The document "SOCIAL JUSTICE" ends with a number of questions about political activities by immigrants.
BRIEF COMMENTS, please and lots of REPLIES.
Make an effort to relate your COMMENT to the various texts we examined, from the cartoons to the songs.
It's not necessary to quote texts in the REPLIES,
COPY your COMMENT and all REPLIES in a document that you will send as your assignment.
In my opinion, I believe that immigrants should not immediately be engaging in political struggles and challenging the system. Immigrants must first show some form of allegiance towards America before trying to change it. After all, I would presume that they decided to embrace the American way; otherwise, they would have gone somewhere else. America is very good to immigrants nowadays, and I feel that they should be grateful to their new country for the opportunities and the welfare it offers. In the beginnings of American immigration, immigrants still should have been grateful, although they did have a much harder time, and it was understandable that they took certain steps to try to improve their situation. It is legitimate to suspect certain immigrants of holding loyalties to their countries of origin and/or having anti-American ideals. Keep in mind what just happened at the Boston Marathon. In both books we read for class, people were unnecessarily injured and/or killed due to unsafe working conditions. I can understand and sympathize with the immigrants’ violence against a violent bureaucracy during that time. But over the years, it was proven that demonstrations did not have to be violent in order to produce satisfactory results.
ReplyDeleteTying in the Boston Marathon was great thinking, solidifying your point, and I agree. It's impossible to know one's true motives for seeking opportunity here, it's only natural to assume it's for a better life. Now religion on the other hand is very very convoluted, and literally gets taken out of context to defend ideals or liberties. Today, with the long security checks and stop and frisk laws, we see a combination of immigration being associated with religion, resulting in harsh stereotypes.
DeleteThe only issues with allegiance are:
Delete1) How does an immigrant show allegiance and how does that not eventually turn into a form of McCarthyism blacktaping?
2) Once an immigrant has shown allegiance, if they decide to complain about an aspect of American life that is unfair, what is stopping them from being branded as anti-American or unpatriotic.
The category of allegiance is very hard to solidify without breaking into personal privacy and personal beliefs.
I agree in that immigrants should have to show allegiance but also find interesting in the point made above about hard to solidifying without breaking into personal privacy. How should this be addressed? Also, what would be considered showing allegiance? Also, in the comments above, about the stop and frisking, what comes to my mind is how the TSA stops and frisks old ladies and little children. Is this really necessary? And if we were to stop it, is profiling a better alternative?
DeleteWill, I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. I do not feel immigrants have it very well nowadays, considering what they are doing in Arizona to Mexican immigrants. Let alone the convoluted and difficult process it takes to become a citizen. I think their representations in this political struggle is important so they do not get taken advantage of and so their voice is truly heard. I think you make an interesting point with the Boston marathon bombings, however how would your view change if these men weren't immigrants. Would they have just cause to disagree with the system and react as they did then? Or would they just be more crazy and desperate people, like the guy who committed the Newtown School Shooting?
DeleteI think you made a solid argument with the case of the Boston bombings. However, I don't think it stands firm considering all the other deadly events that have occurred that were not done by immigrants, but U.S. citizens themselves. But despite whether something is done by an immigrant or a citizen, I don't believe it's completely fair for an immigrant to come to America and automatically begin to change things to their liking without first proving their loyalty, which is where I agree with you.
DeleteWill, I strongly agree that immigrants shouldn't try to change the system, but embrace what it has to offer (and it does offer more that in any other counties). When you were invited as a guest, you cant start moving furniture around in somebody's house.
ReplyDeleteExcellent metaphor, Anna. I suppose the advice of not bringing up politics or religion at gatherings goes along the same lines; you don't want to upset your host and company by bringing up something controversial, as it can strain the relationships you have.
DeleteI dont think that immigrants are trying to change the system. I think regardless of rank, educational background or ethnicity, people feel that they should be be treated equally and fairly. Annunziata's son Paul, didn't understand why he only got $5 after working just as hard as all the other laborers, to which he got the lesson of inequality based on age discrimination. The same goes for women of our generation, who get paid less money doing the same job as a man which constitutes sex discrimination. And that's the trivial stuff. Another set of rules apply for tolerance or injustice based on politics and religion.
DeletePaul was only 12 years old when he started to work. He was lucky to get a job at that age. It was and still illegal to hire people under 18 years old, so employers were taking a risk by letting him working there. I assume thats why they cut down on his pay.
DeleteUrsel, I think it spans much further than immigrants just wanting to be treated equally and fairly. I think that some immigrants do want to change the system here to make it more like their home country so that they can be in a more familiar environment, and I feel like that's a problem.
