I'm Taking a Side

My Final Blog on WHERE DO I STAND?

I have tried with my blog to bring about fair argument regarding immigration. As we know, America is, and always will be a land of immigration. The question is what type of immigrant will occupy our land; Legal or illegal?

Although I feel for the plight of illegal immigrants and all they have gone through to be in America, they have partaken in a dishonest act, and have broken the law. Although I feel for the children of illegal immigrants, and understand why they feel the way they do regarding the DREAM Act, my legal, American child is suffering from educating illegal immigrant children at this time.

California has faced tremendous budget cuts; from music, art, physical education, sports, and basic paper needs. With California supplying free education to illegal immigrants, costing about $7.7 billion per year as reported in 2004, why is this fair that it comes at the price of my son’s P.E. and music class?

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_5cedf831-9d5d-5335-af7e-2af6730a577c.html

Regarding crime: “illegal immigrants made up a disproportionate share of the state prison populations in California” (FOXNes.com). There is not much more to say about this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/border-states-dealing-illegal-immigrant-crime-data-suggests/

It doesn’t really matter why I believe the way I do; I just believe that illegal immigration is against the law and wrong. From the very moment an illegal immigrant steps on the soil of America, he tells us through his actions that he does not care about our laws; so why should we care about his rights?

My Final Blog

Black’s Law Dictionary defines immigration as the “act of entering a country with the intention of settling there permanently” (Garner, 2006). An immigrant is the person who partakes in the action of immigration and is defined as a “person who arrives in a country to settle there permanently; a person who immigrates” (Garner, 2006). From the very beginning, America has been a land of immigrants, and I expect that it will remain that way.

When the word immigrant comes up in everyday language, especially for those of us who live along the border states, it may be common that the next thought may be the word illegal. Not because we believe that it is wrong or right, but because it exist, and it continues to be a sour subject for many Americans. Sometimes I wonder why this is. Have you or I personally been hurt by an illegal immigrant? Is your or my family going hungry because an illegal immigrant has our jobs? Or, is just the mere fact that illegal immigrants are here in America illegally? I guess questions like these would be answered differently by different people.  

Ever since the eighties, when I started understanding the news and my parent’s conversations, I have heard the words immigration reform. Today, I still continue to hear the words immigration reform. Whether I am reading blogs, reading the paper, listening to the radio or television, people are urging for immigration reform. These two words not only have the ability to get people riled up when they are put together, they have the ability to put a wedge between friends. What is it about these two words that hold so much power, but seem to go nowhere? What is immigration reform and what does it mean to the masses?

For immigrants who have families abroad, immigration reform is about getting reunification benefits for their family members back home; so they too may come to America. For some, it might be that they are legal immigrants who followed the rules and have the expectation that others should do the same. For others, maybe it is about migrating here legally through an education visa knowing that a green card is not attached to their visa; so they too may enjoy the American dream. Lastly, immigration reform may be about rounding up the all the illegal’s and sending them back home because they broke America’s federal laws. In whichever way you or I view immigration reform, someone else will have the opposite view.

If you are a politician, the words immigration reform means talking about reform in the manner your constituents want to hear, but knowing that a stalemate exists in Congress that is almost impossible to break. Its okay, Joe can blame Fred when he has to explain his shortcomings his constituents. Who are the Democrats going to blame? They held the majority in the House and the Senate for a time with Obama at the helm most recently and did nothing. Now that the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, the Democrats can blame the Republicans when reform does not happen in 2011. How much more can we take? Before we know it, it will be 2049 and immigration reform will still be two words that cannot find true meaning.

According to James Jasper, “emotions pervade all social life, social movements included” and are “as much a part of culture as cognitive understandings and moral visions are, and all social life occurs in and through culture” (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p.p. 175-176). But if our culture is so extremely divided on the issue of illegal immigration, then how does this work and where do we go from here? Each side of the issue continues to make a “concerted effort” to change the other side through social movement, but progress still looms with no end in sight (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p. 176). One may argue that it is critical to leave emotion out of the process and to just work off the law, but in reality, this type of action would be in favor of the anti-illegal immigration camp. With this being said, this would not be true reform; at least for those in favor of illegal immigrant rights. So where does that leave us? Back where we started—spewing out the words that we need immigration reform.

