Public Discourse on Immigration Issues

Well I have been cruising the internet going from site to site and article to article to come up with some kind of base for me to write an abstract about. The Immigration Debate is a widely discussed topic throughout the United States and is turning out to be a major debate issue for the upcoming elections this fall. The views taken on this subject are greatly varied. Whether it be conservative, liberal, republican,deomocrat, whoever, the majority of the public opinion is concerned with this issue.
Nationwide polls conducted by major news media and research organizations between Feb. 8-May 14,2006 show a few majority’s in the public opinion on the immigration debate. A few are: that President Bush is doing a piss-poor job of handling the immigration issue, that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don’t want, and that the public is almost evenly split over whether or not immigration overall is good for the country. The rally day that happened earlier this spring, when people mostly of Mexican origin walked out of jobs, schools, etc. to show how significant this part of the community is, didn’t cause as much of a stir as planned. Well, atleast the polls that I found showed that actually support against illegal immigration in general rose.
So pretty much we’re dealing with a whole bunch of different point of views, from religion to the president, everyone has something to say. Hopefully things won’t get too violent.

Public Discourse on Immigration

Well I have been cruising the internet going from site to site and article to article to come up with some kind of base for me to write an abstract about. The Immigration Debate is a widely discussed topic throughout the United States and is turning out to be a major debate issue for the upcoming elections this fall. The views taken on this subject are greatly varied. Whether it be conservative, liberal, republican,deomocrat, whoever, the majority of the public opinion is concerned with this issue.

Nationwide polls conducted by major news media and research organizations between Feb. 8-May 14,2006 show a few majority’s in the public opinion on the immigration debate. A few are: that President Bush is doing a piss-poor job of handling the immigration issue, that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don’t want, and that the public is almost evenly split over whether or not immigration overall is good for the country. The rally day that happened earlier this spring, when people mostly of Mexican origin walked out of jobs, schools, etc. to show how significant this part of the community is, didn’t cause as much of a stir as planned. Well, atleast the polls that I found showed that actually support against illegal immigration in general rose.

So pretty much we’re dealing with a whole bunch of different point of views, from religion to the president, everyone has something to say. Hopefully things won’t get too violent.

Coco's Current Activities

Hello all!
It is currently 7:51 in the P-M on Sunday, and I am in the Johnson Hall comp lab, printing out articles concerning "public discourse on the immigration debate," like it says in the syllabus. I'm finding some great junk, but I've noticed nobody has posted anything yet--is this a "hold off on that for now" type of thing? I mean, are we going to discuss this in class and then have to do it for Wed, or am I just early? (heehee.)
Ho-hum, just checking.
Nighty-night! See you all tomorrow....

sorta about the readings, but really not at all

first off i just want to say i really enjoy the discussions we have in class, although i do often get enraged about things...oh well. i want to mostly comment on the second reading. a "how to" manual on how to get votes makes me sick. and in all actuality, that is exactly what was written. how to get votes. this in my mind is downright ridiculous and immoral. yes, tell ppl what they want to hear and make them temporarily happy. by doing this you guarantee disappointment for the future voters and weaken their faith in the united states voting system, by forcing them to believe that they are not voting for any cause, but simply for the benefit of the candidate that will not be doing anything about the causes they discuss. whatever. i dont like politics

My late blog about the readings

Man, I am really creative when it comes to blog titles, LOL. Anyhoo, here are my thoughts on the readings:

Framing

I really enjoyed this article. I never really took the time to think about my feelings on immigration, but I can say that I agree with a lot of the points brought up in this article. I liked how the author focused on the wording of things... at one point they mention how the term "Immigration problem" focuses on the negative effects of immigration, but it does not truly delve into the issue and how it truly must be fixed (by a higher standard of living for everyone). I also liked the point brought up about illegal immigration being a Civil Rights issue. They are right- even if they are illegal, if these people work in our country and pay our taxes, then technically they are Americans. And even though they are Americans, they have to live in the shadows. Seems like a Civil Rights issue to me! I agree with the statement that the words "Illegal Alien" denote criminality and negative images in the minds of many people. Overall, I really enjoyed the article. It put a lot of things into perspective for me. I think the one quote that truly stuck out to me is this (I may get a word or two wrong, but you get the point): "Terrorists come to destroy the American dream. Immigrants- legal or illegal-come to live the American dream."

Respect...Fairness

I hated this one. It wasn't even the fact that it was 25 pages... I just hated how it was written. Parts of it are written like a manual, and quite frankly, I think that's stupid! Honestly, I read this piece and did not take any of it in. Seriously, you can ask me what it was about and all I will say is "Immigration." I also did not like how most of the quotes did not have their author cited. I rather enjoyed some of those quotes and would have liked to have known who said them, but they didn't write it! Maybe I'm just being dumb and didn't see them. Anyhoo, one thing I did like is all of the pie charts/polls... it was cool to see how people stand on the issue. There was one quote that I really enjoyed. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but I just liked the feel of it: "A country that can't control its own borders can't control its own destiny."

To tell you the truth, when i first printed out what we had to read I was so mad. In my head i was thinking 25 pages? Seriously, 25 pages?? No way was I gunna be able to read this and understand it. Surprisingly I was proven wrong.
Illegal Immigration Prevention was a great read. I love how it is broken into categories and it has lots of bolded words/passages. The charts in it really helped me to understand just how immigration effects the US. It was very interesting and at the same time very informative. Just as many said this article didn't sound like a campaign speech. It really showed the audience what the concern is and how it effects our every day life.
The other reading, The Framing of Immigration, didn't settle as well with me. The language he uses is really hard to understand personally. The words didn't flow in my mind. It seems like a word scramble to me. I found myself reading over it again and again before i somewhat understood the authors point. It seemed like a campaign speech. The whole framing situation just went over my head. I guess i just wasnt into it enough. My mind was probably too fried from reading the other reading.

illegal immigrants

I enjoyed the first and second readings on Hazelton. It kept my attention and I wanted to keep reading because it was about a place so close to home. Mayor Barletta shows a very strong idea and I agree with it. I feel that he understands both sides but in order to do what is best for that town he is doing the best he can. Some of the actions he took or is planning to take I feel went a little over the line such as having certain people carded and making English the official language becuase there are people there legally that may look a certain way and may not speak english and I don't feel like they should be put through this hassle just because others are doing things illegally. Also, with all the letters of support he has gotten that greatly outnumber the oppostition letters that shows that he is definately going in the right direction for what the people of Hazelton want.

today's articles

hello all-

so how did everyone enjoy these two articles? my first reaction was that i ran out of printer paper to print both articles [i read better in ink than pixels], so i was rather mad.. yea. anyway, i enjoyed both articles although i didn't agree with the stances promoted in the first one. i'm pretty much against illegal immigration and agree with most of what the second article said about prevention, and how by breaking laws by immigrating illegally communicates that america's laws are optional (kind of like speed limit signs on the highway - completely optional!). granted, laws are optional, but there is a severe punishment for most when they're broken. for example, if i didn't file my taxes, i'd get an earful from the government about 'stealing money', and have to pay it PLUS interest, etc. etc. etc.

i definitely noticed that it was less of an article and more of a guidebook for politics, which i thought was interesting. i dunno why i thought it was so interesting, but i enjoyed reading it as opposed to an article with the same ideas. i suppose it was a little more persuasive.

ok.. that's what i've got to say, i guess.

This Is Where The Title Is.

Let me start by saying that I do not always feel comfortable sharing my opinion of things I am not completely up-to-date on. Yes, we all know (or at least we should) that immigration is an issue, but I am not familiar with all of the details or what exactly it is that I believe. That said, on to the articles! I enjoyed The Framing of Immigration because there were several lines that jumped out at and me and because I found it easy to understand. The article talked about Bush "framing" the laws in a way that the UN cannot step in and make it a humanitarian crisis. "These bodies do not have roles in the immigration frame, so they have no place in an 'immigration debate'". It also added later on that we "are all complicit in the current problematic situation" since most of us go to Wal-Mart and McDonald's. I thought this was a good article simply because it made me think. However, even though it had graphs and fun pictures to look at, I did not enjoy reading Respect For The Law and Economic Fairness. The pictures and such did a much better job of explaining than the actual article, which made me feel as if I were reading a rulebook. As for the entire issue, I want to look up more information and further develop my opinion. :)

They have rights too!

Illegal immigration, if I may call it that now, is a serious issue in the forum of American politics today. Personally, I think that the messages being sent by Capitol Hill are about as polarized as the messages in “The Framing of Immigration” and “Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness.” With some supporting very conservative agendas while other tend to be much more liberal. Personally, I believe that we should take a democratic approach to the issue of immigration.

My entire view tends to fall more in line with the entire agenda set forth by the article “The Framing of Immigration/” I thought that this article put forth very interesting perspectives on the way in which we frame “illegal” and other terms that we apply to illegal immigrants, which apply a very negative connotation to everyone that falls into this category. The entire article spoke in very liberal terms politically that seemed to place the blame elsewhere and not on the immigrants themselves and while I tend to agree with some f the issues placed forth by the other article, I think that this article rings true as well. Personally, I look at the people who cross our border as just that, people with certain rights that should not be violated. Everyone in our country in here in search of the American Dream, and even if they reach this country through unconventional of illegal means they should not be deprived of an opportunity to live here. It was just like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal with certain unalienable rights.

