts “government employers and licensing agencies” from looking into an applicant’s criminal history until the person has been picked as qualified. By providing greater protection of the employment rights of former offenders, states increase the former offenders’ likelihood of obtaining a job, and the states are therefore working toward lowering their unemployment rate.
The author also points out the fact that even if, or when these laws are put in place, a criminal record review will be conducted for jobs in more sensitive fields, such as those dealing with law enforcement, children, or the disabled. In this way, former criminals will be given more chances to get integrated into society once again, and society still, in a way, be protected from them.
The author is targeting employers, former and current offenders, and the adult and young adult population of the United States. Those are the people who will be most directly affected by the implementation of these laws, and who would care to learn about their existence. The New York Times, is a well known and respected newspaper, so its publications are assumed to have desired credibility.
Overall, the author makes some good arguments, and personally, I agree with the idea of providing greater protection for the employment rights of former offenders, especially if the job they are applying for is not connected with the type of conviction they previously had. If, as the author said, a large portion of the urban unemployed population is in fact unemployed because of a criminal past, then protecting employment rights can help with the unemployment rate. These protections will not be forcing employers to hire applicants with a criminal past, they will simply be giving those applicants a more fair chance of obtaining the position when compared with the rest of the applicants – they won’t be prematurely dismissed based on their past.
However, along with the implementation of these protective laws, states should, at the same time, be working toward lowering the crime rate in their cities. If a large urban population is unemployed because of a criminal past, then, lowering the number of criminals will lower that unemployment rate as well. Not only that, but the state will be safer.
A number of states, such as New York, Connecticut, and New Mexico, recently passed such laws. The author claims these states made the right decision; by protecting former offenders’ employment rights, the states are dealing with a large part of their urban unemployment population, and thus being less “self-defeating”. A law taking effect in October in Connecticut restricts “government employers and licensing agencies” from looking into an applicant’s criminal history until the person has been picked as qualified. By providing greater protection of the employment rights of former offenders, states increase the former offenders’ likelihood of obtaining a job, and the states are therefore working toward lowering their unemployment rate.
The author also points out the fact that even if, or when these laws are put in place, a criminal record review will be conducted for jobs in more sensitive fields, such as those dealing with law enforcement, children, or the disabled. In this way, former criminals will be given more chances to get integrated into society once again, and society still, in a way, be protected from them.
The author is targeting employers, former and current offenders, and the adult and young adult population of the United States. Those are the people who will be most directly affected by the implementation of these laws, and who would care to learn about their existence. The New York Times, is a well known and respected newspaper, so its publications are assumed to have desired credibility.
Overall, the author makes some good arguments, and personally, I agree with the idea of providing greater protection for the employment rights of former offenders, especially if the job they are applying for is not connected with the type of conviction they previously had. If, as the author said, a large portion of the urban unemployed population is in fact unemployed because of a criminal past, then protecting employment rights can help with the unemployment rate. These protections will not be forcing employers to hire applicants with a criminal past, they will simply be giving those applicants a more fair chance of obtaining the position when compared with the rest of the applicants – they won’t be prematurely dismissed based on their past.
However, along with the implementation of these protective laws, states should, at the same time, be working toward lowering the crime rate in their cities. If a large urban population is unemployed because of a criminal past, then, lowering the number of criminals will lower that unemployment rate as well. Not only that, but the state will be safer.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Blog Stage 2 - Recent Article
A recent article posted on the BBC news website announced that US bank Goldman Sachs, has agreed to pay a total of $550 million to settle the charges of civil fraud brought against it for misleading investors. This is the largest fine ever imposed on a bank by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, however, it has yet to be approved by a federal judge.
The article states that Goldman Sachs never admitted to any “legal wrongdoing”, but did confirm that their marketing to investors included “incomplete information.” Even though Goldman Sachs has been asked to pay a record fine, their “shares rose 4.5%,” which is why “many analysts felt the firm got off lightly.” Robert Peston, BBC’s business editor, in his blog, talks about the fine and says that it won’t be a “fundamental challenge to the way [Goldman Sachs] does business.” The fraudulent activities of this bank have led to large monetary losses in banks around the world, and yet, there are some that believe Goldman won’t be much affected by the penalty imposed upon them. It is important to read this article in order to know what is currently happening on Wall Street, how it is being dealt with, and how that’s affecting the rest of the world.
The article states that Goldman Sachs never admitted to any “legal wrongdoing”, but did confirm that their marketing to investors included “incomplete information.” Even though Goldman Sachs has been asked to pay a record fine, their “shares rose 4.5%,” which is why “many analysts felt the firm got off lightly.” Robert Peston, BBC’s business editor, in his blog, talks about the fine and says that it won’t be a “fundamental challenge to the way [Goldman Sachs] does business.” The fraudulent activities of this bank have led to large monetary losses in banks around the world, and yet, there are some that believe Goldman won’t be much affected by the penalty imposed upon them. It is important to read this article in order to know what is currently happening on Wall Street, how it is being dealt with, and how that’s affecting the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)