Article 5

It's Election Time Again

Is it the same old rhetoric, or could there be real change? Elections are near and the parties have to target voters. Jeb Bush is reaching out to the Hispanic voters “in advance of next year’s presidential election” (Associated Press, 2011). Being a Republican, Hispanic voters may be more standoffish than open; for the Republican party does not have a good reputation for working on behalf of immigration.

Although Jeb Bush understands the history between the GOP and Hispanics, he is insistent that Hispanics have more in common with the party than most realize. “party's social conservatism, anti-abortion stance and positions for private school vouchers and other school choice proposals as well as lower taxes” are all of interest to the Hispanic vote (Associated Press, 2011).

The GOP has a lot to overcome to win the Hispanic vote: Electronic border fence, the 14^th Amendment, health care reform that the Hispanics want and the GOP does not, the connection to the Tea Party movement, their support of Arizona’ S.B. 1070, and just their vote and view on immigration history.

GOP Leaders Working to Woo Latin Voters

Watch This Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4496519/gop-leaders-working-to-woo-latin-voters/

Here is Jeb Bush in 2007 explaining how the Hispanics have more in common with conservatives than many think, and how they have assimilated in American mainstream .

Associated Press. (2011). Jeb Bush to Lead Hispanic Republican Group's Outreach to Latino Voters. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/13/jeb-bush-lead-hispanic-republican-groups-outreach-latino-voters/

Article 4

Proposition 187: California

In the 90’s, Californians took their plea and fight against illegal immigration to the ballot box and voted yes for Proposition 187.  Although the courts ruled the proposition unconstitutional, here is a sum of what it entailed:

 “The measure would: Ban children who are in the country illegally from attending public schools. Prevent publicly funded social service agencies and hospitals from providing services to illegal immigrants except in emergencies. Require health care facilities, police and sheriff's departments, schools and social service agencies to report suspected illegal immigrants to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the state attorney general. Make it a felony under state law to manufacture, sell or use phony citizenship documents. The crime would be punishable by five years in state prison or by a $75,000 fine” (The Sunday Oregonian, Sept. 18, 1994).

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=235910&sr=HLEAD(PROPOSITION+187)+and+date+is+September,%201994

Today, whether you are an illegal or legal immigrant, you are allowed to utilize citizen services. Also today, the costs of these services have skyrocketed. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), it costs the U.S. “$113 billion a year – an average of $1,117 for every ‘native-headed’ household in America” (Barnes, 2010). Some may wonder why this is fair to the average taxpaying citizens who is forced into supporting the illegal immigrants when they can barely support their own families.

Barnes, E. (2010). Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

Article 3

Article 3

Civil Rights Groups Protest Arizona Immigration Law, File Suit Over Federal Program

According to Touraine (1981), social movements have “typically [been] centered around the distinction between ‘strategy-oriented’ and ‘identity-oriented’ movements (as cited in Goodwin, 2009, p. 265). When two separate movements can come together and unite for “movement solidarity,” mobilization of a movement can be the result (p. 267).

In this article, “Civil rights and immigrant-advocacy groups teamed up” in protest against Arizona’s immigration law calling it “racist” (Gibson, 2010). The basis of the law, S.B. 1070, is that it “makes illegal immigration a state crime and allows local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status and arrest them if they can’t provide proper documentation” (Gibson, 2010). The law expands the Secure Communities program which allows “law enforcement and federal authorities coordinate to identify and deport illegal immigrant criminals in the United States” (Gibson, 2010). Many argue that a racist bill like this is against their civil rights while others are in favor of S.B. 1070.

Counsel John Bouma, on behalf of Governor Jan Brewer went to the Ninth Circuit Court Hearing in November to argue that Arizona has a right to against crime and fight on behalf of their law abiding citizens. They argued that Arizona has a right to fix what the federal government has failed to do.

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_110110_StatementByBrewer.pdf

In December 2010, the federal district granted “motions to dismiss” some of the challenges to S.B. 1070 by groups such as the “National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders,” the “League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)” among others. It will be interesting to see if the judge dismisses the suit filed by the “The National Day Laborer Organizing Network, The Center for Constitutional Rights and the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law” (Gibson, 2010).

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_121010_FederalCourtDismissesSeveralChallengesToSB1070.pdf

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_121510_FederalDistrictCourtGrantsStatesMtDChallenge.pdf

Furthermore, Brewer’s office has filed a motion to dismiss lawsuits filed by foreign countries. Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile are all challenging S.B. 1070 and the “enforcement measures that have been a part of U.S. federal law for decades.”

