I read Kelsey Scott’s blog, Oh Arizona…, regarding Arizona’s new immigration law. The audience for which this blog is intended includes the citizens of the Unites States whose lives are affected by the decisions made in Arizona. Kelsey supports Arizona’s implementation of the law because crime rates have been decreasing since the issue of illegal immigration has been paid more attention. If this law is making crime rates drop, and allowing us to live in a safer environment, then it should be implemented. She makes a point that the law is being put into action to protect the citizens of the US, not to necessarily discriminate against illegal immigrants.
However, I feel that no matter what the purpose of the law, if it requires discrimination to reach its final purpose, the law should not be imposed. That would bring us back years in the progress made during the Civil Rights movement. I do think, however, that the controversy sparked by Arizona’s immigration law has made the nation pay more attention to the issue of illegal immigration and its impacts on various states across the US. So, I don’t agree with Kelsey, as far as supporting the implementation of Arizona’s law, but I feel that the controversy over the implementation will bring more awareness about illegal immigration to the citizens of the US.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Stage 7
A decision regarding the controversial issue involving Proposition 8 was finally reached. This decision removed the ban on same-sex marriage, and ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. I feel like the U.S. government finally made a concrete decision regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, and set a precedent for years to come, regarding this topic. Many are enraged that one judge was given the right to overturn the votes of millions of people. I feel like the judge simply gave to millions of people the right they should have already been given a long time ago. Some claim that same-sex marriage is not protected by the Constitution, but I don’t feel like that’s something that is going to stay like that for a long time. The Founding Fathers made the Constitution so that it may be amended to contain rules applicable to the current population. They meant for it to change as the understanding of the people ruled by the Constitution changed. I think we’ve reached the time when our nation can be understanding of the differences that exist amongst people; it has reached the time when it can finally accept those differences. Same-sex marriage is something that will eventually become as common, as marriage between a man and a woman has been for so many years. I’m glad that the court ruled in such a way, protecting the rights of all of its citizens, not simply the rights of a select group of citizens. Same-sex marriage does no harm to any citizen – there is simply nothing wrong with allowing marriage for all.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Stage 6 - Classmate's Blog Critique
I chose to do a critique on Caitlin’s “Summer Government Blog – CEM.” In stage five of her blog, she posts a blog defending Arizona’s right to impose its new immigration law, SB 1070, with all of its provisions, including the ones struck down by president Obama and by Susan Bolton. She points out that illegal immigrants take jobs from American citizens and don’t pay taxes, which means that they are not giving anything back to the government from which they are taking much needed employment opportunities. Also, she states that the laws in the U.S., regarding school registration in particular, are, in some aspects, stricter for U.S. citizens than they are for illegal immigrants. Caitlin supports Arizona’s right to impose the SB 1070 law in order to be able to tell which immigrants are illegal and should not be in the country. The audience for this blog is the citizens of the U.S. concerned with the nation’s immigration policies and laws.
I can see why one would be upset about illegal immigration. The statements Caitlin made defending Arizona’s right to impose the law are true, but I don’t think this law is the way to go about handling the issue of illegal immigration. The SB 1070 law asks police officials to use racial profiling as a way to identify those who they believe could be illegal immigrants. In doing so, not only will the police officers be using race as a means of imposing the law, but they will be targeting one race in particular – Hispanics. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants come from many countries, not only from South America, but from Europe and Asia as well. The new immigration law in Arizona would regress from the progress the U.S. made in the Civil Rights movement in attempting to remove assumptions made about a person based on their race. When immigrants carry their immigration papers to show that they are legitimate residents of the U.S., should we be making those immigrants who have recently received their citizenship carry their citizenship papers as proof? If they don’t, how will they show that they are legal citizens now, and not illegal immigrants? After all, their appearance will not have changed, and they could still be questioned about their immigration status under the new law.
Caitlin is right that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs, but the jobs they are taking are usually not the most pleasant ones the U.S. has to offer. Many Americans, though unemployed, may be unwilling to work in the conditions under which illegal immigrants work.
I’m not saying that the issue of illegal immigration should not be addressed, it most certainly should, but I think that the new law in Arizona is simply is not the way to go about it.
I can see why one would be upset about illegal immigration. The statements Caitlin made defending Arizona’s right to impose the law are true, but I don’t think this law is the way to go about handling the issue of illegal immigration. The SB 1070 law asks police officials to use racial profiling as a way to identify those who they believe could be illegal immigrants. In doing so, not only will the police officers be using race as a means of imposing the law, but they will be targeting one race in particular – Hispanics. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants come from many countries, not only from South America, but from Europe and Asia as well. The new immigration law in Arizona would regress from the progress the U.S. made in the Civil Rights movement in attempting to remove assumptions made about a person based on their race. When immigrants carry their immigration papers to show that they are legitimate residents of the U.S., should we be making those immigrants who have recently received their citizenship carry their citizenship papers as proof? If they don’t, how will they show that they are legal citizens now, and not illegal immigrants? After all, their appearance will not have changed, and they could still be questioned about their immigration status under the new law.
Caitlin is right that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs, but the jobs they are taking are usually not the most pleasant ones the U.S. has to offer. Many Americans, though unemployed, may be unwilling to work in the conditions under which illegal immigrants work.
I’m not saying that the issue of illegal immigration should not be addressed, it most certainly should, but I think that the new law in Arizona is simply is not the way to go about it.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Stage 5 - U.S. Government
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.
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.
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)