Finding a solution on how to deal with immigration is important for our government. On the other hand, trying to become legalized in this country is an immigrant's main concern. The government should be stricter or at least conduct well in-depth investigations on marriages where a green card is trying to be obtained. It is not right for immigrants to evade the immigration laws and kind of get away with it if their marriage is not detected. You may ask why? Well, it affects our economy and society. Terrorism, which our country fears and has experienced, is correlated to fraudulent marriages. There is a relationship because the way terrorists make it inside this country is by marrying someone just to gain legal status in the United States. The Center of Immigration Studies states, "Half of the 36 suspected 9/11 terrorists gained legal status by marrying Americans, 10 through sham marriages." If the government is truly trying to prevent terrorism than their first step should be to look and determine if the marriage is valid. Do you not think our economic recession and the war in Iraq could have been prevented if we focused on fraudulent marriages more instead of deporting illegal immigrants who just come here to do our so called "dirty" work?
I understand that every immigrant comes here to live the "American Dream", but it would be right if they were here with a legal status. Most illegal immigrants work for the most minimum wages, which in a way throws other businesses out of business, causing professional and certified people to be unemployed. So, they are basically like a competition in our society. I do not agree with the Dream Act because it is not being fair to its own American citizens who are trying to go to school or find a job. Another point that I mentioned in class was being legal or illegal you may still become a burden to our government. If the legal immigrant cannot find a job, they will obviously turn to the government services for support. For the illegal immigrant, most of them do not file taxes, which is not right because they too are part of this country. If they have a children that was born in the United States, they can qualify for a lot of types of government services which they benefit too. Who is paying for WIC, Medicare, etc.? We are! It is not fair that American citizens who work hard are being taken advantage by illegal immigrants. What do you think should we keep on putting this issue to the side or do something about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
In responding to Gary's final question, I have to say that I'm unwilling to accept the premises upon which it is based. The question is something of a trap in that by answering it, either positively or negatively, we accept that so-called fraudulent marriages are an "issue." I repeat what I pointed out in class: we have not been presented with any real evidence that this is a major problem that deserves to have more public resources devoted to it. As for the Seminara piece we read, calling it a "study" strains credulity until it screams and begs for mercy.
If this pamphlet (as Professor Reitz called it before I did) were serious social science research designed to inform us about the prevalence of marriage-for-green-card arrangements, we would know, for example, whether or not there has been a growth in green cards issued to foreign-born spouses of US citizens over time. The paper gives us raw numbers showing that more green cards were issued in 2007 than in 1998, but without knowing how these numbers relate to population growth, we cannot tell if the rate has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same. Imagine if someone said to you, "Bread cost 25 cents in 1950, and it costs 3 dollars today; therefore, grain production is a massive problem that we should be paying attention to." Wouldn't you want to know about inflation before accepting this conclusion?
I wouldn't be surprised if, in fact, the rate has increased over time, but the point is, by failing to provide us with this very basic information that any serious researcher would (this is statistics 101), choosing instead to show raw numbers out of context, Seminara seems more intent on obfuscation than on illumination. This is only one example in a paper fraught with similar problems and faulty conclusions. Why might this be?
To be continued...
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) presents itself as an "independent" think tank, but it is anything but. I would encourage everyone to read what The Southern Poverty Law Center has to say (http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank) about CIS. It's a lengthy article and we're all busy, so let me quote a bit:
"Although the think tank bills itself as an 'independent' organization with a 'pro-immigrant' if 'low-immigration' vision, the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked. There's a reason for that. Although you'd never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials.... He raised millions of dollars for the think tank and published the writings of top CIS officials in his racist journal, The Social Contract. He maneuvered a friend on to the board of CIS — a man who shared his interest in eugenics and who attended events with Tanton where white nationalists gave presentations. Through it all, CIS pumped out study after study aimed at highlighting immigration's negative effects. These studies have hardly been neutral. One of them concludes that because foreign women ('Third World gold-diggers') can obtain work permits by marrying American citizens, it's obvious that fraudulent marriage applications are 'prevalent among terrorists.'"
Obviously, we should not accept everything that SPLC has to say; they have as much of an agenda as CIS does. However, CIS's origins should at the very least give us some pause and make us cautious about presenting their materials as evidence.