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_100510_BrewerObjectsForeignGovSB1070Lawsuit.pdf

I don’t know about you, but doesn’t it seem weird that all these countries feel that they should have a say in what laws we enforce in America?

Gibson, J. (2010). Civil Rights Groups Protest Arizona Immigration Law, File Suit Over Federal Program. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/27/civil-rights-groups-protest-arizona-immigration-law-file-suit-federal-program/

Article 2

 

The Complexity of Our Immigration Law

Supreme Court weighs fairness of citizenship law differences for mothers and fathers

Usually when we debate immigration law in the U.S. we debate on illegal versus legal. Along the border states of California, Texas, and Arizona, the debate usually always goes to Mexico. None of us really ever think about the sex of a parent of an illegal child, but maybe we should.

This article discusses another issue of reform needed. Did you know that if you are an illegal immigrant trying to get citizenship in America that it makes a difference whether it is your mother or our father who may be the illegal in the country? Last November, "The Supreme Court heard a case" about "A Mexican-born man who grew up with an American-citizen father in the United States is asking the court to protect him from deportation, claiming the law would have granted him citizenship if his mother had been an American instead of his father" (Foley, 2010).

The law permits non-citizen child to become a citizen if one of the parents had lived in the U.S. for a certain amount of time before he or she was born. The issue at hand is the amount of time for the mother versus the father. “Before 1986, American fathers needed to have spent at least 10 years in the country — five of them after the age of 14 — to pass on citizenship to their children. American mothers needed only a year living in the United States before the child’s birth to pass on citizenship” (Foley, 2011).

Ruben Flores-Villa’s father did not meet the citizenship requirement for Ruben to be granted citizenship status, but if it were his mother who was passing the citizenship, he would have qualified and be a U.S. citizen. I had no idea that sex mattered, did you? This case currently sits in the hands of the Supreme Court and a decision is expected this summer. I guess it brings to question, is it fair to have different requirements for men and women to pass citizenship to their children?  

http://washingtonindependent.com/103262/supreme-court-weighs-fairness-of-citizenship-law-differences-for-mothers-and-fathers

Article 1

CIR 2010 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform Reality Check

This video gives a good breakdown on the financial impact of illegal immigrants in the U.S. and why there is need for reform.

Many claim that illegal immigration hurts America, but let’s look at how it helps for a second. It is argued that if we pass the DREAM Act, there are many benefits. Immigrants count for 1 in 20 persons in America and contributes to a purchasing power of “736 billions” for Latinos in America. What would happen to the economy if they disappeared? Since the U.S. spends “$78 Billion dollars” a year on enforcement costs, just imagine if this money was put back into the system because reform had taken place already. It has also been said that if the U.S. was to legalize the illegals, “$44 billion” dollars of “new revenue” would be generated through “income, payroll taxes, and various fees” along with the raise in our overall GDP. With America knee deep in debt and financial crisis, maybe passing reform would be more helpful than hurtful.

Needless to say, the DREAM Act failed in Congress when the Senate “fell five votes short of the 60” votes required in December 2010 (FoxNews.com). It is argued that this failure stiffens future professionals in America and that the children of illegal immigrants should not have to pay the price of their illegal parents bringing them here when they were children. They are as American as you and I. Others argue that the DREAM Act is just another form of “backdoor amnesty” that will continue to feed the problem of illegal immigration (FoxNews.com).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/18/senate-tries-pass-dream-act/

Opinion Assignment 3

Is Klein correct in her assessment of activism today?  Is it really less effective?  Less dangerous?

For the western world, I do not believe Klein’s assessment is perfect. In some aspects, the Bono, Pro-Logo type activism is appropriate, and successful. It may be less dangerous, but is it danger that defines success? I do not believe so. I believe there is a balance that can be achieved through all types of activism.

Klein argued that consumerism type protest is “less powerful than grass roots street demonstrations” (Delaney, 2007). The reason I agree with this assessment is because it relieves the government from listening, doing their part and making things right. Sometimes, people must get into the government’s face and to demand action before action is taken; like the Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement. Creating donations through consumerism is more like a band aid; it does not make the G-8 act. In the Live 8 video, it was stated that all one had to do was to “persuade these eight demigods” into making the right choice to decide to end poverty (Jkhorner, 2006). Although this is a true statement, I do not believe it is as simple as it sounds. On one hand, maybe if America went on a diet, half of this world’s hunger problem would be solved. On the other hand, maybe it is more about the Western world needing to teach the other countries how to maintain agriculture, land, alternative crops and industry (more than they are currently doing), because giving poor countries temporary food is not going to solve the problem for the next centuries. Sustainability is just as critical.