DeleteI agree that Paul shouldn't have been only paid $5 if he was working so hard. They agreed to hire him so that's their decision. They think just because he's 12 years old he deserves less. Maybe, just maybe he deserves how much he's worth. This brings up another question: should there be a minimum wage? But I guess that's a different topic?
DeleteAs an immigrant myself, I am grateful to American system and what it has to offer. I don't understand how immigrants can use violence in order to improve the system. If immigrants are believed to be an activists fighting for bettering the system, I think that those immigrants should first start trying to improve the system of the county they left.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great point Anna. I do agree with you on being able to improve the situation in your own homeland first. Someone would never response to their initial form of government violently, so why do it here.
DeleteAgreed. Also vice versa. If we don't have it together on a particular issue over here (for example: human rights?), then we shouldn't be telling other countries how to do it.
DeleteThose who have left other oppressive countries, know what not to do. They very well may have good ideas on how to do things better and not allowing them to have a voice and change our country makes us lose a lot more than one could ever imagine.
DeleteWhile I do not support the use of violence under any circumstance, I do not feel that there should be a distinction here regarding immigrants or “natives”. Once an immigrant enters the U.S., he is in my eyes no different than a native and therefore he has certain obligation to fulfill towards the U.S. just like a “native” would and the U.S. has certain obligations to fulfill toward him just like it has to fulfill toward any “native”. What I mean by that is that just like the “native” does not come with preconceived notions from a foreign land of what should be the makeup of the government, an immigrant should not come with the idea of changing the government etc. with ideas brought in from other places. However, just like a native is entitled to civil liberties and rights, so too an immigrant is entitled to these same civil liberties and rights. For example, people like Geremio are the ones who did the backbreaking labor to build this country so whether or not they are documented has little relevance in the argument of whether they are entitled to workman’s compensation if hurt on the job as even “natives” were once immigrants themselves (or their ancestors). What the Workman’s Compensation Bureau and Mr. Murdin did to Annunziata was in my eyes a violation of civil liberties. (One can make a case regarding welfare and whether the U.S. owes it to anyone and if yes, in my opinion there is no difference between a native family with 8 starving children or an immigrant family with 8 starving children once they have crossed the border.) The governing powers constantly reinforce this notion of “the immigrant” in order to make sure that there is a minority elite and a majority “oppressed”. This leads the immigrant to have a feeling of eternal indebtedness to the absorbing country as well as a feeling of a lack of right to speak up and demand civil liberties when they are violated. This only serves to alienate the immigrant further as I think it creates a love/hate relationship instead of bringing the immigrant to appreciate the freedom and opportunity while not being forced to shed his own culture.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Lauren - removing the rights to speak or participate in the society creates alianation. Immigrants should not be drepived of their rights.
DeleteI believe it's fair for any immigrant to get involved with our politics despite lacking citizenship. The system is broken in some many different aspects, and immigration reform is no different. Although undocumented immigrants can be a drag on the economy, passing their costs onto the tax payer, sinking the health care system. This needs to get fixed. But can you blame someone coming to the United States to find a better life? It's immoral and illogical to tell them to leave the country, but some politicians are so corrupt that instead of working for a solution, they shoot it down with slanderous jargon.
ReplyDeleteI say an immigrant has a first hand look at the system and its flaws, so how can we turn away a valued opinion just because they lack citizenship. Immigration Reform is an understatement, and if any immigrant is up to the challenge of tacking on the system, that is greatly against their success, then I'm with them. Besides, wasn't this country settled and built on the backs of immigrants?
James, I agree with you on so many accounts. The likelihood of immigrants to actually get involved and try to make a change is not that high in the first place. I also find that that there is a great amount of Americentrism and xenophobia when it comes to being open to ideas and improvement when coming from immigrants / foreigners. Just because one did not grow up in this country does not mean that their ideals clash with U.S. values or that they cannot improve U.S. society. The founding fathers were not all born in the U.S. One of the Associate Justices in the Supreme Court, William Paterson who also signed the Constitution was an immigrant from Northern Ireland. Andrew Jackson, our 7th president was the son of Irish immigrants as well. I won’t keep listing examples but I assure you that the list is not short. Of course what you will find is that these were mainly Irish immigrants or their children who of course spoke English. (Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I am sure that what was done to Annunziata and Paul in the Welfare Dep’t as well as the Workman’s Comp. Bureau would be considered illegal, except this Act was passed 40 years too late.)
DeleteJames in reference to your tax comments, please read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
DeleteI also agree that Immigrants should contribute into the economy by paying taxes.
