Critical Reflection Of Adios America

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?

In “The Right Road to America?,” Amy Chua informs her audience about the possibility of America’s national identity becoming lost due to the influence of immigrants. Chua’s defines her thesis by stating “Around the world, nations face violence and instability as a result of their increasing pluralism and diversity,” (336). The key points of the text includes Chua explaining why America and other nations could lose their core identities, how the United States could become unglued from its true meaning, and how citizens can fix this imminent problem. The information in this text is significant, especially in today’s society. With all of the issues about immigration coinciding with our current president, this text relates to current subjects

The chapter begins by explaining how Cecilia Munoz, an immigration advocate was working towards immigration reform in the White House in the early 2000’s. The author notes that news had broken that President Bush had met with Mexican President Vicente Fox to collaborate on plans to provide status to 3 million undocumented immigrants who were living in the U.S. Views from the White House put a stop to immigration reform plans and geared their focus on decreasing immigration patterns. After the terroristic attacks of 9/11 the topic of immigration took a different turn. Immigrants had yet another target on their backs, being labeled as potential terrorists. A shift in immigration had taken place after the attacks. Many people and organizations

The U.S found itself confronted to new challenges that they didn’t think of before. This new challenges led to a shift of American attitudes towards immigration. This was due to the high influx of the immigrants coming from Europe and of the liberal paradox related to immigration (Tichenor 2002, 51). The United States found itself caught between two stools where immigration benefited the economy but the on the other side its obligation to set limits regarding social and publics welfare available to the new wave of immigrants.

Reducing the issue of xenophobia, the fear of foreigners or strangers, is not a simple task. Two ways today’s society is attempting to reduce xenophobia is through satirical representations, such as the animated show Futurama, and through non-satirical ways like serious articles in magazines like The New York Times. Both representations attempt to bring awareness to serious issues faced by Americans today, but both use completely different methods to get their point across. Dowell Myers’ article in the New York Times, “The Next Immigration Challenge,” observes the assimilation of Mexican immigrants into the U.S. and the problems faced by these immigrants in the way of skeptical Americans and uncooperative government policies. He examines the different ways that immigrants have and continue to contribute to society, and how current government policies hinder more successful strides in the future.

government realized that illegal immigration was affecting the population, they chose to make immigration laws. The immigration laws cause a lot of issues in the communities near the border. As Maria Jiménez , the director of the Immigration Law Enforcement Monitoring Project (ILEMP) said in the document, Enforcement of Immigration Laws Harms Border Communities, “Illegal immigration laws, she argues, create a "war zone" atmosphere in border communities” (par.1). Most of the time, the border patrols tend to cause this “war zone”. The document “Overview- Illegal Immigrants”, states that “The “Minutemen,” patrol the US/Mexico border on their own, seeking to capture those who illegally cross the border...these groups have been controversial and their efforts have sometimes ended in violence”( par. 7). Unreasonable violence is unwanted, mostly here in the United States. Also in the document, “Immigration Should not be Restricted,” the author Jacob G. Hornberger informs the reader that “the government began with immigration quotas. Over time, we have seen the growth of an enormous government bureaucracy (the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol) that harasses, abuses, and terrorizes large segments of the population”(par. 17). All of these examples prove that the majority of the immigration laws will create violence, and affect the surrounding

Bret Stephens’ editorial concerning a modern controversial issue on deportation and immigrants in America was published in the face of the growing anti-immigration criticism. As a child of immigrants himself, he reprimands the educated public on the stereotypes they have placed on immigrants. Stephens establishes and supports his arguments through his use of evidence, sarcasm, and point of view/voice.

In Amy Chozick’s New York Times article, published on July 7th, 2015, she depicts Hillary Clinton’s speech given at a campaign stop in Iowa. Chozick reports about Mrs. Clinton denouncing Jeb Bush for supporting the immigration policy, a document denying illegal immigrants a “path to citizenship” (Amy Chozick 1). Not only did Clinton publicly shame Bush, but she also openly expressed her concerns and feelings about the Republican Party’s approach towards illegal immigration, emotions of disappointment and shame. The immigration speech connects to chapter 2 in The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates that Define and Inspire our Country in many ways. Howard Fineman, the author of the thought provoking book, notices that immigrants

Immigration policy historically has been influenced by our country’s fear to uphold “traditional” American culture often rooted in a sense of anti-immigration and xenophobia. We perpetuate this by allowing the criminalization of communities of color, mainly with the large Latino population in the U.S. A large portion of the immigrants who arrive in the country are fleeing dangerous homelands pitted with economic and political turmoil. Their situation is worsened by our country’s broken immigration system where families are separated, immigrants are exploited as work labor, discrimination is rampant, and the pathways to citizenship are convoluted at best. We as a country need to uphold our values of freedom and equality when immigrants come to our country and reform our immigration system to be more reflective of this. In light of the recent occurrences with ISIS related terrorism committed by foreigners such as the San Bernardino shooting or the Orlando night club shooting, there has been some resistance from the country in regards to immigration. Additionally the age old worry of job security also heightens our sensitivity towards immigrants with jobs, as they compete for them. Despite this, Clinton’s Immigration policy seeks to transform the U.S. into a version of our former selves with family at the heart of her immigration policies.

Immigration has existed since the beginning human civilization. It’s no secret that many have gained from immigration. Grace Chang explains this in her book, “Disposable Domestics Immigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy.” In her first three chapters she explains how the government gains form immigrants but, at the same time doesn’t want to give them public benefits. She explains how American citizens view immigrants, and the deep racist stereotypes created by the media. All while telling the stories of women who have experienced extortion, discrimination, and abuse.

Dread, terror, and fear, creeping through the walls, continues to corrupt American morals, minute by minute. With the onslaught of the Paris attacks, the question of whether or not America should accept more refugees now governs over American politics, originally a question that does not need questioning. Recently, Ann Coulter, an extreme conservative, posted an article named Importing Terrorism and Other American Values regarding America’s vetting process and America’s obligation towards refugees. Within her article, she ventures to devalue the vetting process and denounce refugees and immigrants alike as crime-carriers. Although her argument appears both logical and reasonable superficially, Coulter not only fails to cite her sources, but also demonstrates consistent mastery of logical fallacies, misuse of evidence, and shallow knowledge regarding immigrant and crime statistics.

Constant outrage over immigration to the United States has been on the rise for years now. The Obama administration was constantly ridiculed for being ‘soft’ on immigration. Now, with a Republican controlled White House and a deportation-happy child emperor in the Oval Office, a new hope has risen for individuals who have remained so adamantly against immigration to ‘their’ country. While those on the right will often frame immigrants to be nothing more than job stealing criminals who lower wages and serve as a societal leech, this dialogue is very misplaced. We are a nation built on immigrants, hardworking immigrants who deserve equal opportunity and

For over a century, immigration has been closely associated with crime in the United States because there has been a belief that immigrants were primarily responsible for committing crimes (Stowell, Messner, McGreever, and Raffalovich 2009). Traditionally, all criminal law theorists associates immigration with crime. This has been the major cause of nationalistic movements that advocates for anti-immigration policies (Stowell, Messner, McGreever, and Raffalovich 2009). This prompted the federal government to enact some legislation that prohibited some illegal and legal aliens from having ingress into America. Policing immigration is, therefore, the use of policy and police to control and regulate the immigration of people to America. This has

This is an interdisciplinary work that incorporates criminology, social work, sociology, law, and anthropology. It shares the stories of individuals who have been severely affected due to the irregularities of the local, state, national and transnational immigration policies. The authors use the term nativism to illustrate the hegemony in the United States in terms of the politics and economy that according to many is being lost. They describe how immigration is being described as a crisis that is validating the War on Terrorism and Drug along on the U.S. – Mexico border. They explain how undocumented individuals are being criminalized because of this nativist ideology that has influenced and reinforced harsh policies that attach an enemy

The United States of America has always been a refuge where poor and oppressed people from the far corners of the world can come to begin a new life. Much of the nation’s allure to prospective immigrants is in its promise of equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, or color. But the pressures of rising unemployment rates, congested cities, a crippled healthcare system, and national debt skyrocketing out of control have caused America to defend her borders against the influx of immigrants that threaten her already ailing economy. Still, despite all the heightened security measures incorporated in recent decades, a steady stream of immigrants continue to enter the country illegally. The Washington Times reports that there are