I would've enjoyed spending my blog space on debating the very valid issues Gary raises about questions of unofficially sanctioned immigrants using up public resources, but unfortunately, the Seminara piece foreclosed that discussion for me. That's one of the problems with this type of propaganda: it drowns even potentially valid points in its cloudy, foul-smelling swamp.
I love a good fight on the blog.
First of all, thank you to Gary for opening up this conversation, which is so important on so many levels. There are the fundamental philosophical issues pertaining to the distribution of economic resources among legal versus non-legal residents, the pragmatic issue of industries based on the low wage labor of immigrants, and humanitarian issues regarding the sheer size of an immigrant population who have made homes here over long periods of time. Because the issues are so hot-button, we can see how easy it is to be manipulated by biased rhetoric, as Robert s passionately and correctly points out in his critique of the Seminara article.
I don’t believe we need to abandon the substantive conversation just because we have discovered a worm in the apple. Indeed, it may be true that a vast majority of what we read about highly politicized issues is tainted in some way. (In fact nothing is purely neutral and objective.) But the best in scholarship strains to eliminate as much bias from the mix as is possible and/or tells you up front what the underlying agenda is. I cannot stress this enough: while no presentation of data is perfect, some are more perfect than others. Learning to evaluate sources is part of what being a college student is all about.
So, who should we trust on the immigration issue? I read today in the New York Times that border crossings to the South are way down, as is collateral crime related to illegal immigration. I wonder if the newspapers in Arizona and Texas are reporting the same, or an alternate, version of these “facts”. How do we know? (This is not a rhetorical question. I would love to know how you gather the data to come to your conclusions about fraudulent marriages and/or other immigration related issues.)
Thank you Gary for this interesting class. I did not say much because based on the statistics and the vague words "most", "all", "half" I was put in a position to question the statistics. I think that fraudulent marriages could be an issue that is played behind the scenes of an overall topic. It is not heard of as often, which is why not many of us saw it as an issue. I think that in respect to terrorism, other problems formed part of what took place in 9/11. I always think that we just weren't prepared for something like that. When I read "half of the 36 suspected 9/11 terrorists gained legal status", some of them got married to Americans because they were raised and educated here. Education in aviation is the reason why many of these men came to the United States. Half of them married and 10 were sham marriages. If half of them married by fall in love with an American to get status, wouldn't that be fraudulent marriage as well? And in regards to the comment about how illegal immigrant hog up government services because they are competing with the legal unemployed workers, I think that is such a false argument. The majority of the legalized workers have taken advantage of the welfare system. In the past, our economy was so well off, that most people took advantage of the services. Now everything is frozen because there is no funds to keep helping everyone. When the illegal immigrants want to get these services, the government is very strict with the requirements. It is not easy to obtain public assistance or welfare unless you fit a certain category. I completely agree with the Dream Act because there are some citizens out there who don't want an education or don't want to work. If someone else is coming from a country to invest in this economy and contribute to society by working hard, then I see no reason why we should be targeting them. This entire nation was founded with immigrants. Our parents or grandparents aren't from here. They came here to live and invest in this country. Some of them came and got decent jobs, while other had to come to pick strawberries on a farm. Regardless of who or how they are, they should get an opportunity to work here for those who don't want to.
NO FIGHTING!
I think that Robert and Professor Stein raises an important point about investigating our sources. After reading Robert's post, I can admit that I was not so knowledgable on this immigration topic as I thought I should be. I would answer professor Stein's question by saying that my limited knowledge on fraudulent marriages is based on what I have seen, heard, and witnessed , first hand. I think illegal marriages being an issue or not will depend on the perspective that one is viewing the issue. Acknowledging the fact that I am not equiped with the extensive statistics on the issue, I would respond to Gary's comment on illegal immigrants collecting government services in a question of, why? How can an illegal immigrants gain access to all these government programs and benefits without the proper documentation? Therefore, an unemployed immigrant did not make me think of the taking advantage of the services provided for citizens, but more on the escaltion of crime. Does the government have some invested interest?
Why do the government go after illegal workers over fraudulent marriages?
These workers provide services off the books (under the table) and do not pay taxes. Capitalistic America; if they do not obtain monetary gain from any services, they will deem it illegal. Marriage licenses are not considered a financial loss to the U.S. economy to the comparison of the money lost to illegal workers that work for less than minimum wage and without filing taxes.