DeleteJames, I couldn't have said it better. America is at a bad point right now in its treatment of immigrants. Their involvement in politics is important, and although they may drain certain resources through the health care industry, many things can be done through immigration reform as you have mentioned to change this. A lot of people undervalue the position of immigrants because of their standing as legal or illegal citizens, lack of education or fluency, as well as their lowly jobs. Immigrants are important to this economy, and I agree that it is immoral to tell them to leave if they have issues with the system.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA way to bypass the issue of taxes is to eliminate income tax and charge a consumption tax instead. This way citizenship status would have no bearing on whether one pays taxes, as even visitors would be required to pay taxes that could be reclaimed upon exiting the country. (This is similar to VAT in Europe.)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Anna ChakryanJuly 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM
DeleteI also agree that Immigrants should contribute into the economy by paying taxes."
Anna immigrants pay taxes. You think you mean illegal immigrants should pay income tax.
I believe that it is legitimate for immigrants to engage in political struggles regardless of status. If immigrants are allowed to work and live in a country, and contribute positively to the society, then I think that it is fair to extend the same civil rights that is offered to its citizens. I don't believe that actively participating in political grievances should be categorized as ingratitude or demanding. For basic human rights and blatant exploitation one can demand fair treatment. On the other extreme, immigrants should have no claim on a country's resources and benefits that its citizen work a lifetime to reap.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your Ursel 100% with everything you said. Not allowing another human being to have those rights is a form of oppression.
DeleteIn response to having no claim on a country's resources etc: My father is a physician at Coney Island Hospital where 80% of his patients are either undocumented, have no insurance or are on complete welfare. As a child it bothered me that his “immigrant patients” received free healthcare and therefore we weren’t wealthy like the rest of his graduating class at NYU Medical School who went on to become your typical Park Avenue doctors. Fast forward 20 years and today I am grateful that this is where my father chose to work, as I cannot remember a day in elementary school where he was not beside me watching me complete my homework, a feat which would have been impossible had he not chosen a 9 – 5 job. I never lacked anything materially but I clearly lacked some empathy, knowledge of U.S.’s dark history and a bit of common sense. So, in regards to healthcare, from a purely selfish standpoint, do we want to deny treatment to someone if they have a contagious disease? Do we want to refuse prenatal care to pregnant women or immunization to children? As a modern society do we want to expose ourselves and our children to diseases which we have finally learned to combat? At minimum, it is always in our best interest to provide the basic level of healthcare to anyone who cannot afford it.
DeleteMaybe immigration to the U.S. in the time of Pascal and Paul was not brought on by preoccupation with the Monroe Doctrine, but a good amount of the undocumented immigrants today are here because of the U.S.'s hegemonic interference with their respective countries of origin.
In recent years political violence has become the new normal for Arab countries whose citizens are seeking mostly freedom from a dictator or government. The never ending blood shed in these freedom fights, demonstrates extreme violence, with thousands of people dead, for basic human rights and equality. John L Lewis used political power and influence to change the standard of living for million of Americans. I do not imagine that his cause came with no resistance, but that degree of violence was never used to create drastic change.
ReplyDeleteUrsel I really like your point because you capture the difference of a democratic government and a dictatorship. In democracy, the government represents the people. Although at times it may not represent fairly, with enough political action voices will be heard and positions taken into account with representatives. In a dictatorship as you mention, one person represents the entire will of the country, which could lead to a power hungry government, and a terrible environment for citizens. I feel that these citizens in those countries have no other way to be heard or to demand change than through violence. I do not agree with it but their position is limited to revolution and violence, or suffering in an unjust society.
DeleteThis is a country built by immigrants and unless your are of native american decent at some point your ancestors were immigrants as well. That being said, I think is completely legitimate for immigrants to be engaged politically and have the same rights as a person that is born here. They have to abide by the laws so why can't they not participate in the society? Why can't their human rights be protected? Why should they be the outcast? I agree with Ursel that having a voice too should not categorize immigrants as being ungrateful or demanding.
ReplyDeleteAs an immigrant myself, it does feel odd at times to be engaged in political struggles even though I am a citizen, but it doesn't really stop me. I've signed plenty of petitions for issues that were important to me.
One thing I do not agree with any acts of violence as a mean against the system for immigrants or non immigrants.
As a 3rd generation American it actually fascinates me that my opinion's are most inline with an immigrant, and not most of the other students in the class. People so easily forget that no one has been in this country more than 300 years, so what qualifies them to call other people immigrants? Just because you moved here later than others should never disqualify you from political discourse, and if you have adopted this country as your own, it is your duty to improve it the same as if you were born here.
DeleteIt's clear that Congress could save the tax payers a whole lot of money getting the 11 million undocumented on the books. With the influx of that many people would be a huge economic boost, which this country desperately needs. But like I said, a lot of politicians are dirty, and don't care for a logical solution, instead they stay true to the racist constituency that got them there so they won't lose next election.