There are issues raised in the other article that seem to be valid when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration however. Security, in the sense of our vulnerability to attack from foreign countries or groups, is always a concern in a post 9/11 America and measures should be taken to preserve our security domestically. I also believe that through some form of domestic reform, we could gain citizenship for the people who have come here illegally. Deportation is not the answer, because no matter what anyone does, people will continue to cross our borders. So in that vein the only reasonable solution is to solve the problem at home and allow more people to enter the country legally instead of building a fence along the border, that’s my two cents.

Conservative on Complexities

Hello all---just got done reading the articles for today. Regarding "The Framing of Immigration," The only thing I identified with was near the end, when it described the "conservative view" on the immigration problem. The rest of the article was more of the same, more of what we've been hearing--Bush is messing it up, etc etc--and I especially hated the "Refugees are worthy of compassion" quote. It's probably why I LOVED the gigantic 25-page article--"Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention." I know, I know--I say how much I love simple, get-to-the-point type junk, but this was fabulous. The pie charts were a nice addition--but the sections were almost as if I had written them--they were just, BAM! Here it is---Illegal means you're breaking the law--"The best way to show compassion for illegal immigration is to END illegal immigration." Just go through the process, you know? Just legalize yourself---the article stresses a "balanced and reasonable" amount of legal immigrants, which I also agree with. "If it sounds like amnesty, it will fail." You hear that Georgie? You know I love you, but the "Temporary Worker" thing that the first article went into is NOT gonna work. My favorite thing of all was the "LANGUAGE TO REMEMBER" section at the end of the long article--that's my type of junk right there--simple, direct--I could frame it and hang it on my wall.
I suppose we'll talk more about this later---see you all then!

...ahahahaha, your Will is equal to mine, baby.

And, oh, wow, I have a lot to cover.

First of all, all of the three articles from the last class seemed forceful, but in different ways, which makes sense considering the sources. The news articles are forceful in a "this is what's going on and you can't--or shouldn't--deny it" way, which more or less is what newspapers as a whole try to do. I can't see that much beyond it, though.

"Lingo Jingo" is another story though. It lacks the context of the news and has to stand on it's own. An interesting way of doing that, I think, is the realatively more dense sections framing the problem and the less dense sections that actually offer his position. It put the focus on the argument, for me, in the "oi, I can actually make it through this without getting distracted!" way. That didn't hit me at first, but it works, and anything else is even subtler than that, which I can't catch.

And now the stuff for today.

"The Framing of Immigration" I find intereesting, in that it says calling what's happening an "immigration" problem that needs to be reformed makes it too simple. I... more or less agree with that fact, but in the way that I see practically everything as more complex than anyone says. Exactly what the problem's made up of? I'm not really sure. The author brings up quite a few more ways to look at it, but I doubt that's all the ways. My uninformed opinion would be on the progressive side, to make it easier for those who want to come here as long as the USA has the room and money--because it's their choice, and one my big things is "live and let live", but even after reading all this stuff I don't think I know enough to really decide. ...going to need to think about this more.

Second article firstly results in me going "oooooh, pie charts and other graphs, yay!", but after that. It starts to annoy me with the wording. Firstly, the ongoing mention of "Republicans" and "Democrats" as the two different side of the debate. That certainly puts a overt political spin on it--and though I think it was written to aid politicians, that still really turns me off. However, the constant mention of America as a cohesive whole is even worse. There are many Americas--just in terms of the USA, not even touching the fact that could apply to continents--and the article doesn't acknowledge that. I don't like polarizing, and that's what that article does--yes, I do it, but I freely admit so, which... is different, more or less, because it implies that I'm wording something for other reasons than accuracy and to take it with a grain of salt.

That leads to the talking about laws as a be-all-and-end-all type thing. I... don't agree. Firstly, I haven't read the laws in their entirity--would you expect me to, not knowing where to begin?--but the way they're brought up in public makes them sound way too broad. ...I'm more or less a moral relativist, can't you tell? But that is, of course, just a convienent label that works since I've been working on this for an hour, and I'm still not quite done. Laws... aren't perfect. I don't know if this article is meant to make them sound like they are, but to me it does. Nothing is eternal. ...well, except in some religion, maybe, which I'm not bringing up since that would open a huge can of worms I really don't want to deal with, but in terms of human things, there is no eternal, and the laws should change to reflect that. Laws... aren't as democratic as some people think--since direct democracy would be... well, interesting, but mostly a pain in the ass, considering the size of the nation--so taking them with a grain of salt while realizing that disagreement isn't protection for punishment if they're broken is a good idea, I would say.

...also? Seven of the ten times they had charts or tables, the figures didn't add up. Okay, I understand rounding issues and only wanting to mention the most important--i.e. highest--percents, but that should have been mentioned at some point. Maybe I missed it, but if not? Makes it look sloppy, guys.

ds;bgk I've been writing this for an hour and fifteen minutes, and I don't even have a strong stand on immigration itself.

Still On the Fence

I agree with points from both readings, so I’m still on the fence on this “issue” or “mélange of social, economic, cultural, and security concerns.” Although I agreed with parts of both articles, “The Framing of Immigration” was easier and more enjoyable to read. Despite the “Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention” was relatively easily understood and definitely got the point across; the article was so long that by the end I couldn’t remember a lot of stuff from the beginning, even the title is long. The graphs and pictures gave the reader most of the important information in the article, but most of that was from polls which often has a bias, whether purposely or unintentionally there. “Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention” only gives the reader how best to phrase the Republican view of immigration, which makes me wonder why someone feels the need to make their own viewpoint on the issue sound better. “The Framing of Immigration” has quite a few good points about how we are looking at only the “immigration problem” instead of the big picture and what the “immigration problem really means. I didn’t agree with all of George Lakoff and Sam Fergeruson’s views, but he had some good points (and he seems to be anti-Bush, so I liked that part of the article). “The Framing of Immigration” was written in a more interesting way than “Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention;” the former was written in a smoothly flowing essay form, while the latter was written in a more clunky outline form.

Easy Read

Although the second reading was much longer I enjoyed it much more than the first reading. The first reading had a definite political slant in which it brought up viewpoints of others and then smashed them down. The Author did not take the time to support claims he believed in or offer his own solutions. He only bashed the ideas of others. I really don't appreciate any writing like this, no matter what the political viewpoint. The second reading however was much better. The author wrote about solutions and gave suggestions to the readers of how to fix this problem and used poll results to support and reinforce his claims. This made the second reading better in my opinion because it did not have any real negativity to the other viewpoints. It only suggested the writers own solution using graphs to make it look more scientific. Plus the graphs, poll results, and larger text made it very easy to read.

Illegal politics

I have to say, although I did read the "Respect fot the Law and Economic Fairness" in its entirety, I don't think I actually retained anything from it. It was interesting to read the "words that work" sections; they tended to be much more informative than the explanations. In reality though, I have no real idea wat else the article was about.

I liked the "Framing of Immigration" article much better. I was actually able to pay attention to the points they were making and retain at least a portion of the information. I think what really stood out to me was how this article wasn't so against immigration and illegal immigrants. Its writters recognized there is a problem with illegal immigration that needs to be dealt with but that a compete lack of compassion is not the solution. Rather, it suggests immigration in moderation. One such passage states, "The answer to this problem isn't an 'open-border.' The United States cannot take on the world's problems on its own. Other affluent countries need to extend a humanitarian arm to peoples fleeing oppressive economic circumstances as well. How many immigrants the United States should be willing to accept will ultimately be up to Congress."

I also found the section on the use of the word 'illegal' interesting and also of the use of the word 'alien.' My favorite passage in the whole piece is this one. " 'Aliens,' in poular culture suggests nonhuman beings invading from outer space- completely foreign, not one of us, intent on taking over our land and our way of life by gradually insinuating themselves among us." Although somewhat melodramatic, I think this is probably a pretty accurate description of how the majority of our nation sees illegal immigrants. In reality, they are people too and should be treated as people. This does not mean to say that they should be allowed to do anything they please without consequence, but they do deserve to at least be discussed with respect. Another point this article made along these same lines was that it asked whether the United States was setting up or helping enforce governments that people might flee from and also how trade impacts illegal immigration. This is finally an article that questions what America is doing to encourage illegal immigration.

The final point that I want to touch on deals with the use of the word illegal to describe immigrants. I just thought this passage was amusing. "Imagine calling businessmen who once cheated on their taxes 'illegal businessmen.' Imagine calling people who have driven over the speed limit 'illegal drivers.' "

Illegal politics

I have to say, although I did read the "Respect fot the Law and Economic Fairness" in its entirety, I don't think I actually retained anything from it. It was interesting to read the "words that work" sections; they tended to be much more informative than the explanations. In reality though, I have no real idea wat else the article was about.