In addition, I enjoyed reading about the irony of the entire situation. For instance, Live-Aid products contribute to the environmentalist issues and arguments. It also goes against poverty’s argument and the reasons poverty exists: Consumerism, industry, capitalism and globalization. After all, isn’t it argued that globalization is one of the main reasons for poverty? There is a cycle here if you have not noticed regarding this type of consumerism/activism—I’m fighting against A,B & C, but in order to raise the necessary money, I need to use A, B, & C to help me win my fight.

The reason I disagree with this assessment is because Bono type fundraising makes good sense. First, these organizations make a difference. They are able to cut through the red tape and complete the action they set out to complete. Second, these organizations empower people. People are taught that with a vision, anything can happen. If everybody bought a shirt that created a dollar to donate, then millions of dollars would be donated; it is that simple. Since people like to receive and give at the same time, it stimulates a certain market. Third, it creates a means to contribute where people do not have to get their hands dirty, or dedicate their time. It is somewhat similar to the “Free-Riders” that Goodwin & Jasper (2009) talked about (p.55); but different in the sense that your dollar does make a difference even if you don’t join the organization. One dollar from 75 million people creates a wealth of 75 million dollars that can make a difference with little effort by one particular individual.

In my opinion, I think it is also important to keep in mind that we are in the era of entitlement that is different than previous entitlement eras. What does this mean? It means that people feel entitled; or deserve a reward. Sometimes it is easier to get from people by giving. People feel that they should receive something in lieu of their giving. A concert that raises money and awareness at the same time as giving pleasure to those who attend is a win-win situation. Why not? Some may argue that nothing political changes and that it is a waste of time. Although part of their analysis may be correct, they are wrong in other areas of their analysis because lives have been changed for the better with the money collected. Maybe Bono-ization only works as a band aid, but it still works.  

If Klein is correct, what factors do you think have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests?

In realizing that Klein has put forth good argument, I believe there are many factors for this. Some factors being that the youth do not like to get their hands dirty, they like to receive when they give, consumerism helps define who they are, and it’s trendy. The youth of today are caught up in trends and it can be sold to them through venues like MTV and Facebook. Young people are taught that they can make a difference through donating money by texting from their cell phones. In addition, they are often urged by their parents not to put their bodies in harm’s way. Unless they are the working class poor, they are not even urged to get a job while in school. They are pampered youth without a cause.

If Klein is wrong in her assessment, what is it about today’s social movements that you think has the potential to be powerful?

Where I disagree with Klein is that there is enough room for every type of protest and movement. Television aided the Civil Rights Movement, why shouldn’t television, concerts and technology aid in today’s movements? Although protestors need to physically stand tall, march, and be heard as they demand change, American Idol’s “Idol Gives Back” campaign worked because it was a direct path of action to the people in need. It may not have changed the true powers of the world, but it served a purpose.

Delaney, N. (2007). The Bono-ization of Activism. Retrieved from https://myasucourses.asu.edu/@@/6592741637253856BC816DE023FA3F24/courses/1/2010Winter-X-JUS430-90094/content/_4739790_1/Klein.doc

Goodwin, J. and J. Jasper. (2009). The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, (Ed.). Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishing

Jkhorner. (2006, October 16). Live 8: One Campaign Remix [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fya4-s3F-oc

Big Fat Mexicans

Big Fat Mexicans

This cartoon was in response to this story about obesity in Mexico. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341250,00.html

Text-Based Assignment 3

The definition of journalism is “the the profession of reporting or photographing or editing news stories for one of the media” (Wordnetweb.princeton.edu). The way the news and the media treat a story, can help determine what is being taken from the story. The media has the ability to frame the story to how they see the story or how they want the story to be told. The media is able to alter the view by framing the issue through their lens. In my opinion, this is extremely common today.