DeleteThat being said, as long as the government operates the way it is now, the health care system suffers and for the people who can't pay medical bills, it gets passed onto the taxpayer. Here's a look...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/24/2060541/undocumented-immigrants-taxpayer-funded-health-care/?mobile=nc
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think immigrants to America should try to get as politically engaged as possible in order to break through the dominant class' representation of immigrant classes. One documentary that I saw that really pointed out this issue of political representation was "Made in LA" (http://www.madeinla.com/about). In the documentary, a group of Hispanic immigrant garment workers band together to fight against unfair wages and treatment by Forever 21. They use civil disobedience (no violence involved) in the form of strikes and protest marches to get their point across and eventually reach a settlement with the corporations.
ReplyDeleteI think immigrants should never resort to violence as the dominant American class will portray them as violent and in a more negative light than before they began the violence. Years of history have shown that forms of civil disobedience are the best for trying to influence political change (MLK, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Gay Rights) and nonviolent protest marches/strikes are the strongest political motivators.
I believe that many of the labor issues seen in Christ in Concrete and Son of Italy stem from an extreme form of nativism. I believe that back then it was very hard for them to protest in a civilly disobedient manner as they would have been shot, killed, jailed, or looked down by the other immigrant classes (Irish, Germans, Jews, etc). In the modern era, we understand the idea of racial and ethnic prejudice as well as injustices in labor and between sexes/orientations. I believe nowadays it would be a lot easier for an immigrant group to fight for their rights rather than how it was almost a century ago.
Joesph, these are valid point in the order for immigrant to break the dominant class representation, violence is not always the answer. I feel that your last statement about how it may be much easier for immigrants to fight for a right in the time we live as oppose to a century ago. America has definitely come a long way in improving the treatment of immigrants, even though tribal stereo types still exist. Most people should be aware that a stereo type does not define an individual of a certain tribe or what that individual is capable of. The documentary example about the Mexican workers was a case in point
DeleteI usually agree that groups should not resort to violence to achieve their political goals, but in some cases, I think it may be warranted. I am not speaking of anarchist or senseless violence, but of the need to overthrow an oppressive force by a demonstration of power to earn their freedom. Consider the Revolutionary War: the colonies needed to show England that were capable of self-government and deserving of that responsibility. If immigrants (or gays or Mexicans or women or whathaveyou) were so oppressed that violence was the only possible solution to change the system, I think they have a right to do so.
DeleteJoseph, I like your comparison between the viability of civil disobedience now and civil disobedience as a possibility over a century ago. I feel you are right to a degree about the possible responses to such protests, but I think you still miss a certain point. These immigrants were very poor, and usually could not endure the lack of pay from striking and protesting. Many feared protesting as well because there were always more hungry and willing workers to fill their positions. Civil disobedience would have been obviously difficult to organize and follow through to make a change due to these facts. This is why I also feel immigrants are still majorly underrepresented, even though you do make a good point with the documentary "Made in LA." That was just protests for better treatment and fairer wages from employers, and we know that many more issues still remain for immigrants in modern society.
DeleteSince the advent of telecommunication and electronic media, but more specifically the Internet with social media and its virility the need for violence in protest has been nullified. Aside for the negative repercussion, while violence is local, the Internet is global and now timeless. One can sit as his office desk and send a tweet or post a status to Facebook that will be seen by millions within minutes and this can make or break lives. It can usher a politician into office or ruin his campaign. It can bring about social reform and deadlock another. For example, celebrity endorsement, a very effective mobilization effort was not around at the time. National campaigns such as Fedoras For Fairness http://fedoras4fairness.com which attempts to organize women in support of mindful immigration reform to keep families together as well as treat women fairly could never have existed back then. Someone like Annunziata would have definitely benefited from such a cause.
DeleteI have often heard my mother debate about social justice and immigration. She is a kindergarten teacher in a neighborhood heavily populated by immigrants, and over the years she has become more and more frustrated with this fact. One problem that she often brings up is that at the start of the school year, many of her students do not speak a word of English (last year, about half of the class did not speak English). This makes it difficult for her to do her job - she can't communicate with them, and so it is nearly impossible to establish rules, engage parents in support, and for learning to actually occur for all students. Another sort of problem that she observes is immigrants moving to America to give birth to their children (so that the child will have American citizenship rights), and then return to their homeland with the child - either immediately or, at the latest, by the 5th grade.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think that immigrants (and their children who are American citizens) should be able to engage in political activism, especially without demonstrating loyalty, I also think that immigrants should attempt to adapt to the culture of America out of respect. For example, I have one friend, a first-generation Greek-American, who's mother does not understand English despite living in New York for almost 25 years. I think that is absurd and unfair. Or, on a different note, there was an article a few months ago about how family members of the opposite sex were forbidden to use a public pool at the same time, due to a religious opposition raised by a small community of Muslims. I also disagree with this policy, more than anything because it was a public facility.