Well, this post will be coming from another person who knows very little about the issue of fraudulent marriages. Taking into account what everybody says, maybe fraudulent marriages isn't a big problem that the government needs to spend more time on. I personally don't know anybody who deals with fraudulent marriages. However, it does seem like the people who screen for illegal marriages could do a better job. Even if the problem is a small one, it's still a part of the system that can be improved upon. I think my biggest problem with the fraudulent marriages is the idea that people are doing it to bypass the waiting time that you would normally have to go through for legal immigration. I get agitated by the idea that they are able to come over so fast, while my relatives took almost as long as I have been alive to properly come to America.
I am so happy that Gary raised the issue -- and that you all have written back to him and to his materials from a variety of perspectives -- because it shows precisely the importance of THE QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVE, which is the point of the final project and all interdisciplinary work. Whether you enjoy a good fight or not, it is incredibly important both to academic work and to being a citizen (or struggling to be a citizen), that you think carefully and precisely about what words mean and where they are coming from (yes, Orwell again. Just be happy it isn't In a Grove, people!). It is also important to think about our own perspectives and how that shapes our response to the materials we read. Robert seems to be reading as a researcher, seeing glaring faults in the research the Center for Immigration Studies pamphlet uses; Gary is reading as someone who seems to have personal experience both in terms of fraudulent marriage and working with law enforcement this year; Cynthia reads as someone sympathetic to the struggles of folks desiring citizenship; I read the materials as an English teacher, being disturbed by the inconsistencies in the sentence I read in class ("Most relationships between Americans and foreign nationals ARE legitimate, but because of the prevalence of sham marriages, legitimate international couples..."). As Professor Stein notes, there is no such thing as a purely objective, entirely thorough source -- but there are better and worse ones. It is our goal in this seminar and for you in your education to become the best critical reader you can be so that you can evaluate the vast amount of information you are exposed to.
When Professor Stein asked someone to argue the other point of view (the government), I thought that was a really significant point and of course raised my hand. So to Reitz's point, I'm going to argue both perspectives:
Governments Perspective: Although we may not understand someone's point of view when we disagree with them on, it's best to know what they're thinking so you can use it to your advantage. The government claims that illegal immigration is straining costs. Although their point is glorified, it's slightly true. For example, all hospitals can never legally turn someone down who walks in there hurt ,they are legally required to treat them in the emergency room. This is where illegal immigrants get healthcare. This costs money to treat them because no one can pay a full medical bill which means it reverts back to the tax payers and government to cover their medical costs. (My mom has worked in healthcare for fifteen years which is why I'm using an example I'm knowledgeable on). Therefore they're "costing taxpayers money." We also brought up the view of non-profits helping illegal immigrants. There is a huge data book that comes out every year that lists all non-profits donations and benefactors. I have looked at the one from 2010 and about 95% of non-profits receive government grants, stipends and private government donations.
Pro-Immigration Perspective: How did illegal immigration even become illegal? Where did it stem from? Cynthia brings up a really important point, unless your native american, you butt is from a generation of immigrants. Therefore, who are we to take it so personal that immigrants are trying to come here? I'd argue that immigrants are fleeing for their lives, they're coming from corrupt governments and watching their family members die of starvation. I think once we get this prideful American mentality off our minds and stop thinking that everyone is here to take our money then we can actually think of a resolution to help these people. If I were in their spots, I'd want help to. None of them come to America thinking of ways to rip off the government or ways they can just sit around and be lazy. They immediately look for work and are doing jobs that 'Americans' would never do. So ironically, in the end, don't we need them almost more then they need us?
Thanks, Dani, for jumping right in voicing two clear perspectives on this. Given that we can all use practice determining and defining perspectives, what might a third perspective be? Or a fourth?
What about a religious point of view or the actual immigrant's perspective.... I just got done reading 'Enrique's Journey' by Sonia Nazario, which is about one immigrants' story of coming from Mexico riding on the tops of trains for days attempting to get close to the border. The immigrants that are attempting this are almost all children. It's become a dangerous phenomenon and also grotesque issue because children's corpses are being found up down this rail line from Mexico to Texas. What do we tell them? Children are the hardest to take care of once they get here because it's hard for them to find their mothers or fathers here and barely make it across the border with their small bodies. We send them back as soon as they see Texas, how do we change that.