Todd Gitlin points out this very suggestion in his writing of “The Media in the Unmaking of the New Left” (Gitlin, 2009, p. 333). Gitlin points out that there are early framing policies the media partakes in such as “trivialization…polarization…emphasis on internal dissension…marginalization…disparagement by numbers…[and] disparagement of the movements effectiveness” (Gitlin, 2009, p. 333). Through these framing policies, the observer has the capacity to alter the position of the observed. According to Gitlin, “The media [is] far from mirrors passively reflecting facts found in the real world” (p. 334) and is in fact, “the media reflection [is] more active (p. 334).

In reality, since  the observed knows the observer is watching and reporting on their actions, the observed may also wish to alter what they are displaying to the observer. People often act different when they know they are being watched. The microphone and video camera both have power.

We look to the news for truth, but are we really getting the truth or a warped vision of what the reporter and the editor wants us to hear or watch? It is an ugly thought.

Today, news establishments such as Fox News, The New York Times, CNN, and MNBC often slant the way they cover a story. The story may be about health care, but each individual station will most likely produce a spin to the story, or frame the story, to their stations or papers political point of view. I am a Fox News watcher and listener, and it is no secret that this media station is going to highlight any movement which is against universal healthcare. Additionally, Fox News is going to report from a Republican lens, possibly a conservative lens, and talk about how universal health goes against limited government and a move towards socialism.

This brings me to the Civil Rights movement as I answer the question, “Which of the protests that we have looked at thus far in the semester do you think has been most affected by the presence of media coverage, and how have the tactics utilized by that social movement been impacted by such coverage?” Well, as I ponder over this question, I am immediately brought back to such events as the Freedom Riders of 1961 that we read about. What was really going on during that time? If the masses of media were white (possibly some being Klansmen) and the masses of people were in favor of  segregation, how were the stories being filtered as they were being told? If all the reporters, writers, editors, and the majority of the readers were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws, just imagine how the news and social movements were being filtered by the media before being delivered. I wonder how the history that we have read and learned about all these years has been altered through non-passive, but active journalism. Or, are we comfortable enough to believe that the media was not that sly quite yet and that true reporting was actually taking place? If we are to believe Gitlin, and the theory presented about the earliest framing strategies, then we should not be so naive.

The Civil Rights movement must be one of the biggest and most significant forms of protests that the media played a role in, and this form of media really happened through television; in my opinion. By 1955, 92% of all households had a television and slots of airtime needed filled (Everet). Since there was no shortage of Civil Rights protests going on, both violent and non-violent, television captured a wide real of protests. Examples of protests captured were Martin Luther King Jr.’s walk across the Alabama Bridge, the “1957-angry white mobs of segregationists squaring-off against black students escorted by a phalanx of Federal Troops in front of Ole Miss, the University of Mississippi,” to the constant broadcastings and reminders of all the death and murders that had taken place (Everet). Such broadcasts have been said to have been a motivating factor for white people to realize that action needed to be taken in favor of the Civil Rights movement; for the sake of everybody (Everet). Through television, the Civil Rights movement succeeded. Television gave a loud voice to the movement, and protest utilized it to its fullest advantage.  

Everet, A. (n.d.). The Civil Rights Movement and Television. Retrieved from http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=civilrights

Gitlin, T. (2009). The Media in the Unmaking of the New Left. In J. Goodwin  and J. Jasper (Eds.), The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

FAIR: Illegal Immigration and Public Health

FAIR: Illegal Immigration and Public Health


This is a very good article about immigration, public health risks, and the cost of medical care.

Border States Deal With More Illegal Immigrant Crime Than Most, Data Suggest

Border States Deal With More Illegal Immigrant Crime Than Most, Data Suggest

Arizona lawmakers say their new immigration enforcement law will them fight an illegal immigrant crime wave that is sweeping the state, a claim that is backed by studies and statistics that suggest border states have a disproportionately high number of criminals who are illegal immigrants.

Opinion Assignment 2

If I had to choose an ideal figurehead for the women’s rights movement from 2008 going forward, it would have to be a group of women type movement. I do not believe I could just pick one single person with the diversity of the world today. First of all, if I chose a black woman, white women may not jump on board. If I chose an Asian woman, the average white, black, and Hispanic woman may not be able to connect to her heritage and just identify with her as a woman alone. If I chose a lesbian woman, straight women may feel disenfranchised. If I picked a woman like Claudette Colvin, a Muslim woman may feel a disconnect because an outspoken, young pregnant black girl does not represent well. If I chose Cindy Sheehan, conservative women in favor of the Iraq war would feel ostracized. If I pick a rich woman, poor women may not realize that it applies to them too. And if I picked a white woman, many other women of race, may not feel welcome into the movement. Lastly, if I picked a male, women may lack identity with him. Therefore, I think it is impossible to just pick on single icon for such a large movement. I would have to pick a clique or a group of people.