In America, our modern mantra is to be tolerant - but that needs to happen in both directions. American "natives" do need to be aware of the prejudices and discrimination they impose upon immigrants, but immigrants must also be aware and respectful of American culture and traditions, especially if they (or their children, in my argument) are going to benefit from public and social institutions.
I agree Jenna, if you come to America, you should also agree with the ideas of separation of church and state as well as tolerance for all kinds of people. Additionally, I also agree that immigrants should attempt to learn some form of English to communicate--we would be expected to do the same if we went to and lived in a foreign country.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you Jenna, and I too find it absurd that your friend's mother doesn't understand English after all this time. I feel like America is always making amends to help immigrants so that they can properly adjust here. However, it should be a two way street, so immigrants should try to respect American culture, which you stated as well.
DeleteFor people of certain age is hard to learn a new language. I may understand why some immigrants cant speak English yet thou they been in this county for many years. Thats why they are more comfortable to stay within their community.
DeleteThe united states does not have an official national language. English is not the official language of the United States. I think that language barriers create divisions, just as we noticed that it was very difficult for the first Italian immigrants to stick together or understand each other because they spoke different dialects of Italian. So it is as difficult for immigrants that do not speak English to integrate to the larger society, so it would be an advantage for them to be able to communicate with the majority. I believe many wish they were able to. My mother came here as an adult and it is unfair for someone to demand that she learns how to speak a new language at 50. Just as I wouldn't expect and 50 year old American to learn how to communicate in Spanish at that age. It is not impossible but it is certainly more difficult. I am grateful that when I was not able to speak a word of English when I first arrive in 5th grade I had a Spanish speaking bi-lingual tutor at school that had the patience to teach me pronunciation and grammar. On the other hand I had a Cuban English teacher after that, who would humiliate me in front of the class when I couldn't pronounce a word I had never seen in my life. I tend to side with the kids that are not able to speak English because Spanish is their household language because I think everyone should make an effort speak at least 2 languages. I don't think their parents are doing them a disservice by teaching them Spanish.
DeleteLeslie, I think anyone can agree that their parents aren't doing them a disservice. It's actually beneficial to be bilingual. I think that what we're simply trying to point out is that an effort should be made for immigrants to try to learn English as well. If I or even my parents, who are 48 and 50, were to move to a foreign country to live for an extremely long period, I think that we would all make a great effort to try to learn the language of that country. It's not mandatory that we do, but it is helpful if we plan on living in that country for the rest of our lives. Even Pascal from Son of Italy attempted to learn English by buying a dictionary. I commend him for even trying to adapt to America. Maybe it is difficult for older immigrants to learn a new language, however an effort still makes a huge difference than just not trying at all.
DeleteAlethia, I understand your viewpoint. The argument I usually use here is that if I moved to another country and demanded that everyone communicate with me in English, it wouldn't necessarily go over very well. If you choose to live in a place, then having a basic respect for the customs, language and way of life already in place is a given. As the saying goes: "When in Rome..."
DeleteIn my personal opinion, even though English is not the official language, it is (or at least was for a long time), the most popular, majority-wise, language in the US. Immigrants should learn how to speak English. I'm not saying that they should have to learn instantaneously, but nowadays, immigrants live in some ethnic pocket of NY and spend their whole lives speaking a foreign language. I can speak from experience. I live in Sunset Park, an area of Brooklyn where there are about 10 English speaking people (my family included). So I take it personally when immigrants blatantly refuse to learn English or assimilate, since I need to travel over a mile to find a language that I understand. Additionally, as so many people have said, other countries do not even stand for American tourists or students speaking English instead of the language of that country. Look at the whole Amanda Knox scandal. She was stuck in a prison in a foreign country and she couldn't communicate with anyone. If that was America, there would be a million translators and 2 million political/civil rights activists protesting. I guess this is just a pet peeve of mine. I only can communicate in two languages (unless you count Klingon). I only speak English, and some Italian, so I always feel like I am out of the loop when no one around me is speaking my language. Sorry if I'm being a little harsh.