P.S. "Sin Nombre" is a great documentary on the trek immigrants are taking to get to America, it also focuses on the railroad system they're attempting to take.
This is a great blog this week.
Robert and Gary-I love that Gary is
Playing devils advocate especially given the fact that his parents and close relatives emigrated here and as he pointed out last week, not always legally ,having said that,I can definitely appreciate the strain that immigrants have on the economy but by the same token if the government would loosen the reigns on the vigorous demands and mandates of immigration maybe we wouldn't have so many illegal ones.
Professor Stein brought up an important point:
Why aren't we focusing on the selection of propaganda towards one group of immigrants. Certaintly Mexicans and Middle East natives aren't the ONLY illegal aliens coming to this country. One thing that the government is great is at projection.God forbid we took a closer look at the discrepancies within our own government instead of blaming outside sources.food for thought....
I just want to correct one misstatement that seems to be picking up steam on this blog. The vast majority of illegal immigrants DO pay sales taxes, property taxes, state, city, and federal taxes. They do so sometimes with a fraudulent social security number but more often with a taxpayer identification number given solely for the purpose of filing taxes.
Despite the rhetoric, illegal immigrants do not generally reap more in benefits than they pay into the system. For example, most illegal immigrants pay social security but none are eligible to receive it when they retire.
I am taking the perspective of the non-partisan Congressional Office of Budget Management, whose researchers say, “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use” (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf).
Are we all immigrants? Do immigrants come to another region voluntarily? If so, those who were brought here in chains and shackles can't be considered immigrants. If so, then, FORCED immigrants.
Anyway, I met a guy a few years back who told me he left his country and came into the U.S. (illegally) to escape retribution from gang violence that he participated in. He explained that he had no intention to seek employment. The only work he was interested in was moving packages (and I don't mean groceries).
This is very interesting information Professor Stein provides. I think it also supports a point we discussed in class, namely, the way informally sanctioned immigrants (some prefer the term "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants," which is better, but still a negative conception--stressing their lack of something) support the entire economy. Take the case we discussed in class: Alabama and the way anti-immigrant laws produced a farm labor shortage that hurt the economy. I'm going to use a quote from The Nation magazine for for two reasons. First, I just want to back up the point I'm making about how immigrants support the economy. But also, I've been thinking a lot about sources since I wrote that scathing piece about Seminara's article and read what everyone else had to say. What makes The Nation, a radical Left magazine, a better source than papers by CIS? This quote talks about the case of Georgia, as a cautionary tale for Alabama, which had recently followed Georgia in passing what Alabama's governor called "the strongest immigration laws in the country." Here's the quote:
"It was mid-June, and we were in town for the watermelon harvest, but we might as well have walked into a ghost town, thanks to Georgia’s recently signed Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act, otherwise known as House Bill 87. And thanks to HB 87, a copycat law of Arizona’s infamous SB 1070, millions of pounds of watermelons were left to rot in the fields this summer—along with peaches, blackberries and cucumbers—as many of the most dependable and experienced farmworkers steered clear of Georgia and headed north for friendlier states, prompting an epic farm labor shortage in Georgia and desperate howls from its planters."
As an illustration of the point I was making, this passage clearly shows how much immigrants contribute to the farm economy. It also disproves the argument that immigrants are taking the jobs of US citizens. Where were all the US citizens who wanted those jobs while the watermelons were rotting? It, like CBO quote Professor Stein gave us, provides what I think is valid evidence against the argument that immigrants are taking more than they're giving.
In terms of evaluating sources, I've thought about what I think the makes the Nation a valid source. Perhaps first of all, it clearly states its position. It doesn't claim to be non-partisan. It regularly makes clear that it is a "progressive" magazine, that it is a staunchly Left-leaning magazine. That's important. Second, it has a letters section where it regularly includes discussions between its writers and their critics. If someone challenges something someone has written, there's often a discussion in the letters section where the writer will defend her point by saying where she got the info, or concede the point the other person makes. Third, its claims are verifiable. We can check to see if what they say about Georgia's watermelons is true. If it's writing an article taking a position on an issue, a sort of opinion piece, we know that too. That's very different from writing an opinion piece that's tarted up to look like research. So it isn't about being partisan or having opinions, it's about honesty, I guess.