James Jasper (2009) said that emotions play a role in movement and are “tied to moral values” (p. 177) and that they promote social action (p. 175). It may be these emotions that are important when picking an icon or icons to lead the women’s right movement. Since I do not believe that all races of women from different value systems and religions can identify with every other women, on the grounds of just being female, I feel that an array of women will be the answer to this question. I would choose them all and let me tell you how I would do it.

Do you remember save the Polar Bear commercials with Noah Wyle as their spokesperson and save the Tigers with Leonardo DiCaprio as their spokesperson? Well, they both are campaigning with World Wildlife Fund and they offer diversity in their approach. So, this would be my approach. I would choose about a campaign of incredible women. I would target diversity within the group of women and I would unite them in an ad campaign through commercials and print. I would then have them do individual commercials so they may target their individual networks. I would have Rosie O’Donnell speak on behalf of women’s rights. Lesbian women and women who enjoy her comedic personality would follow here. Along Rosie’s side I would use Lisa Ling. Lisa is known for her brilliance in journalism and she would have appeal to the Asian culture. From a different spectrum and to keep the group diverse, I would choose Sarah Palin. She is white, Christian, conservative and a well known strong voice. Tina Turner would be my choice for an older black woman because of her rags to riches story and her earlier year struggles with spousal abuse. Tina is an icon in her own right when it comes to music and can lead the charge with women’s rights. My list would continue with Jennifer Lopez. Not only is Jennifer of Puerto Rican heritage, she is a great bilingual communicator and reaches a complete different crown than Ms. Turner. Lastly, I would add in Gabourey Sidibe; a young black, extremely obese actress who played the role of Precious. The reason Gabourey would be critical to the movement is because of her age, dark skin, size, and the role she played of being a disenfranchised illiterate pregnant teen. It is important to have icons that fit the bill of diversity and these women cover lesbianism, Caucasian, Asian, conservative, Hispanic, youth, black, obesity, thin, older aged, abused, bilingual, and so on. Not every woman can identify with one woman. This movement would take many.

The possible pitfalls of such women are that they are not touchable because they are Hollywood type superpowers. These women are not your everyday average housewives or office clerks in the insurance industry. They may be hard to identify with for the average, simple person that has not had much adversity in her life. I think emotions fuel movements and as long as a person can somehow find a way to identify with, or relate to one of the icons, it is a plus and the movement can be strong.

There has to be careful planning in a movement oftentimes with the people chosen. This was displayed in civil rights movement between Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin. Parks was the chosen face to fight against segregation. In 1955, Rosa Parks was “arrested for violating the bus segregation ordinance in Montgomery, Alabama” for not giving up her seat to a white person (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p. 16). The reality is that Rosa Parks was the public iconic face that led the fight, but she was not the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat, nor was she the woman who sat in the courtroom and testified about the violation of her constitutional rights when being demanded to give up her seat that led to the overturning of the segregation law in the Supreme Court—Browder v. Gayle (Law & Justice, n.d.). This person was Claudette Colvin and she was only 15 years old when she protested on the bus. The problem was at the time that she was not the ideal face for the movement. She was young, poor, single, and pregnant, and this may have led whites not have taken her or the movement serious (Adler, 2009).

Picking the right person to be an icon of a movement is critical. If the civil rights movement had gone with Colvin, it may have given fuel to the whites fight to keep the blacks suppressed due to labels. Cindy Sheehan is a good example of this. When Sheehan was protesting as a grief stricken mother who lost her son, she was iconic. People were moved by her to follow her; even though they themselves had not lost a child to an unjust war. Once Sheehan became a left-wing nut and activist, with political aspirations to run for Feinstein’s Senate seat, her status changed. She was no longer ordinary and her message became weak (Houppert, n.d.). Once negative labels were placed on her, people started looking less at her as an icon. It is critical to a movement to avoid this situation.

In all, the ideal figurehead for the women’s rights movement is a group of women that can be highlighted as a group and as individuals. In numbers they show strength, power, and unity. Unaccompanied, each one shows that she can stand alone and connect to similar individuals.