DeleteJenna, I agree with what you said. Sorry for my previous rant, but the more and more I was reading the comments, the more I thought about the whole language thing. What was great about your post was the last paragraph, where you said that tolerance is a two way street. We'll take in, accommodate, and make certain adjustments for immigrants, and they should do the same. The public pools are a good point, they are public pools, and a person should make no religious claims when something belongs to the public. I think that one example of this is the mosque that is being build near ground zero. This shows how immigrants can use the American political system to engage in outright disrespect towards New York City and America and all her citizens. This is that two way street - America gives immigrants the right to build on any land they want, but immigrants need to show respect towards America in return. As I've mentioned before, America is so consciously trying to please everyone, that we are becoming, for lack of a better term, a push over.
DeleteWill Lorenzo you are not being harsh at all, I respect your viewpoint and Aletha's and I can understand the frustration. I just think is important for you to know that many immigrants want to learn english and many believe that speaking English would improve their situation. I hear this in conversations all the time, people refer to speaking English as something positive, something they wish they had the ability to do and they want their children to speak English. There are many factors that may prevent someone from learning: they may not have the time (they work long hours), family to take care, they cannot afford to pay for it (free classes may not agree with their schedule), age, or perhaps some could be illiterate, I'm sure there are a number of reasons as to why they could not invest the time to learn it. I also think that since there is a very large Spanish speaking population they are not forced to learn it. It is important to note and be concious that younger generation speak english (unless they are recent immigrants or perhaps they are too young). In my opinion it would be an advatange for immigrants to speak English however, if someone wants to get through life wihtout leanring English thats fine by me. Just keep in mind that they are not doing this because they refuse to learn.
DeleteHre are some definitions I found:
Assimilation - means absorbing minorities into the ways of the majority - requiring them to adopt the majority's language, customs and 'values'.
Integration, by contrast, requires acceptance of a country's laws, of human rights such as freedom of speech, and of basic democratic rights, but does not require the eradication of all cultural differences or group-identities; it is conceived of as a two-way process, through which both the majority and the minorities influence and change one another, and in which differences can be peacefully accommodated as long is there a common commitment to living together.
Acculturation - is when a person keeps their original home culture but also adapts and accepts the new culture. In effect, this person is bi-cultural. While maintaining original customs, history and values they also add custom’s of their new culture environment.
I am pro the last two definitations over the first one. How can anyone ask of someone to forget about their past and made them who they are (give up their culture) and to embrace a new one? that's falls under the definition of assimilation.
On the other hand, many immigrants are acculturated - they celebrate thanksgiving and all the other American holidays as if it were their own. They also respects the laws and regulations so in some ways they are integrated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that immigrants should engage in the political struggle, since they do use some of the resources that America provides, this does not mean they have to enforce through the act of violence to be heard. Immigrants should be grateful for the opportunities that they receive, but the idea of them requiring more than what they have is ingratitude depending on the conditions. For example if a foreign person have inserted themselves to the way of life in American but are constantly the victim of unfair wages or deprived of education due to their back ground then asking for more would not be considered ungrateful. Looking back at Christ in Concrete, Paul was seeking support to keep his family fed and what did he get in return for putting in all of his physical effort after 2 weeks? $5 a week. This is a situation where asking for more isn't ungrateful.
ReplyDeleteIn Son of Italy, Pascal wanted to do better for himself, and he made it his priority to convert into the main stream of society. This showed that it is not legitimate for violence to be use against the political system. There is a way to be better and create better circumstances with out any form of violence.
I think it's also important to note how severely ItAms were abused by social and political institutions like in "Christ in Concrete." Paul was denied help from the Church, his employer, and the Compensation Bureau. I don't think there was necessarily a good way around those obstacles non-violently; they were basically forced to comply with the situations imposed on them by external forces. Today, with NYC's stop-and-frisk procedures, Blacks and Hispanics are searched more often than other ethnic groups; how can one overcome that sort of mass-policing and invasion of privacy nonviolently?
DeleteI think even now if you don't have legal paper, you would be denied compensation of any sort.
DeleteI agree with your thoughts Jenna. I do recognize the obstacles the Paul faced in Christ in Concrete. I am not saying that non violence responses will always provide a way to improving situations among a certain tribes, but non violent ideas should be exercised more frequently. As for the stop and frisk procedures, there is a way for it to be done without violence being involved, there are petitions, peaceful protest...These things don't happen overnight(not implying that that's what you are saying). If Black and Hispanics respond violently then they are feeding the notion of why they get stopped more frequently. If they do not respond violently then some may look at it as they are continuously allowing themselves to be victims of this procedure, if they choose to not voice their concerns.
DeleteI for one do not believe violence is an effective means to any end, especially in politics. One example of a politician who used non-violence to an extreme, even in the face of violence from "the system," was Martin Luther King Jr. His efforts were notoriously effective, and his use of reason, law, and leadership were far greater than any effect an anarchist's bombs may ever have.
ReplyDeleteImmigrants, we must fully recognize although not citizens, are still people and still have inalienable rights. They should not just be grateful, if they are wronged they should have the same protection as citizens. I don't believe its ingratitude because they come to America to enjoy certain freedoms, and to not allow them these freedoms is damaging to the reputation that America holds. Immigrants should be involved with the political system because they are affected by the system due to the fact that they live in the country as well, albeit legal or illegal. When we speak of loyalty we must look at it from an immigrants perspective. They may not be loyal to the country, but they are loyal to America's opportunities.
I have mixed feelings towards what immigrants should or shouldn’t be allowed to do, so I hope this doesn't sound contradictory. I believe that immigrants should engage in political struggles with the goal of changing the system, as long as their intention isn’t to make America’s system become more like that of their home country. Once an immigrant acquires their citizenship in America, he/she should be given the same rights that American born individuals have. However, I think a problem arises when an immigrant takes advantage of their rights by trying to mold America into their home country, which is more familiar to them. There is a difference between an immigrant taking ideas from their country and using it to better our system or taking ideas from their country and using it to make them feel more at home. This is not to say that immigrants shouldn’t feel at home here because they should. However, they shouldn’t feel like they can change the system in America to make it EXACTLY like the system of their home country. One of the things that makes the United States so special is the fact that it is so unique. It is filled with different cultures, religions, languages, beliefs, etc. And while the voice of an immigrant should always be heard, I feel like if anyone is able to make decisions without proving how loyal they really are to this country first, then it may take away from the uniqueness of this country that distinguishes it from all others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that immigrants shouldn't be changing the system, but right now the main topic is about immigrants who want to be reunited with their families. This is the issue for immigrants worth fighting for, but without using violent methods.
DeleteI to have mixed feeling about immigrants, but I do agree that they should not be coming here to change our policies. I think that as long as they are active members of society, and paying taxes.
DeleteI agree with you Alethia. That's what I was trying to say in my post. I'm not sure if I worded it right. However, I do think it's already been changing by people who aren't even immigrants!
DeleteI believe that legal immigrants should be able to get involved in some politics. I especially believe they should be involved in there community and they may have a great impact. I believe anyone who pays taxes in this country should be aloud to vote. When this country fought for it's independence, it was because we were being taxed without representation. Taxation without representation should apply today as well no one paying taxes should be denied the right to vote. That being said it is important to note that Puerto Rico is a US territory they do not pay taxes (unless that has recently changed) as a result they do not get to vote. I think these rules should apply to immigrants. As long as they are contributing members of society they should be able to participate in politics. I do not think that any immigrants should be aloud to run for president unless of course they were born here. I think this because of the foreign politics and potential loyalty to former country could interfere or even be detrimental to our rights and freedoms here. Our country was built on the backs of immigrants and today they still seek the same American dream, that's why our country is so unique.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said, Rachel. I first noticed your use of the term legal immigrants. So often nowadays, when we think of immigrants we assume illegal immigrants because we consider legal immigrants Americans (assuming that all will one day be citizens). Puerto Rico is another touchy topic which I wouldn't write about if you gave me a million dollars. Why do they have a team in the World Baseball Classic? That's the only instance I can think of where a territory can beat the country that owns them ... just saying. This just proves that America is so concentrated on being politically correct and pleasing to everyone that we are forgetting how to be patriotic Americans.
DeleteI don't think immigrants should try to change the system. I think this might lead to changing or getting rid of the constitution entirely. Changes that can lead to that come in little steps so that they are barely noticed. I think they should be grateful for what they get when coming to the states and if they're not, they should try to change their own country first because they're obviously have some problems with it. I believe they should first prove their loyalty before coming into the country. Proving their loyalty should be well defined. I think when the system uses violence to shut you down, there is a problem with the system. That, to me, hints at tyranny. I don't think tyranny has to always come as a form of a dictatorship either. Could be mob rule, etc. I think at that point there should be an intellectual revolution.
ReplyDeleteAdam, I couldn't have said it better myself. I have nothing to say except - you're brilliant. Truly amazing post. I would have started it with "The Gospel according to Adam."
DeleteI think the concept of proving their loyalty is good in theory but I'm not sure how you would have them prove how loyal they are to this country. I'm sure they might feel conflicted and still feel a sense of loyalty to their home country, depending on the age they came to this country. A child immigrant growing up here may feel a greater sense of loyalty then his parent only because they may not be as familiar with their home country as their parents. I guess what I'm trying to say is how will know how loyal they truly are.