First of all, thanks to Robert for using one of my favorite phrases -- "tarted up." Two, he raises an excellent suggestion for those folks looking to figure out different perspectives and how those different perspectives talk to one another: the Letters section! Many of you cited Op/Ed pieces in your bibliographies, so double back and see what letters got written in about them.
Given the laws of capitalism immigrants or some form of cheap labor are vital to any economy. As Robert points out that with the recent farm labor shortage in Georgia fruits are rotting. If these laws remain the same the prices of fruit within that state may rise causing the probable rise of items which rely on these fruits to rise as well. If these laws continue to be signed in several other states it is probable that the prices of other things may rise. For example some of my family members when they first arrived to this country they worked in a car wash. Washing cars when it is 20 degrees and you are used to weather which is 95 degrees every day for about eight hours every day is no joke and is something that I doubt any of us would want to do. Now imagine if jobs like this and many other jobs in restaurants, corner stores, cab drivers and many other jobs were eliminated because of laws similar to the South were signed into law here. Our daily lives would be greatly affected, and the prices of certain services we demand would dramatically change. To expand on my point and also piggyback on the points Robert and Professor Stein are making immigrants give more then they receive. Whether it may be paying taxes and not being able to reap some of the benefits of those taxes or working in extremely difficult jobs and receive negative attention or even “taking American jobs” or jobs Americans simply wouldn’t do.
With all the economic incentives that I highlighted earlier there are also negatives to have undocumented individuals in a country. First off there are here illegally meaning they already committed a crime. Secondly, as Simon pointed out that people who do come to this country illegal come “over so fast, while my relatives took almost as long as I have been alive to properly come to America”. And how Dani points out that to treat undocumented individuals in this country cost money “because no one can pay a full medical bill which means it reverts back to the tax payers and government to cover their medical”. Finally as Timothy highlighted that there are chances that people are coming to this country to sell drugs, promote violence, and with “no intention to seek employment”. Granted there are reasonable counters to each of these arguments but to address all of these issues I feel that there needs to be legislation which calls on undocumented individuals to come out of the dark with certainty that ICE will not deport them. And if they do live a life where they do not violate any other laws they will eventually become green card holders.
I knew you'd like that, tarted up!
The topic of immigration and its relation to "fraudulent marriages" makes me very uncomfortable. If it were up to me, I would just refrain from posting a comment. Right now, I’m forcing myself to type this. I believe it's a topic that's very sensitive and those who decide on tackling it should be very careful about what they say and how they say it. I for one, was, and still am hurt about some of the things that were said. It really made me view some people under a different light.
I completely agree with Robert. I cannot share my ideas on a so-called issue when sufficient data and evidence have not been presented to me. Then, I'm just talking to talk or writing to write. Because the definition of a fraudulent marriage is unclear, it’s difficult for me to say whether it’s a problem or not. As we mentioned in class, in some ethnic groups, what may seem like a fraudulent marriage according to western standards may differ in another region. To everyone’s surprise my ideas on a fraudulent marriage was completely different from others. I think all the bullet points and lists on the “pamphlet” that described fraudulent marriages are biased.
As for illegal immigrants, that’s another issue that I’m very sensitive too. As Professor Stein commented in class, how will we survive without illegal immigrants? They are one of the greatest contributors to our economy. I’ve heard this statement so many times. I’ve also heard many say Americans don’t want to do the work immigrants are doing. It’s really become a decree at this point.
Cynthia and I share the same sentiment; immigrants should be allowed to work in this country. I think the U.S. government should come up with a solution as to how we can improve the lives of illegal immigrants instead of oppressing them. I think the only thing that separates them from us is a single piece of paper. Who is to say they are not as skilled as us? Who is to say they cannot do our jobs better? I think the U.S. government holds back illegal immigrants from prospering by not granting them working or citizenship rights.
As for Gary, you need to be legal to be eligible for Medicare. As far as WIC is concerned, babies that are born on U.S. soil are eligible for WIC. I just thought I’d enlighten you.
Gary, I apologize for missing out on your wonderful class! I always want to be there when there’s a good debate, so I am sad to miss out. I am not sure if undocumented immigrants get paid minimum wage. From experience, business owners exploit their immigrant workers, pay less than minimum wage, and make them work overtime without pay. Business owners get away with it because undocumented immigrants do not speak English, do not know their rights, and are scared of deportation. Without the exploitation of these workers, it is hard for this capitalistic society to continue. Business owners have found a way to maximize their profit in the expense of minority workers. I know this because I worked in a sweatshop, and it was not the first one I worked at. Many immigrants do not think there is an alternative.