Adler, M. (2009). Before Rosa Parks, There Was Claudette Colvin. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101719889

Houppert, K. (n.d.) Cindy Sheehan: Mother of a Movement? https://myasucourses.asu.edu/@@/AB1D94B0150776486B3E7815FECD366A/courses/1/2010Winter-X-JUS430-90094/content/_4739779_1/Sheehan.doc

Law & Justice (n.d.). Claudette Colvin: An Unsung Hero In The Montgomery Bus Boycott.  Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=10&sid=396460bb-21d9-4cee-85c2-660ea782266d%40sessionmgr13&vid=1

Text Assignment 2 / Part 3

Who framed the immigration movement?

I think the first big amnesty bill of 1986, signed by Ronal Reagan, was one of the largest movements in immigration. Back then, President Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens who had entered the U.S. prior to 1982. The number of illegal immigrants who qualified for this amnesty was about 3 million illegal’s. The goal at the time was to clean up the illegal immigrant situation, and enforce our federal laws from then on out. The sad story today is that the projected number of illegal immigrants today is over 12 million and that the previous 1986 amnesty did nothing to clean up the problem; it has only gotten worse. The federal government has failed to protect our borders. This is one of the main reasons Arizona passed S.B. 1070, and Jack Harper is writing a bill for Arizona to have the state enact its own state volunteer militia whose goal will be to protect the border and be a watchdog.

The salient characteristics of the anti-illegal immigration movement are mainly white American, and Conservatives. Liberals share the view of open borders like libertarians do. Although white American’s may be a slight majority of those who fight against illegal immigration, all races and ethnicities cross the boundaries. There are many Mexican-Americans who have traveled to America through legal channels that are upset with illegal aliens who have broken the laws of America. In addition, many citizens feel and argue that illegal’s refuse to assimilate in America and that their loyalty remains with Mexico; this is upsetting to citizens. Many argue that if immigrants are coming to America for a better life and free education, that illegal immigrants should appreciate the American way of life better and show respect by sporting the American flag and not the Mexico flag.

Anti-illegal immigration voices come from all walks of life, all races, all socioeconomics, and all religions. Although the biggest problem for California, Arizona and Texas is Mexican illegal immigrants, there are many Mexicans who take a tough stance to follow the law. When it comes to socioeconomics, it goes across the board; rich, poor, and middle class. Middle class and poor may be more affected by the influx of illegals than the rich class. When it comes to religion, it seems that more Christians tend to follow the anti-immigrant movement more than Catholics.   

Teenagers are the most recent disenfranchised group at the cost of immigration. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, I remember when high school students worked at the local McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Jack-in-the-Box. Nowadays, these jobs are filled by immigrants who work these jobs to support families. They are often identified as the working poor. They work 40 hour weeks, if they can get the shifts, but live from check to check and are a few days away from financial disaster. I think it is a shame that American teenagers have this unfair battle to face in Southern California.

This issue affects so many different people. It affects companies, hospitals, welfare, government, American workers, students, teachers, and too many others to mention. I do not think this movement could be framed any different to be more inclusive to a particular group per se, but I do know that Conservatives take the hardest stance on the issue and are more united in the fight against illegal immigration.

I think the college students are going to pay the highest price in the anti-illegal movement; in my opinion when it gets defeated. Many college students take a liberal stance and have a lot of voting power. I think that if every college student voted for amnesty type laws and it passed (because they hold such high voting numbers), America would be infiltrated with poor, uneducated illegal immigrants who will have to be supported and subsidized throughout the coming years. Many immigrants live on subsidies and who will end up paying for these subsidies? College graduates now who will be earning a living later. Food for thought anyways.

Text Assignment 2 / Part 2

Immigration: Not all iconic immigration movement people are anti-immigration and many iconic people are better known within a particular state.

Stop or lower immigration-

§  Jack Harper-- Proposed an Arizona bill in 2007 that would create a state militia to guard the Arizona state’s border, but it was vetoed by Napolitano at the time. More recently, Mr. Harper has revised the bill and will be presenting the bill again for approval. The bill creates a volunteer based militia, under the supervision of the National Guard, to protect and guard Arizona’s state border with Mexico.