DeleteI understand your fears Adam, and it is scary thought that our country should loose its democracy and our government becomes as openly corrupt as many other countries. Many immigrants don't want to change the system, they want to belong. They want to have a voice too. Many immigrants leave their country for political reasons and for freedom. Most immigrants I would dare say, come here for peace not to create riots. They hold American as the ideal, a dream, and even when “the dream” is not quite as they expect they still uphold it with respect for giving them the chance to at least try an better themselves and given a “better” life for their children. Look around NYC is not difficult to find hard working people from every corner of the world and when asked about American there is nothing but love and respect.
DeleteBut what happens when you are afraid to report abuses? What happens when you feel oppressed? What happens when you can’t participate as part of the larger society and contribute.
Let’s take it back to Christ in Concrete – do you feel that it was fair what happened to Annunciata in court? Do you blame her for not speaking English? For feeling inferior to the boss who knew the judge and people in court? Should our laws not protect everyone from that kind of corruption?
Now let’s take it back to Son of Italy, how do you feel about their working conditions? Shall we treat people that come here to do the jobs that we do not want to do in such ways. Did it not pain you to learn about the unjust treatment?
That’s what happens when you don’t allow people to participate in the society they live in. Is not about changing the system is about being able to participate politically, have a voice and be protected from abuses.
I definitely believe that it is not only legitimate, but rather a necessity for immigrants to get involved in the political system of America and change it for the good of all. Never should it be considered ungrateful on the part of the immigrant, because all Americans are immigrants originally.Ingratitude would be benefiting off of the free system set up for you, while not trying your utmost to help give others the same opportunities you were able to enjoy. Whether your ancestors were British and spoke English, or they came from Italy a little later in history, they all started off as immigrants. They must change the system to accommodate all of those who wish to join this country. Never forget that the tenement of being an American is a belief in Equality for All.
ReplyDeleteOne of the founding beliefs for this country is the freedom of religion. That means all people should be able to practice their religion, but it doesn't mean that one religion should govern all. Obviously this issue is a little bit confused in today political environment, prime examples being In God We Trust on the back of the dollar bill, yet Separation of Church and State being a large issue these days, but regardless the idea should still stand. No immigrant should try to change the government to a belief only their tribe has, but neither should their Patriotism be forced to contradict their religious beliefs or practices.
Violence is never the answer in politics, regardless of the circumstances. Violence may have the power to excite a quick and powerful response, and may even force the changes that are viewed as necessary, but at what price? When it comes to violence as a way to further political ideals, i firmly believe the ends do not justify the means, and if patient, peaceful protest will get the changes we desire, while at no cost to society.
Immigrants should be grateful for what they get in America. And then they should immediately demand more. More access to better schools and higher pay, or more spacious housing. Whatever they feel should be theirs, they have the right to demand.
ReplyDeleteThe converse of this statement is this: that demand has to come attached to the knowledge that those demands will probably not be met. The only demands that people can reasonably make are demands on themselves- demands to work harder, do better and go farther. In Son of Italy - Pascal probably had a long list of demands in mind when he encountered the treatment he and his countrymen faced on arrival in America. What was more important than those demands was his willingness to follow his dreams and work hard to achieve them. This is what ultimately led to his transformation from a manual laborer to an established and respected poet.
Not that hard work and determination are necessarily a guarantee of success in the modern era, but still- demands only are as good as an individual's willingness to put effort into and sacrifice for them. To paraphrase a line by a great Italian American filmmaker: "No one gives it to you. You have to take it."
I believe that it should be legitimate for immigrants to get engaged in a political struggle with the goal of changing the system. This country was built on the backs of immigrants and it wouldn't be what it is today without them. Even now New York is largely populated with immigrants and they benefit the country because not only do they help the economy by buying material here to send back to their home country (spoken from experience). They also take the jobs that many natural born citizens are to overcome with pride to take.
ReplyDeleteImmigrants should demand more simply because they do not come to the country hoping to remain immigrants. Their goal is to become US citizens to better themselves and their families. I believe that if they come to this country and work just as hard as everyone else or even more then they entitled to the same benefits as those who stay home doing nothing except abusing the system for their own greedy benefit. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that "all men are created equally," nowhere in that document does it say all US born men are created equally.
Not that many Americans remain loyal to the United States, while many immigrants become loyal to this country even before stepping foot on American soil. Some people believe that loyalty is earned, other violate the term using it solely for their own definition.
Since I was young I have always heard the saying that to wrongs do not make a right. Several years on this earth has helped me realized how true that statement is; as well as a ten page research paper on violence. What I have learned from countless nights researching my topic is that once a problem is attempted to be resolved with violence is prompts another issue in which some might believe the solution to that as well is violence. Before you notice it becomes an on-going situation continuously being escalated by more acts of violence. At the end of the day the problem still remains unsolved and many are left to bury their loved ones.