When a person is brought over to the United States by a spouse or family member, that person not only needs to sign an agreement to support the individual, they also need to prove they are financially capable of supporting them. The text you assigned addressed the co-signer “issue” in bringing over family members from over-seas. I do not think it is as big of an issue as the article claims because co-signers also have the obligation to support the individual in the event that she/he becomes a burden on the society.
As Cynthia pointed out, it is dangerous to generalize what a “fraudulent” marriage is and engage in stereotypes. Stereotypes were used throughout history to victimize different groups of people at different times. Our society, today, still suffer from the racism of slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, the Chinese Exclusion Law, the aftermath of September 11, etc.
I also do not think the discussion of the article really took into account the people who were forced to come to the United States. Young children do not freely choose to be “undocumented”, but are rather born into their status. What do we do to help these groups of children? We do not talk about the many women who are sex trafficked here to the United States. Even if some women agree initially to come to the United States, many of them are coerced to work or live under inhumane conditions. Many of the men would withhold their passports and threaten to harm their family back home. If we make immigration laws stricter than it already is then the women would never come out and seek help. These women are seen as prostitutes, rather than victims. The article does recognize some injustices, but still criminalizes the women, rather than the men who are buying the wives.
Simon, I do not know if it is as fast as the article say it is. It is faster than most ways of obtaining citizenship, but there are still many obstacles along the way. There are many petitions, interviews, forms, and a decent amount of money involved with the entire process.
Professor Stein, thank you for clearing up the misconception of undocumented immigrants not paying taxes.
Professor Stein: you are right illegal immigrants can file their taxes but that's if they do not get paid under the books using their PIN (personal identification number). They are not "obligated"though as a regular American citizen to declare their taxes or else we get into serious trouble. The problem here is that illegal immigrants are not being forced to file their taxes.
The reason why the government focuses more on illegal workers than on fraudulent marriages might be because they are much more easier to detect and faster to identify to a certain category. If you could not tell most of these laws, such as the SB 1070 and HB 87, affect Hispanics mainly. Why? It is simple because who are the people who are usually picking up our strawberries, oranges, grapes, watermelons, etc. They are illegal Hispanic workers, the majority coming from Mexico. I do not understand why when the government refers to illegal workers they automatically put pictures of immigrants working on farms or crossing the border down south. I feel like the government is constantly targeting Hispanics and Blacks, which I find so disturbing. What about the Asian and European illegal workers? Just because they do not fit a certain category does not make them suspect to be an illegal worker.
I wanted to end by thanking everyone for looking at fraudulent marriages from different perspectives that would have never crossed my mind!
Gary you make a great point about how the focus on "illegal" workers is biased against people coming from South and Central America, but to me, this means that we should be very wary when there are attempts made to scapegoat ANY group, be it workers or people getting married. What scapegoating does is locate the problem within individuals or groups of people and trains our eyes away from systemic problems--like so-called free trade agreements, massive economic collapses, political violence, e.g.--that contribute to people's decisions to cross borders (once again, I'll say that these borders magically come down when corporations want to move around). I totally agree with you about the racialized nature of the contemporary immigration situation, but I don't think the answer to an unjust focus on a particular group is to target a different group.
You guys, PLEASE take quick look at the American Anthropological Association's statement on immigration. It's very enlightening, I think. Here's the link:
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/AAA-General-Statement-on-Immigration.cfm
Erratum: racialized in my previous post should probably have been ethnicized instead.
Popy I'm sorry to hear that you were personally offended by comments said during class or on this blog. We were all told to be very open and honest with our opinions and thoughts but not at the expense of anothers feelings.
When it comes to this topic I am not an expert nor do I think you are or for that matter any of us. The bottom line is that we see what we see through our own Perspectives and then use information to back that up however the way we are interpreting that information is also biased. I think in this matter the obvious speaks .i mean did any of you hear about Americans scooping up the jobs of harvesting watermelons in Georgia? I know I didn't...
Thanks for that AAA immigration statement, Robert. Excellent.
Class, I feel like we are just beginning a very rich discussion.
I agree! As Wordsworth wrote, "Wisdom is oft-times nearer when we stoop than when we soar."
Post a Comment