§  Dick Mountjoy—Creator of Proposition 187 in California that stated illegal aliens would not be eligible to obtain education, public paid health care, cash assistance, INS needs to be aware of illegal aliens and the usage of false documents is a crime. The provision was passed by the voters, but a federal judge declared it unconstitutional and blocked it (http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492_0_2_0). The passing of this proposition created much unrest and protest.

§  Minuteman—The Minuteman is a “National Citizen Neighborhood Watch” group who make it their job to secure the American Border (http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/aboutus.php). They participate in protests and lobbying.

§  Russell Pearce—Author of S.B. 1070. His position is that Americans must stand up and enforce the rule of law and that it is the duty of Arizona to protect their legal citizens (http://www.russellpearce.com/).

§  Betterimmigration.com— This community is for lowering immigration numbers in the U.S. and keeps tabs of immigration legal positions. For instance, they post votes on bills that affect immigration law and discuss immigration law.

§  Tea Party—The newer kids on the block. The Tea Party movement has come on strong during the last election. Tea Partiers are anti-illegal immigrants and feel that it violates the law of the land. Tea Party supporters protest against the DREAM Act and were successful in the act’s defeat.

In the middle of things and worthy of mentioning--

§  Tom Horne- Supports Bill 1070 and has a strong voice when dealing with issues that immigrants face and American’s face by having immigrants living on the land; since it is mandatory to educate them. Prior State Superintendent of Schools in Arizona and now Arizona’s next Attorney General is an iconic face on the fight for defending Arizona and keeping limits to immigration policy and education rights. Mr. Horne is a firm believer that immigrants should incorporate themselves into American society and that America should not have to alter their principles to adhere to immigrants desires and learning preferences. Mr. Horne has fought bi-lingual education and wants to expose the real truth behind the ethnic studies that has been taking place. Mr. Horne argues that radical professors are teaching Mexican students that Americans are occupiers of Mexico’s land, and that Americans are the oppressors and should be overthrown.

Text Assignment 2

Object: To compare and contrast the environmentalist, illegal immigration, and pro-life movement

Environmentalism is more than about saving the whales or forests; it is about the “exhaustion of materials which result from a high-growth, energy-consuming and environmentally-damaging way of life” and challenging the success of the industrial society (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p. 75). Environmentalists come from different groups of people, but the most upfront activist groups want selective production and commerce for preservation sake; which can conflict with the average person’s view of growth and reward they are seeking.

Environmentalists often use the future of our children as ammunition; along with the urgency of time. They argue that time is of the essence to accomplish the goals they set forth because time is running out and the earth is in danger. They argue that the lives of our children will be in danger and will be negatively affected if action is not taken right away. This urgency for action is similar to the anti-immigration movement because in the immigration movement people are warned that if nothing is done about the takeover of illegal immigrants, that crime, housing, jobs, hospitals and the well being of all Americans are in jeopardy. Both movements produce doomsday type scenarios if compliance is not given.

Anti-immigration activists use fear mongering to get the average middle class to take notice and take action. The reason both groups utilize the ploy of urgency and fear as tools to promote their cause is because it is effective. Every American is protective of their family’s livelihood, health, opportunity and putting food on the table; especially middle class American’s who fill the service, and welfare sectors.

One area of contrast between the two groups is that environmentalist’s attack “industrial capitalism” due to the damage they cause the earth (Goodwin & Jasper, 2009, p. 78) while oftentimes the capitalist industry benefits from the use of cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants, along with their families back home, benefit from money earned from a capitalist society. Immigrants are in need of a strong capitalist society to provide jobs. It has been proven over and over that illegal immigrants are hired for significantly lower wages; this ultimately increases the profits of the capitalist which in turns provides more jobs for immigrants. Unfortunately, this reality eliminates middle class jobs for legal Americans with higher wages.

When it comes to pro-life, it is a bit harder to compare and contrast because the ideology behind it does not meld within the other two on the surface. Pro-lifers are die hard activists who have their mind made up; and are often tied to deep rooted religious beliefs or the traditional nuclear family. Many believe that the purpose of sex is to procreate; so why would one opt for abortion? It is unimaginable to a pro-life activist that any other position would be taken by another person. This may differ from the environmentalist and the anti-immigrant activist because these two promote fear and danger, while the pro-life activist promotes value and human worth. The one area of possible commonality is oppression. Pro life activists argue that abortion is oppressive to both men and women; whereas environmentalists argue that depleting the environment of its natural, rich resources is oppressive to the earth and eventually the human race.

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens