Response: Karen Engle’s Constructing Good Aliens
And Good Citizens: Legitimizing the War on Terror
In this response to Karen Engle’s Constructing Good Aliens and Good Citizens: Legitimizing the War on Terror, I plan to give my opinion on several of the points made in the article. The purpose of the article was to bring to light to how aliens to this country are treated and looked at in a very harsh light. Overall, my opinion of the article is that I agree that the treatment of foreigners is unjust and hypocritical of the American people.
Something that jump out at me in the article Constructing Good Aliens and Good Citizens: Legitimizing the War on Terror was that to be considered a “good alien” you needed to show that you must hide any aggression you may feel towards foreign policy. Despite the fact that it may be effecting your family or yourself you lack the freedom of speech that is a right to stand up for what you believe in. I find this terribly sad. I don’t think anyone we come into contact with who has done nothing wrong or against the laws of the United States should be denied the rights that we give to most of our people. As cliché of a phrase it is, treat others the way you would wish to be treated sums up my opinion on how Americans should treat others in the world. If a foreign person feels that our foreign policy laws are too strict or unjust they should have a right to tell us without fear. They are the ones who deal with the policy and know how it affects
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In order to dehumanize a group of people, there must first be a clear separation between who is the “us” and “them.” The conservative documentary Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration (2006), takes the viewer into the lives of several people who are impacted by the growing issue of undocumented Mexican immigrants crossing the The Mexico–United States border. This film creates a one-dimensional or single conception of undocumented immigrants through the use of language, such as “illegal” or “alien” and various other combinations. Another method is through the imagery it showed while there was dialogue being said. Most of the imagery in this film creates a narrative that undocumented Mexican immigrants are violent and a threat to Americans. Additionally, the sympathizers and protesters against border reform were portrayed as anti-American radicals. The production of this documentary was not only used to direct our view of undocumented immigrants to a single account, but also to establish false truths that turn undocumented immigrants into a “them.”
The documentary 9500 Liberty by Annabel Park and Eric Byler told of the inequality that immigrants faced in Prince William County, a small community in Virginia. On October 16, 2007, eight members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on emergency funding to implement immigration resolution. This new law made it possible for police officers in Prince William County to question anyone they suspected to be in the country illegally based on factors such as their skin color and language. This paper will discuss the different perspectives appearing in the film 9500 Liberty in an effort to evaluate and critic arguments made by both parties in
In Joseph Carens’ article, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” he insists on open borders. He claims that this idea of free movement has moral roots in which every human being deserves freedom and equality. In his article, Carens applies his argument by refuting three political theories of Robert Nozick, John Rawls and utilitarians. Carens addresses Robert Nozick’s theory by recognizing a common objection towards immigration. Similar to John Locke, Robert Nozick believes that humans in the state of nature have natural rights including the right to property as individuals. However, most people view property rights as collective or national as seen by popular opinion that “It’s our country. We can let in or keep out whomever we want” (Carens 252). As a
In Congressman, Robert H. Clancy’s speech An “Un-American Bill”: A Congressman Denounces Immigration Quotes addresses racial discrimination in America. Clancy’s purpose is to inform people of the truth in immigration laws. Using a profound tone, Clancy conveys Americans not seeing the truth about certain acts and laws in America. Clancy supports his argument of racial discrimination towards immigrants in America in the Johnson-Reed Act by using personal experience, appealing to the reader's emotions by telling heart-wrenching stories, and having factual evidence.
America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.
The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.
The unaccepting nature of US citizens is one flaw in the idea of America’s wide open golden doors. The blame and stereotypes added to an immigrant’s burden prevents them from ever feeling welcome and eliminating the gap between immigrants and Americans born in the US.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, immigration control and national homeland security have been issues of concern for both the national government and private citizens. In the wake of the attacks, a lot of articles were written about what the appropriate response should be to prevent another attack. In 2004, Mark Krikorian wrote an article for the Providence Journal entitled “Safety through Immigration Control” in which he contends that the only means to keep America safe from a follow-up attack is to strengthen and enforce immigration law to prevent terrorists from being able to enter the country. Edwidge Danticat, writing for The Nation in 2005, provides a juxtaposition to Krikorian’s stance in her essay “Not Your Homeland”, in which she describes her witnessing of the inhumane conditions many immigrants are forced to endure in the name of increased security to protect the country. She questions whether the added protections are worth the human cost we are paying by treating immigrants and refugees as guilty until proven innocent. At the crossroads of these two perspectives lies the question: what is the proper balance between national security and the humane treatment of immigrants?
To be an American, means to me, that you are accepting of the differences around you; however, we as Americans are not very good at accepting those who do not agree with us. In an article,a publisher for NBC News, quoted a leading crimes researcher who stated, “hate crimes in nine U.S. metropolitan areas rose more than 20 percent last year, fueled by inflamed passions during the presidential campaign and more willingness for victims to step forward.” Many believe being an American means you have freedom, but what freedom? Freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? The other “freedoms” stated in the Bill of Rights? How true can that be if those around you are so quick to go as far as harming others just for being different. Americans often hide behind their right to freedom of speech to be demeaning, but
The purpose of this essay is to point out that immigrants are a group that are discriminated against and that many of the allegations, in particular the allegation that immigrants avoid paying taxes, are false and misleading. The importance of this topic is to point out the erroneousness of these claims so that people will recognize the merits of immigrants that include honesty, diligence, and assistance to our economy and desist from scapegoating them. Stereotyping immigrants and unjustly accusing them only consequents in spreading lies and myths that can be harmful to our economy (as well as to the individuals involved) since we preclude ourselves form benefitting form their skills and we react in a distorted manner. The essay starts off by introducing the group, before reviewing historical attitude to the group, the unjustness of American attitude towards immigrants, correction of the myth that immigrants avoid paying taxes, and demonstration that immigrants are a resilient and hardworking group. Not only do immigrants even illegal immigrants pay their taxes (even though being ITIN holders they can escape
Kate Steinle’s death, including the judiciary hearing, is a historical current event because it’s repercussions and concerns will have a long lasting affect on the world, especially the United States. Her solemn death, along with others murdered by illegal immigrants, has caused the citizens of the United States to attempt to increase the enforcement of immigration laws, and therefore add more protection to the country now and in the future. Nevertheless, strengthening the immigration laws in the United States will have a large impact on the world. If America’s “sanctuary” communities begin to cooperate with the federal immigration enforcement, then the country could become much safer, amicable, and endure less death. However, the people immigrating
Yee, V., Davis, K., & Patel, J. (2017, March 06). Here’s the Reality About Illegal Immigrants in the United States. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/undocumented-illegal-immigrants.html
Fran Esquibal in “The Immigrant Daughter”, and the women in “loose change” go through different processes of liberation. They find liberation in different aspects of their lives like the education, relationships, and independence. Each one of them finds a different way to deal with their problems but the process that they go through to find liberation is different for them.
Immigrants arrive here in America to establish a better quality of life. They come here to get a job, raise their families, and get an education. To express their need for stability is important. In “Border on Our Backs,” Rodriguez carries some sociological information of how Latinos feel judged. The author states, “Just who precisely needs to be pardoned? Those who are exploited and who’ve been here forever…or those who’ve been complicit in our dehumanization” (562)? He feels criminalization in the way the Latin immigrants are treated. Rodriguez talks about some racial profiling in
S. has built a policing regime that uses immigration status to segregate people, thereby scapegoating people of color such as Aaron in a new way for worsening fiscal crisis. The negative impact of a dominant culture on immigrant and refugees, such as Aaron include relentless criminalization of immigration status and the use of incarceration through U.S. laws, policies, measures and practices-weakening and eliminating constitutional rights, particularly due process rights, and labor protections for noncitizens (Adams et al.,