I liked the "Framing of Immigration" article much better. I was actually able to pay attention to the points they were making and retain at least a portion of the information. I think what really stood out to me was how this article wasn't so against immigration and illegal immigrants. Its writters recognized there is a problem with illegal immigration that needs to be dealt with but that a compete lack of compassion is not the solution. Rather, it suggests immigration in moderation. One such passage states, "The answer to this problem isn't an 'open-border.' The United States cannot take on the world's problems on its own. Other affluent countries need to extend a humanitarian arm to peoples fleeing oppressive economic circumstances as well. How many immigrants the United States should be willing to accept will ultimately be up to Congress."

I also found the section on the use of the word 'illegal' interesting and also of the use of the word 'alien.' My favorite passage in the whole piece is this one. " 'Aliens,' in poular culture suggests nonhuman beings invading from outer space- completely foreign, not one of us, intent on taking over our land and our way of life by gradually insinuating themselves among us." Although somewhat melodramatic, I think this is probably a pretty accurate description of how the majority of our nation sees illegal immigrants. In reality, they are people too and should be treated as people. This does not mean to say that they should be allowed to do anything they please without consequence, but they do deserve to at least be discussed with respect. Another point this article made along these same lines was that it asked whether the United States was setting up or helping enforce governments that people might flee from and also how trade impacts illegal immigration. This is finally an article that questions what America is doing to encourage illegal immigration.

The final point that I want to touch on deals with the use of the word illegal to describe immigrants. I just thought this passage was amusing. "Imagine calling businessmen who once cheated on their taxes 'illegal businessmen.' Imagine calling people who have driven over the speed limit 'illegal drivers.' "

A Pleasant Surpirse

When I started reading “The Framing of Immigration” for the first couple pages I was anything but eager to read the rest. All I could think was…oh no here we go again with a long article that is just going to go over my head. That was until I came across something that caught my attention. “Unknown numbers of people have died trekking through the extreme conditions of the Arizona and New Mexico desert…Fathers feel forced to leave their families in their best attempt to provide for their kids. Everyday, boatloads of people arrive on our shores after miserable journeys at sea in deplorable conditions.” As much as I think about it I’m not sure exactly what made this stand out to me. Maybe it was just the plain old fact that it touched my heart. Just the way that it was put, something touched me and pulled me in.

Through the rest of the article I continued to find particular sentences and paragraphs that stood out to me and grabbed me. It was a pleasant surprise. I was dreading reading this article, and before I knew it I was enjoying it. I didn’t particularly love the way in which the article was written, but I was still able to get a lot out of it and take pleasure in it.

Another sentence that grabbed me was towards the middle of the article. It came in a section that was discussing security; it even mentioned the war on terror. Then this was mentioned, “Terrorists come to destroy the American dream, immigrants – both documented and undocumented – come to live the American dream.” I thought that this was a wonderful way of putting this idea. I could not have said it any better myself. I feel that many people link immigrants with terrorism, when in reality they are two completely different issues. It just happens that they both share one little similarity, that we see both of them as coming from outside this country.

“These immigrants are not a physical threat, they are a vital part of our economy and help America function. They don’t want to shoot us or kill us or blow us up. They only want to weed our gardens, clean our houses, and cook our meals in search of the American Dream.”

Jet Lag...

So I read these two articles last Friday while I was on the plane on the way to Arizona (which is the coolest state in the world), so I'm having a little bit of trouble remembering entirely what they were about. However, I do remember enjoying the first one very much - I liked the author's style and ideas. I loved how he went through each word or phrase and talked about how it "framed" immigration. I really don't remember much about the second one, but I recall disliking it, and also that many of the author's points conflicted with my own. If I have time I'll reread these before class tomorrow, otherwise I'm sure it will all come back to me after we start discussing it. See you then!
PS Everyone should go to AZ... seriously, it's awesome.

Make it Work: Immigration Reform and Fashion Reality Shows

Maybe it's because the Project Runway season finale is tomorrow and I've just got fashion fever but when I read the Luntz article I couldn't help but picture Tim Gunn in front of a poorly made dress. The way the authors repeated "words that work" and "words that don't work" made it seem like their points weren't valid. Like they were a poorly made dress but with only one day left they have no choice but to add a fancy hem to distract the judges. It gave me the impression that this is a how to manual on how to trick the public into agreeing with you. The authors pointed out that by saying certain phrases you can bring people in and get them to agree with you but other words turn them away. It shows that politicians can gain a lot of support by various groups of people by manipulating their words. Although I found the article very humorous with its oversized pie charts and odd language I did agree with a lot of what they were saying which surprised me. I think that we should work on preventing illegal immigration without hurting legal immigrants. The problem is that many of the laws passed to prevent illegal immigration is hurting legal ones too such as the English only laws.
I found "The Framing of Immigration" article very boring although once I reread it and actually understood it I realized that I do agree with it. The article was very technical and therefore not very appealing but I did agree with the author that you have to first define a problem before you can solve it. And these words that people throw around like illegal immigrants can take on many different meanings to different people and it is important to clarify ones intended meaning. Besides it being so technical, another major problem I had with this article though was that I did not understand why the author first talked about lobbying reform. I mean I get what they were saying but I thought it was unnecessary if the main point of the essay was illegal immigration reform.
Overall I found the writing styles of both articles unappealing. The Luntz one was hokey and comical and the Lakoff piece was extremely technical. However once I stripped the the outer language and got to the meat of the pieces I found that I could agree with points from both articles. Which I found very interesting, they were written by people of opposing view points but I found that they expressed their views in a certain way that I found both agreeable. If that makes any sense at all.

Immigration

I enjoyed the "Framing of Immigration" article somewhat. My mind didn't wander too often so that is a definite plus. The only real annoyance I had was the spelling mistakes but as someone who never really proofreads I won't be too picky. I thought the article gave a very clear description of how framing an issue can leave out a lot of topics that go along with it. It seems with immigration there is problem upon problem and sometimes I wonder if it will ever be solved. I don't believe that there is any nice way to refer to an "illegal immigrant." There is always bound to be someone offended. The point of the article seemed to be to illustrate how immigration is not an isolate problem. It is a much broader concern and it does not seem to fit in any one frame.

I am truly surprised that I was able to read through the entire "Respect for the Law and Economic Fairness" article. It sounded like a Republican's how to get elected when it comes to immigration guide. The resolutions described sounded very harsh but some valid arguments were made. I think the whole debate over immigration is very complicated and can't be solved in 25 pages. It's already been going on for years. I have no problems personally with immigrants coming into the country as long as they do it the right way. Everyone deserves a chance at the "American dream". We can only hope that a workable solution will be reached someday.

Language: a bond or a divider of people?

Language seems to serve both as a bond and as a divider of peoples in Hazleton, Pennsylvania at the moment. Mayor Barletta has taken steps to make English the official language of Hazleton in an effort to dissuade illegal immigrants from living and working in the area. The problem with relying on language differences is that some legal immigrants probably don't speak English, while some illegal immigrants might actually be able to. The only thing this ordinance really does is divide people racially, no matter if they are in the U.S. legally or illegally. The only success the mayor will have in seperating people will be outcasting those who don't speak english from those who do, which will only lead to stereotyping and racism throughout the town in rural PA. The fact is, not everyone in the United States speaks english, which the country should be proud of, being a world power and what not. When mayor Barletta uses language to divide the legal from illegal people, he is mostly dividing races.
Even though there may be a visible problem with illegal immigrants in Hazleton, limiting language is not the best way to do it. Setting up laws to prevent services to illegal immigrants may be a better way, but it still creates skepticism in the face of every person that appears to be of latino descent. Like the attorney David Vaidi states in the Time article, the effects of the new laws will be descriminatory in effect, if not in intent. The chance of discrimination happening is amplified by the fact that this is an old and rural coal mining town in an area where there is traditionally not a large hispanic population. Getting "them" out does not seem so clear in meaning when the context boils down to white vs. latino.

Immigration, Pie Charts, and No Proof-reading

I noticed that Lakoff and Ferguson gave some valid points in their discussion of the "immigration problem" but I could not take their article seriously. If they have the time to critique the government's reform policies and explain the meanings of the terms used for these immigrants but not have the time to read over or heaven-forbid spell/grammar check their paper, then I see no reason why I should accept the paper as useful. I just not impressed by them. I will agree with some of their points, however. The term "illegal alien" is somewhat dehumanizing. I am not and will never go so far as to say that the term makes them sound like they're from outer space like our good friend Jesse Jackson so blatantly put it (I don't like him anymore for that). I personally would use the term illegal immigrant (no quotes for me there, people). The idea that these immigrants are violating a minor law of undocumentation is true. I am still not going to call them violating immigrants or undocumented immigrants...too long and annoying to say. At least there's illiteration in the illegal immigrant term. But seriously, if you break a law of any kind, that is ILLEGAL. Shoplifting is ILLEGAL. Technically, jaywalking and double-parking are ILLEGAL. Trying to sneak into the country is ILLEGAL. My point is that there are many things that are ILLEGAL and not just the felonies that these two threw out there such as murder and rape. ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL (unless your have my philosophy that it's only illegal if you get caught, which might be their philosophy too). I have learned something from this article though. I am somewhat of a conservative. I don't believe in all that was said there but I was leaning to their side more.
As far as the Luntz article, I am not afraid to admit that I skimmed over it here and there. 25 pages is a lot to take when it comes to political jargon about illegal immigration. That and I am not sure if I have a good enough attention span for that much reading right now. I just came back from home yesterday afternoon, so sue me. Anyway, there was a lot of how the government should regulate this kind of thing. I do like the idea of deportation if an illegal immigrant commits a harsh enough crime. Like the quote said, they commited two crimes. The idea that the government should make sure not to target legal immigrants by mistake is something that we have been talking about for a while in class. They did nothing wrong and came to the US the correct and legal way. I do like the last page of this article, because all you have to do is look at those headlines and get a general idea of what the whole article is about. And I did NOT print this article out. 25 pages is too much for me so it's saved on my computer. Yay me.

P.S.- Tonk, I'm the Juggernaut!!

Linguistics

The importance emphasized on choosing your words was something I found very interesting in "The Framing of Immigration". When dealing with immigration and the current situation with Mexicans, words are very powerful and have an almost subconcious effect when heard or read. The disection of "illegal alien" was really cool. The overtones it gives while dehumanizing the people crossing over into the US is very real yet almost unnoticeable. I also agreed about how the US should look into other areas rather than just enforcing a law on "illegal immigrants." Good questions to ask are: Why is this happening? What could we do to help as a global community? Looking beyond the fact of people coming over to the US, we should look into everything that has led up to this point. What are the social and economic issues arising and the cause of this mass immigration movement? What would cause a person to leave everything they know and move hundreds of miles away with risk to their lives?
The US should be sypathetic to these refugees, not aggressive. These people are coming here to live the American Dream and Americans are spitting in their faces. Their culture is stripped from them and along, sometimes, with even their own language. Yet, they would rather stay here then go back home..What is wrong with that picture?
The working system is not healthy when it comes to migrant workers coming over and getting paid so little for working so hard. Wages in general should increase in the US. Also fair trade should be installed where it is already working in small farms and villages across the world. It involves direct involvement between companies and the farms where they are given a decent amount of money for their labors and produce and are guaranteed a long-term business relationship. It helps farmers pay their workers more money and support themselves. Perhaps if FairTrade was installed more throughout Mexico, there could be more jobs created. But this is only for those who want to go in the farming direction. The US just shouldn't be so eager to push people out of its country who actually on many levels, keep this country going economically.

On the Fence and Trying to Avoid the Tomatoes

Lingo Jingo and even the quotes in the news articles bring up the idea of us vs. them. A lot of issues are presented this way in news articles, even though they probably aren’t meant to be often times. This tendency brings up the comforting idea of a black-and-white world, this is wrong, this is right. However this doesn’t work, because it does account for shades of gray. There is the extreme view on both sides of the argument, but there are also so many views stuck between the two sides without a crystal clear side to them. This causes the simple right-wrong system to fail, because it doesn’t account for all these people that can’t side with either the English-only side or the side that wants to legalize all illegal immigrants. Although the articles focus on the immigrant debate, the main issue in these articles is language. The idea of basically outlawing the Spanish language seems unfair, not only do some illegal immigrants speak it, but quite a few legal immigrants speak it too. English isn’t “endangered,” so there shouldn’t be a problem making at least some basic things bilingual, such as driving manuals and hospital signs and the directions inside of hospitals (this would definitely be useful on occasion). Trying to basically outlaw a language will achieve nothing except getting part of the country very unhappy, part of the country just shaking their heads at the stupidity, and a very small proportion cheering at what they consider a ‘win.’ Mayor Barletta in Hazleton seems to think that the “we” in the situation is English speakers and the “they” is Spanish speaker, since this is not true and since when has anything ever been that cut and dry, Mayor Barletta is going about “fixing” the problem the wrong way. Yes, there is an immigration problem and the country has to figure out a solution of sorts for it, but the language is preventing anything being done about the actual problem. Language itself is a touchy subject, simply because of its relevance and irrelevance to a culture. Many people feel that language is deeply rooted in their sense of their own culture; however, language does not necessarily define a culture. Spanish-speaking doesn’t tell about a family or where that family can form or went through; there are different countries and cultures that speak Spanish in different dialects. There are different countries that speak English, but in different dialects that seem very different to English-speakers, but many sound very similar to people that don’t speak English. All the different local dialects give a sense of individual culture, but culture both unifies and divides the United States. Even the name of ‘our,’ meaning Americans, country exemplifies the way that we see ourselves as Americans; united, but still separate with individual places and cultures. To deny someone their culture seems like a crime. It doesn’t really matter what language people are speaking as long as they are being heard by someone somewhere, the same as it doesn’t matter what language is on the voting ballot they are reading, as long as they are trying to be represented in the way the government is run. It goes back to the concept of “us” and “them;” it seems like some people are afraid that if there is no “them,” then there is also no “us.” If they accept a different culture as part of their own national culture, then they might be afraid that their own culture will be blurred into a large group until all that’s left is melted goop on the side of the pot. While it seems irrational, people on both sides of the argument are afraid of this happening. So I still remain in the shades of gray of the argument of illegal immigration and how to handle it in my nice little shades of gray world.

Is language really an issue worth wasting our time on?

The three articles read for last class have raised some very interesting, controversial discussions. The Hazleton issue raised in both "PA City Puts Illegal Immigrants on Notice," and "When the Melting Pot Boils Over" are both touchy subjects, as well as the issues brought up in "Lingo Jingo." Personally I have a very difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with any of the issues. I feel connected to both sides of the issue, and without compromise (a word out of many politicians vocabulary) I don't feel there is a valid solution. Hazleton's efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of their city may be seen as heroic, but may also be seen as discriminatory. Maybe everyone should just be injected with their daily dose of soma and allowed to move on as pleased. Maybe this is all truly part of a conversion to a society like that described in A Brave New World, but maybe this is just another issue that will blow over in two years when we decide to hate a new president. When it comes down to it the question becomes should there be legal action taken in order to make sure "our" beloved language is preserved (notice quotations, I realize we don't have any way to claim English as the United State's language). In a young country formed primarily from many other countries combining, it is impossible to expect everyone to agree on one language. No one wants to give up their identity, and many cultures feel language is a large part of their identity. By converting to a single language policy, do we shut out possible immigrants? I have decided that shutting out immigration to this country is a bad idea, I mean unless you are Native American, you could likely trace back some sort of immigration in your blood in less then four generations. Personally I know my Great-grandparents on one side are all from Austria, and I don't think after four generations I can claim that America is my full heritage. The only claim I have to English is that I am the third generation in all of my blood raised purely on English, but still to my bloodline the English language is a new thing. However, I also have an Uncle who is an immigrant from Mexico. When I look at it I feel he is a role model for a feasible solution to this. He came into this country, speaks perfect English, took on a college education and has a high paying job now. The only way you could tell he has been a citizen for about twenty years is his accent. I really went off and about on this blog, but the more I try to gain a solid stance the more my wind walks in circles around the issue. The world has larger issues to deal with. My final solution is that we worry about peace first, and then in about a million years after that happens language can be talked about. It won't matter what language the label on the nuke is in when it destroys us all. Stop being ignorant America. Not everyone is white! Not everyone speaks English! Not everyone is you! Worry about yourself, make an effort to be moral, and don't waste your life in ignorance.

I suppose after writing all that and thinking about it I would have to say I agree with "Lingo Jingo" almost one hundred percent, kind of ironic after I originally thought I didn't like that one.

Simple, direct=Coco's style

Hello all--Sorry for the delay in posting, I've been busy with all sorts of junk, I'm home for the weekend and of course forgot my English notebook so now I can't remember what I'm supposed to be focusing on in this post, and the articles that I printed out are also not with me, but ho-hum, I think you'll get the point.
I've been reading some others, and again, it seems like I'm sort of off in my own little world when it comes to this topic--I think we referred to it as the "Colby view" or the "Colby perspective" or something to that effect. I so enjoyed the articles focusing on Mayor Barletta and the situation on Hazleton. His simple, direct quotes had a real impact on me as I stated in class. He's tough--he doesn't take any junk, or "beat around the bush." If there is a "huge problem" with illegal immigrants in Hazleton, or any town for that matter, I think the mayor and community should do whatever they feel is necessary to get rid of these problems, even if it means coming off as harsh and "Terminator-like--" (haha.)
I also was intrigued when the articles touched on the fact that Mayor Barletta seems to be focusing on Hispanic--Mexican--Latino immigrants, (whichever you prefer,) as opposed to immigrants on the whole, and that it seems racist, or that it will bring about racism. If this group of people seem to be the ones causing the trouble, though, why not target them? If it were any other foreigners--French, Chinese, German, whatever---I hope they'd get the same treatment---that they'd be the target. The "Lingo Jingo" article seemed a little long, drawn out--again, I suppose it goes back to my liking a more direct article--but I get the point--I need to look back over it, though--and I'll do that tomorrow when I return to KU, and add more to this post.
-Colby.

MONDAY NIGHT:
OK, I just looked over my notes--and I've been refreshed. We're supposed to look where we are aligning with the text--whether it brings about a "Yeah!" or "Uh...no."
So....again---the Hazleton articles--as soon as "Pa. City Puts Illegal Immigrants on Notice" introduces Barletta as a "...dapper 50 year old mayor..." I'm intrigued. I read on, I love it, etc etc. I love when they quote him as saying "This isn't racial..."illegal" and "legal" don't have a race." Brilliant! It all goes back to what I was commenting on above. "When the Melting Pot Boils Over" also goes into this in further detail.
"Lingo Jingo" addresses fans of "English Only," pointing out the flaws in that dream. Ho-hum, for I suppose it is a dream of mine---I ignored the fact that the article shoots it down, and instead really enjoyed quotes describing English as "...the vehicle of the thought that has been handed down from the men in whose breasts first burned the fire of freedom." GENIUS! LOVE IT! Also, Teddy Roosevelt's "We must...have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell Address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech...." etc. etc--FABULOUS! INSPIRING! I can identify with it. I am typing this at my desk--and on this desk I prominently display a flag I ripped out of the ground that KU was using to drum up enthusiasm for "Rock the Vote." I love America---I love the "Colby view--" George Washington and George Bush and apple pie and Coca-Cola and Henry Ford and Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio and English.

And Mayor Lou Barletta.

Hazleton, Immigration, Language...Take 2

Remember this as you read this...this is the second time I attempted to submit this tonight.

Being from Bloomsburg myself, I have been to Hazleton a lot during a year. I went home this weekend and drove by the Hazleton area. Most of the problems that are found in the city are found in West Hazleton, which coincidentally contains a highly concentrated Hispanic community. Mayor Barletta is not being biased towards the Hispanic population and his plans have some valid points. In his comments in both articles on Hazleton, Barletta says he wants to punish anyone who helps out illegal immigrants and make it harder for them to be in Hazleton. Well, I think that he was quite vague when he made the law, which has been passed. Making it so that doing anything for an illegal is very vague. If you sell a soda to an illegal immigrant, like we discussed about in class, wouldn't that be helping them out since you gave a service to them? Making English the official and only language of the city may help to a point but not necessarily. What if someone is here illegally but can speak perfect English? That really does not discourage him/her from being there. Barletta says that he is doing this to help protect those who voted him into office. I wonder if he found out that the people who have been victimized in his city have only been people who voted for him. That must have been one big landslide victory in his last election. The way that the mayor is handling this case in the most part is just wrong. Crime is not caused solely by illegal immigrants. If that were the case then I guess Los Angeles and New York is teeming with them. I will say this though...because they are illegal immigrants they are breaking the law and it is right of someone to deal with the problem. What Barletta doesn't realize is that the problem cannot be solved by brute force or a fancy law. It will be hard to find the illegal immigrants, no doubt about it. And now that I realized that this whole entry was supposed to be on the idea of language, I shall stop mid-thought and move onto that idea of language now.
English has been the major language of the United States since the days of the Quakers. Only recently has the threatening of the English language occurred. It is true that there are hundreds of languages out there in the world with many being tribal or native languages. The mainstream languages, English, French, Spanish, and Chinese are the most spoken languages in the world. Spanish is spoken in all of Latin America with the exception of Brazil (Portuguese). Their culture is distinct from that of the United States and the rest of Anglo-America. It is also true that the US is considered to be the "melting pot" (which I myself stated in class) or the "salad bowl". The American culture is a mixture of all cultures that have come to this area and settled here. Over time, English has become the majority language. In one of our articles, it was said that 9 million people in the United States spoke Spanish and knew no English. (*And now my wireless internet here cut out...just peachy*) There has been a push for Spanish to be considered one of the primary languages in the US. I know the government has to listen to those 9 million people, but they can't forget the minority group who don't speak Spanish as a first language (all 97% of the American population --291 million people--). I am waiting for the day where someone comes to the US and pushes for Klingon to be a primary language, then I am going on a Star Trek viewing binge and then move to Canada. Anyway, that's a long way off. I wrote some things about English and culture in my previous entry, so you can go and read that one (It's called "Pig Latin is not a culture") and Iway illstay aysay atthay igPay atinLay isway otnay away ulturecay utbay itway isway unfay otay itewray enwhay eoplepay on'tday owknay owhay otay eakspay orway eadray this weird pseudo-language.

We're All PEOPLE

Hello Everyone! I hope you all are feeling better than I am. I’m going to start by apologizing in case anything I say sounds mixed up and confused. I’ve been sick the past few days. I see it as an accomplishment that I was able to get out of my bed to type this.

It was mentioned in class to look at the readings we have been investigating and make special note of the language used in them. In the articles “When The Melting Pot Boils Over” by Sean Scully and “Pa. City Puts Illegal Immigrants on Notice” by Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia I noticed a few things in regards to the language used to frame the discussion about immigration. Several words stuck out to me: we, people, residents, them, and they.

For the most part these articles used we, people, and residents to talk about one group of people. Them and they were in regards to another group. Can you guess which words describe who? We, people, and residents described the American citizens who are residents of Hazleton (in particular it seemed to be regarding the whites). Them and they generally were words used to describe the illegal immigrants who were living in or trying to enter Hazleton.

The thing that upset me the most was in regards to the word people. Throughout both of these articles whenever the word people was said (except for one time) it was addressing the American citizens in Hazleton. One of these examples is said by Mayor Barletta, “I am just trying to stick up for the people here that elected me…” Another example made again by Mayor Barletta says, “It was draining the resources, the limited resources, to the point where I can no longer provide the public service that the legal, hardworking, tax-paying citizens should be getting… I certainly can’t tell these people here that the federal government is working on it.” In both of these cases, in just the way that people was said I can’t help but feel as if Barletta is giving the impression that only American citizens are people. It seems as if he is saying that illegal immigrants are not people, and that’s just wrong.

Hablo espanol. Does that make me unamerican? 2

When I first read these articles, they stirred up a lot of feelings for me. Looking back on my first post, I don't think that I adequately completed the assignment, that I was too caught up in my emotional analysis to really pay too much attention to the construction of the articles themselves.

I think one of the most important passages, if we are discussing language use and how it affects how someone reads something, is from the article "P.A. City Puts Illegal Immigration on Notice."
It is a quote said by Michael Hethmon. "If you are going to use the word 'illegal immigrant', you have to be very careful when you are defining that term that corresponds to federal immigration classification. You can't use terminology that mixes and matches illegal immigrants and legal immigrants." It is my opinion that in all the articles the "Americans" we are protecting are the typical white people.

I don't in any way feel that this is the intention of immigration regulations and restrictions, but in labeling particular races and ethnicities as "illegal" and the cause of all our troubles, there is no opportunity for distinction among those who are here illegally and those who aren't. I don't think anyone is going to look at a white male and say "Oh look, he's an illegal immigrant," but I believe the average person will look at a Hispanic or a Mexican and say that.

When I began to write this blog, I was looking for the "key words" such as we, Americans, those types of words. However, I realized as I was typing that although I am still straying from the topic of language and letting my emotions do the talking, I have become much more aware of how I'm using these words and what my reasons behind their use are.

Coco's FYI...

Coco is (as of Wed. evening) studying very hard for both the American Government and Theater tests she has on Thursday--so after those horrifying events are over, she will post on the articles--we already know she is crushing on the "dapper...50 year old" Mayor Barletta..but more on that later, and also--let's all hope Professor Mahoney is feeling better soon--he looked like a little boy, hair all messy and face all pink--he needs some soup and rest!
until next time.........

The Three Readings

Hopefully this will work because the last few times I've gone to post on here, it gave me crap. The issue of immigration does not interest me in the slightest, so my thoughts on the readings are going to be quite lack-luster.

Powell/Garcia "PA City Puts Illegal Immigrants on Notice"
I did not like how this one was written, so it was a little hard to stay focused on it. I thought it was interesting how the Barletta guy basically based all of his opinions and "profound observations" on a simple act of crime that just so happened to involve 4 illegals. It just seems like a bunch of bull to me.

Scully "When the Melting Pot Boils Over"
I liked the way this one was written and I thought it had much more detailed coverage of the Hazelton issues. I agree with the lawsuit that was being made, saying that dealing with illegals is a FEDERAL job, not a town's job, and that Barletta has overstepped his bounds. I found it interesting how within the town Barletta received 9,500 signs of support and only 230 of opposition. It was nice to hear a familiar name (Rick Santorum) in the article... when I read it I thought, "Hey, I know that guy!" and I didn't feel as lost.

Nunberg "Lingo Jingo"
This one was sooooo boring that I did not even bother to attempt to finish it. I also thought it was highly repetitive. I will agree though that I have noticed over time our nation's need for "English-only." America has been suppressing the language of minorites for ages now to create one major language. As much as I support speaking the language of the country you are living in, I also think that people should be able to speak their own language when appropriate. Suppressing language is suppressing culture. The one thing that I actually liked about this article was the tid bit about shady statistics. How the hell can 32 million Americans not be proficient at English when only 18 million immigrants have come in FIVE years??? That just seems wiggidy wack.

While skimming over these articles I did notice a few things. It seems to be a common misconception that when people speak a different language, they are illegals. This is not true! There are plenty of legal immigrants that speak different languages, and plenty of citizens. In the first 2 articles immigrants and crime seemed to be the main theme. Once again, egotistical Americans are assuming that foreigners are bad and are bringing the crime, because "we are better than that." Crime is always going to be there, whether it is committed by citizens or foreigners, so people should stop playing the blame game. And that's my two cents.

Living and Lingo in the US of A...

After reading all three articles, I was surprised to learn a lot about the debates relating to illegal immigration and English Only movements that are so prevalent in American society today. While I tend to look at the issue as something that is affecting the West or something that is isolated in Washington, learning more about the Hazleton case and others seems to make the issue hit home a lot harder than before.

Illegal Immigration, touched on in the two articles on Hazleton, is becoming a very hot debate in the US. While I agree with the fact that some efforts should be made to limit the flow of illegal immigrants in the United States, I think that some of the laws that have been passed in Hazleton are a little too extreme. While crime is being committed by a minority of the illegal immigrants in the city, al of them are being punished with laws that limit employment and housing for illegal immigrants find this to be an unfair solution to the problem, where less stringent laws may be more effective. These people are here illegally, but they should not be deprived of their ability to live here. Just like anyone else, they should be allowed to work and live in safety.

Native Language initiatives are another hot button issue in the US. I think that people who treat English as a “threatened” language are insane. As the “Lingo Jingo” article pointed out, statistics show that immigrants to the US are assimilating into the English speaking population faster than ever and are making more effort to do so. America is referred to as a melting pot of different cultures, and it is important that we respect and observe the traditions and language of other cultures that are part of our collective whole. Saying that a person cannot speak Spanish or Chinese in public is like saying that one cannot express themselves in other ways like wearing a green shirt. It is part of how we broadcast ourselves and should not be limited.

ok, the whole immigration thing.

Ok. Today's three articles were from eReserves, which I finally managed to work, and they were on the whole illegal immigration deal. The first two were about the Hazleton law and the other one was obviously a biased editorial in favor of multilingualism.

So, let's talk.

There's not much I can stress about the content of these articles that we haven't already discussed in class, especially 'Lingo Jingo' [which I didn't like at ALL].

My opinions on the articles are these: I agree with the Hazleton ordinances. Maybe I'm the only one who does, but whatever. I agree on certain conditions, though - I understand that maybe it's not because of illegal immigrants that their crime is going up, or that people feel threatened, or what have you. I think that the new laws are in general, a good idea. Call me selfish or what have you, but the way I see it is that while I work 50 hour weeks during the summer to make money to afford this college education, I pay a lot of damn taxes to the government. And sure, I get some of it back, but not all of it. What happens to what I don't get back? Some of it goes to government funded projects, like public assistance, etc. Keeping in mind that public assistance, in some cases [like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, which I think are good ideas] does not ask you if you are a legal citizen. I don't mind helping people who also used to pay taxes, because I think you should help and recieve help in return, but we get SQUAT back from these illegal immigrants. A good argument against this is, of course, 'but if we help them stay here, they can BECOME legal and THEN pay taxes!!!!!!11' A lot of these illegal immigrants do come from Mexico, because it's simply ten times easier to come to the grand ol' States illegally [you need a passport/visa to enter the country by any means other than jumping the border]. These people send the non-taxed money that they earned home, to Mexico, where it's worth like 200% more [not really, but you get my point].

In support of Barletta's argument that illegal immigrants bring more crime and drug traffic, most smuggled drugs and illicit substances are smuggled in via our neighbors to the south, Mexico. Because, like I just said, it's ten times easier to just jump the border rather than go through the hassle to be here legally, even if you're just here on a 30-day visa or whatever.

Someone on here, I forget who, mentioned that people are living out of fear of having to assimilate to another culture because they've been here so long. I remember during the last class having brought up how experience of not assimilating can cause that fear. I'm going to tell you all right now - to be threatened with violence, just because you don't speak another language, is something that most people will not and do not want to experience. What if you were targeted as a victim of violence, because you didn't speak a certain language? I know that that isn't really happening right now [some places it is, but those are crazy extremists], but with the support of claims that illegal immigrants are violent and bring more violence, who is to say that can't happen? This fear and want to not bring that kind of violence and uproar to this country is what's causing this legislation [obviously, way to state the obvious Jen]. I forget where I was taking this, but it was kind of important.. and I'm sure I'll remember later.

Anyway... woo, time to go discuss this in class!

I thought that the articles were an interesting read, and I still think it's interesting that we're debating political content in an English Composition class.

La la la la

The 3 readings were very interesting. I like reading along and either agreeing or totally disagreeing with what is presented.
Honestly living only 15 minutes away from Hazleton I was surprised by the two articles. There was so much I didnt know. Of course I knew about the uprise in illegal immigration but i never could have imagined what an uproar this issue was causing. Although I agree with the mayor in his effort to protect his community, the way he is going about it does not settle well with me. He seems to be isolating the hispanic community. There isnt any reason why documents cant be translated to spanish. As Ellie mentioned in class on Monday, English is a hard language and we should not subject these people to such cruelty. Its unjust. The two articles on Hazleton made me open my eyes and realize that this world isnt as simple as it used to be. So many things are changing. People have to realize that not everyone is going to be pleased when this issue is resolved. It will always remain a problem in the community.
Lingo Jingo was interesting to a point. It got very repetitive and it seemed like the article was biased. It only addressed one side of the arguement. It had great supporting statistics but it didn't really fit my idea of an outstanding reading.
The first two readings were awesome. I love reading about things that I notice and know a little about. I am so shocked by the present need to make English the only language. We need to open our eyes and greet new cultures to continue to make America a very unique environment. What is the world coming to???

I need to work on making creative titles

As I said in class I already have a pretty strong opinion when it comes to immigration and native language issues, so these articles really caught my attention. As far as the way they presented themselves, the two Hazleton articles seemed to be mostly unbiased because they presented facts supporting both sides. This is good because it helped demonstrate why it's such a big controversy. The Lingo Jingo essay was obviously biased but it was very persuasive and used facts to get its points across. As far as language and writing style I enjoyed all three articles although I thought the Lingo Jingo one was somewhat repetive and could have easily been a lot shorter and still have had the same if not more of an effect.
Now for the good stuff, the issue itself: what really angers me about many of the anti-illegal immigrant laws is that it discourages legal immigration. Now not all laws but many. The fact is people want to come to the United States for many reasons, we should be proud of that fact that people in other countries are somewhat envious and want what America has and stands for. But we'd rather shut people out. I agree if someone comes to this country they should speak English since it is our tradition. Our tradition is immigrants come over,work hard and eventually combine their old heritages to the new ones to make our American culture. By not allowing legal documents to be translated or not allowing driving tests to be taken in other languages is crazy. How can people move up socially and become assimilated if they can't read our laws or can't drive to work? I think that the laws in Hazleton will cause racist sentiment although I do think that it is unintentional. By forcing store owners to card people buying harmless products such as gum is ludicrous because it is a fact that only Hispanic people will be carded even legal ones. If people could just find ways to help facilitate change rather than fight it, things would work so much better.

The main point that I saw come up in all articles was that these laws are not made of hatred but rather fear. People see their own civil liberties are being hurt by illegal immigrants which is understandable. The people of Hazleton aren't racist against Hispanics they just don't want crime in their community and want the people to live their to share responsibilities i.e. pay taxes, etc. However this fear especially in combination with an election is overblown and people go overboard forgetting the original issues.
This has horrible grammar, and no formal conclusion but keep in mind that its 2 in the morning and when I'm passionate about an issue I could care less about where to put a period. Hope everyone had a good beginning week, it's half way over!

Edit: I realized that I didn't say to much about the language of the essays although that's what we were supposed to do so here goes. One thing that really stood out is that it seems that in all articles there was a "us versus them" attitude. People who were for their side and people against it. The mayor of the town refers to the illegal immigrants as them and says "they must leave."

PA, Pots and Lingo Jingo

The “PA City” article was the first article I read and already I can see what a controversial issue immigration has become. The law that has been passed seems very extreme to me. I agree that illegal immigration is wrong but I don’t think this is the right way to deal with it. Instead of forcing them out of cities we should perhaps focus on accepting them and integrating them into the particular society. This law is only going to cause more friction and distrust between the two cultures. It’s not solving the problem either. It’s just passing it on to another town.

The “Melting Pot” article was based on the same topic but I think gave a somewhat different viewpoint. This article to me seemed to focus on the more negative effects of the new ordinance. The one thing that seemed to stand out to me in this article was the statement that the town is unable to adapt to their changing demographics. I can understand this. People are generally opposed to change. I wouldn’t like to see the town I’ve grown up in suddenly change what seems like overnight. I would want to hang on to the image I have of it but again, I think this law is the wrong way to go about it.

The “Lingo Jingo” article was very informative on the topic of “English-only.” To me, I don’t think it should be one or the other. This country was founded on the basis of many cultures coming together and it should remain that way. We have more advantages with the many different perspectives available to us. Everyone should give up their convictions and be open to different cultures. If Spanish speaking people are willing to learn English, the English speaking people should be willing to learn Spanish. It’s a two way street.

Hazleton and Lingo Jingo

I read the two articles about Hazleton first. I enjoyed them - I generally like the way ideas are presented in a very factual way in newspaper articles. However, I think the mayor is a complete ass. While in theory this may be a good law, it will clearly only end up being discriminatory and racist. Also, declaring the official language to be English bothers me a lot. I don't think we should have an official language. I think we should be able to speak whatever and however we want. The president, after all, doesn't speak English. He speaks something like... out his ass. However, I do agree that illegal immigration isn't very good. It's not fair to all of us tax paying citizens (maybe we could get rid of taxes and the problem would be solved... haven't thought of that one have you?), but I'm not sure it's the entire problem in Hazleton. I think it's more likely that the people in Hazleton were unhappy with the recent increase of crime, and the mayor, in an effort to appear as though he was doing something to solve this problem, lashed out at the illegal immigrants. But is it really possible that they're entirely to blame? Will this new law actually do more good than bad? I'm not so sure...
As for the third piece, Lingo Jingo, I found it to be very interesting. I really enjoyed Geoffrey Nunberg’s writing style and many of the ideas that he presented. However, this article is a little out of date, having been printed in 1997 and it makes me wonder how the essay would be different if it were being written now.
Here's one point that I've been thinking about since our last class. One of the issues that was raised after Mahoney asked the question, "Why do we care?" was that people speaking other languages is a threat to us and to our culture. However, I want to ask, how can that possibly be seen as a threat? Culture, in my mind, is always changing. Certainly culture is largely related to old traditions that have been set into stone and will never change, but that is not entirely what it is. Our culture was not the same when our country was first founded as it is today. Why are we fighting the change now? Instead, why can't we embrace and adopt other cultures as new people immigrate to our nation?
Anyway, that was just one thing that I wanted to bring up. It makes sense to me, but probably no one else. I just don't think it's right for us to say that when you move to the United States you need to become American and speak English and all that. However, I definitely think that if there is an "English-only" law passed, it should be required that all Americans speak English correctly, since none of us do now. But I hope that never happens; we do live in "The Land of the Free" after all...

Pig Latin is not a culture

Okay, Passport Photos was an "ok" read but there were things there that really irked me. The idea that a passport is a story just didn't fly with me. If you would tell me that what's on my passport (which by the way I do not have one of) is a story for whoever looking at it about me, then I would say "hold on a second". What would stop me (besides the FBI/CIA) from putting false information on a passport. Would you consider that to be a fiction story? I would just consider that a sly attempt in getting into a country with hidden baggage. Along those lines, I get myself to the comment made by Jesse Jackson. He says that Mexicans (in general) are not aliens but migrant workers. I say that he is a justified idiot. If you are from any other country working here legally, then yes I would consider them to be a migrant worker but at the same time I would also consider them an alien. Alien by definition can mean "foreign". Mexicans are foreign-ers. What a crazy concept. Now if you are from another country and are working here illegally, then I would not consider them migrant workers, but more along the lines of illegal aliens or foreigners in the country by ways not recognized by the government. My final comment about this also has to do with Jesse Jackson. He says "ET was an alien" in defense of his comment on migrant workers. Well Rev. Jackson, I do believe that (once again) you are completely inept. Well duh ET was an alien but that is different from actual humans considered aliens. Foreign is foreign, whether you are from Canada or from some far away planet out there.
Now that I am done ranting about that, I shall talk about the other story, How to Tame a Wild Tounge. I liked this story because I got to read Spanish and understand it. 4 years of spanish in school was NOT going to go to waste...not on my watch. She talks about the Chicana language and trying to express her heritage. She also says about all the languages she speaks either because she had to or because she picked it up somewhere. Of course, 75 of the 80 minutes of class Monday was almost completely focused on the idea of language. One person went so far as to say that language is culture. Ummmm...no it's not. As mentioned in my title, pig latin is not a culture. I can speak pig latin but it doesn't mean that I am in a culture, it just means that I either have no life or am just that weird. English is not a culture, not in the slightest. English is used as the lingua franca (aka Principle language used to conduct business) in a majority of nations throughout the world. English is taught as a second language in a large number of countries. It has become the closest thing to a universal language that the world has ever had. If language was culture, then France has the same culture as the US (Well at least Louisiana's cajun country). If you go to Paris, you will find out that there are more people speaking English than there are speaking French. It is because they have adapted to use the English language.
I believe that the "Your in America, speak American" idea is stupid. Like it was said on Monday, there are rednecks in this country that push that and don't even speak good English themselves. Just look at George W. Bush. I am not going to explain that because it speaks for itself. I am going to say here exactly what I said Monday, if you are coming from another country to the United States, then you better have the decency to respect our culture enough to learn something about it. And the opposite also applies. If I want to move to Germany, I better learn German and maybe even Polish, French, or Austrian. Of course, I want those that come here to express their culture. I just don't want those to impede their culture on others to the point that it is almost forced.

To end, I am going to put something that is English-oriented because this guy does not know what he is talking about even though he should have. That and because I know some people will find it funny if they know what I am talking about. "The Internet is a series of tubes..." My work here is done.

If Immigrants were outlawed I wouldn't be here.

I can understand where the mayor is coming from when he says that he wants to make the streets of Hazleton safer, but I don't get how pushing english as the official language and being so harsh against illegal immigrants helps. He is acting like the only people who commit crimes are illegal immigrants and not the poor white trash or any other white person for that matter. It looks like a racial matter to me even though the mayor is claiming that it is not. The Latino/ Mexican population growth seems to be helping the city not hurting it.
The escalating crime rate isn't only located in Hazleton. Cities like Wilkes-Barre and surrounding towns are already down the crapper due to people from the bigger cities migrating farther and farther south. Illegal immigration is probably not the reason for the escalation in crime.
......................
Pretty much same arguments keep coming up in all three issues. English as the main language being compromised for another language, small towns adjusting to immigration of different cultures, and elections coming up so republicans are trying to appease their voters by acting on the push for banning illegal immigrants.

I say get over the language bit. It's only a language. English isn't going to die out. Letting your kids learn two languages atleast when growing up will help them. If other cultures are becoming more of a majority that makes your own culture even more special. You don't have to change your culture. Everyone should just be nice to everyone else and help. We should take it as a compliment that so many people want to move to the US and should help these immigrants by showing that we are as great a nation as they think we are.

Passports and languages

Passport Photos and How To Tame a Wild Tongue were both interesting reads. Passport photos gave a broader view on immigration into the US while How To.... focused more on the Mexican/Latino immigration into the US.
The English language is the most widely used language in the entire world. The US claims English as its own although technically the English language did originally come from England and before that from Germany. Relevant to the topics of language in both the readings, the US is experiences problems with the encrouching demand for the Spanish language due to the rise of Spanish speaking peoples in the US. Many people have varied views which can be both almost identical or completely opposite.
Who cares that Spanish is becoming equal to the English language? Every other country in the world learns English as a second language. I think that it would be a good idea if the US made Spanish like French is in Canada. Yeah English is considered the main language but really there can be too. WHy the big fuss with language anyway? Yes the US is a country by itself but its own identity is made of a mish-mash of so many different cultures, instead of assimilating cultures into the US let the cultures stand out and be recognized. Let these people be proud of their heritage and celebrate.
This would give the US a better image by allowing it to be the place where anyone can come and be themselves however they work for the US and are proud to be citizens.

some people like to piss all over the melting pot

alright alright, vulgar title on some level. but isnt it true? in reflection on the two readings i of course my first comment on the writing styles. i did NOT enjoy the first article as much as the second. nothing against the content i just couldnt stand the way the first author worded things. the second author used more personal references which helped with understand perspective.
as for the content: i have very mixed feelings about immigration. i love the concept of legal immigration. i think its amazing and very exciting to think about the fact that it is like a renewable cycle of life. the united states population began with immigration and the fact that it continues is lovely in my mind. but what right exactly do english speaking americans have to judge other people who do not speak english, or do not speak it well. in both of the readings, people were judged because they could not speak proper english and i believe in each example, the american pointing this out to them was very gramatically errored. the fact that "real americans" cannot speak proper english is not only sad but hypocritical. i believe that people are who they are and cannot change their roots, so why force them to feel as though their roots are unworthy? there is no logic or compassion behind saying that bilingual people should not be allowed to speak their native language in their own home. In my opinion it is important for people to learn english upon moving here simply so that they are able to communicate with those of us who do not also speak spanish or any other foreign language. but learning basic english does not mean eliminating your own and should not mean changing yourself for anything else. the concept of the melting pot was that america is a place for all people; there are so many difference races and ethnicities within each person living in the united states. i for example and part german, polish, italian, and swiss.
another thing that particularly bothered me was the fact that the signs and letters addressed to english speaking americans were not translated exactly for the spanish americans. that is just wrong. i was pissed when i read that because its downright obnoxious and in my opinion it is things like that, that give other countries in the world the impression that all american's are snobby self absorbed losers. that's all i have to say about that

Caffeine removes the filter between my fingers and my brain. (Mmm, brains.</zombie>)

"Passport Photos" would be another article that I'd say could be interesting, but isn't, except I'm not quite sure if it's actually not interesting me, or I'm just so caffinated that I need a really flashy article to keep up with me. (I, um, had a large Americano, which is amusingly appropriate, but um. I think it had three shots of espresso in it, and water, but still. Um, moving on from me and my coffee fixation now.)

Anyway, the idea of looking at the immigrant from all the different views possible is probably a good thing. However, it'll take a while to get there, since people just don't know. The different translations of signs shows how important that would be, though. The question of how to refer to these people is interesting also, with the whole "alien vs. migrant" thing--although that would just refer tp the illegal ones--and the isolation factor that they feel makes it even harder for them identify as anything, I'd think. Except, wow that article kinda went right over my head too, because lots of jumping around, and I'm already doing that, don't need the article to do it too.

...I really need to read that again sans coffee.

However! "How to Tame a Wild Tougue" was flashy enough yet coherent enough to get my interest. It probably helped that I've already read it a few times when I got the book and was flipping around in it. Language in general is just interesting to me, though it's more a hobby than anything.

So. Things I agreed with or found interesting. First off, the codeswitching. I have a weakness for that, probably because I do it too. Even though the language of my location is the same as my native language. Except, I write random notes to myself and think in a mess of English, French and Japanese sometimes, not any Spanish. I'm pretty sure that the Spanish aspect was an important part of the point though, and like Melissa, I'm almost certainly missing things, because I can't speak it, and can only read it based on it's proximity to French--but actually pretty well for that--and I have no idea what Chicano Spanish sounds like, even though she kinda explained it.

I want to know more about the Chicano history, though I don't know where to find it, and that's only related to this in it sparked my interest.

This reminds me of a book I used for my senior paper, in which I argued the validity of chatspeak--because, y'know, I could. It had a few articles about language being alive, and that really seems to be the focus here.

....

I'm going to wrap this up, because the "Ooooh, shiny" kicked in--not that it isn't my natural state, but more so--and I totally forgot what else I was going to type. Something about how different languages are better at different things, and how Japanese--and French, but less obviously--have words and constructs I wish to no end that English had, but yeah. Iunno how I was planning to tie that in.

(Yes, that's more or less how I think. Rambling for the win!)

Uh...... I hate Titles

Passport Photos and How to Tame a Wild Tongue were both interesting reads. I love reading stories which reflect experience. Stories like these help me to further understand what the author is presenting to his/her readers.
Passport Photos tells a story of how immigrants are completely marked by their passports in the US. In reality although their passport is of great importance it holds little to no understanding of the person in which is pictured on it. We should not judge a person by their passport. We should look deeper to find their true character.
How to Tame a Wild Tongue illustrates the importance of staying true to the person you are and embody. Just because many individuals dont understand your native language, it doesnt mean you should completely disown that tongue. Embrace your culture and let it shine through in your daily life. It is your duty to never let your heritage die off.'
All in all these readings were pretty awesome. Cool beans. The end....adios!!!

Passports and Tounges

I thought that the first of the readings, by Gloria Anzuldua, was kind of a dry sort of checklist as opposed to the other reading. The whole selection was cut up into small parts, which explained all of the different forms of Spanish dialect that can be found in the United States. Even though I did not like the style with which the piece was written, I do have to say that I thought that it was an enlightening examination of the Spanish language in the United States and does attempt to establish the idea of the United States as a melting pot rather than a collection of disparate cultures.

The other piece, written by Kumar, was a little more enjoyable to read simply because of the way that the reading flowed instead of being broken up into individual sections. I enjoyed the analogy used at the beginning of the reading explaining an immigration officer as a reader and the immigrants that they examine as books. The other thing that made this entire reading very interesting was the way that both sides of certain situations were examined instead of it being simply a one-sided piece. One example of this was how the writer spoke about sitting in a cafe drinking coffee and asking an employee for cream before realizing that the woman didn't speak English. Kumar pointed out that smiling at the woman might broadcast a message of kindness to the woman, while she may look at it as an unwelcome threat.

Differences

I thought the two stories went very well together. They both echoed the same theme. I think both speak volumes about diversity and how it can be a hindrance to acceptance in this country. The United States is a melting pot of cultures and I think it is a shame that peoples' backgrounds are looked down upon. We can learn so much from each other and instead we choose to make people conform to what we perceive to be acceptable.

I particularly enjoyed "How to Tame A Wild Tongue." I love the way that she made her story bilingual. It perfectly echoed the point she was trying to get across. I took Spanish in high school so I was able to follow along pretty well with what she was saying. For someone who knows no Spanish what so ever, this would be a pretty difficult read.

In "Passport Photos", I enjoyed that pictures were included. I felt that they were an asset to the reading as a whole. I think the article could've been a little shorter but it wasn't terribly drawn out either.

Were we supposed to post this??

Both “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” and “Passport Photos” were very interesting to read. Both stories relayed their message through the use of personal experience and stories. “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” really took the reader into the culture, however if the reader, like me, doesn’t’ understand Spanish, the text loses something in translation (that whole not being able to understand a few phrases that seems a tad crucial to the story). Someone that knows some basic Spanish would probably understand the story much better than I could. Although I don’t agree with a few of his ideas, he presents his point in a well thought-out way. I like how “Passport Photos” shows how impersonal passports really are in essence along with the whole process of coming to a country through customs. There is no respect for the story that each person has, only the very basic facts. There a lot of people that have very valid reasons for wanting to immigrate, but what reasons are good enough and who decides this?? Most parents want what’s best for their children, so is it right to deny them if that’s what best for their children?? This article shows one side of the story that’s often not shown.

Hablo espanol. Does that make me unamerican?

Although all three articles describe the same general type of concern, "Lingo Jingo" is much more objective, although still clearly biased, than the other two. I am very torn on this issue, for while I agree that in America one should speak English, I have no tolerance for people who expect others to learn one of the most difficult languages in the world overnight and are not prepared to assist them in any way.

The two articles which describe the decisions of the mayor of Hazlton both say basically the same thing. Although Barletta recognizes that his actions in supporting and promoting English-only legislation are going to inevitable become a racist action, but he feels that this is necessary in order to protect the legal residents from economic problems that the illegal ones bring.
The third is a more detailed analysis of the "lack of English speakers" in our country. Many people who promote the idea of English as the one and only language seem to me to be trying to negate some of what America was actually built on, which is that everyone is supposed to be welcome here, not just those who speak fluent English. Also, English is one of the most difficult languages to learn, especially for older generations. Not to mention that many of these people are not employed in well paying jobs, and most likely work a lot of long hours, making finding time to learn English difficult if not impossible. This is especially true when there is such a shortage of people who are willing to teach them. Until such a time that there are ways for people to learn English, there should be ways for them to communicate and for English speakers to communicate to them.

For all these setbacks and obstacles, there is a remarkable number of people of whom English is not their native language, that have learned to speak quite well. There is not, as many people believe, an unwillingness to learn. Many older generations of immigrants and non-English speakers want their children to learn English because really that is the only way to advance in this society, is knowledge of the language.

I think it is really a shame that in this day and age we still find it so difficult to tolerate differences in people and to work with them instead of outlawing them. This is not the way America should be run, with the rights of the constitution only applying to those who can read it.

Language is a barrier; language is a connector

What can I say about these two pieces? I really enjoyed this weekend's reading passages. I've always thought of language as another kind of art, which is why it's always appealed to me. Anyway, back to the readings. I kind of read them backwards because I couldn't find the first piece. I enjoyed Anzaldua's 'How To Tame A Wild Tongue' even though it was pretty long, especially when she makes the passages bilingual. Now, in no way am I proficient in Spanish - I'm a German minor, get real now - but the way she structured everything in her paragraphs made me feel like I understood what she was saying.

Amitava Kumar's 'Passport Photos' was an interesting take on illegal immigration. It was a new view that I can honestly say I've never read before, and although it didn't change my view on illegal immigration, it did broaden my views on some of the topics it covered. I think reading this article was pretty risky as an assignment, considering it's political values.

:) Can't wait to discuss these in class!

The English language, aliens, and tolerance.

I really enjoyed reading the first article, "Passport Photos". It read more like a story than an actualy essay, and perhaps this is one of the reasons I was so interested in it. Also, I thought it brought a few points to my attention, such as the word "alien" (E.T vs. Migreant Workers), the CAUTION sign in English that read as PROHIBITED in Spanish, and the quote from that Falling Down movie, where the character named Foster is unaware that " not only is it not his country alone, it is also not his language anymore". I also thought a lot about the striking black and white photographs. I felt sad looking at the one of the homeless people sleeping outside of the First House on Christmas Eve, perhaps because I am used to spending the winter holidays in a warm house with my family.

For some reason or another, I didn't enjoy the second article, "How To Tame A Wild Tounge", as much as the first, but I didn't hate it. The quote that stuck out most in my mind was at the very beginning- "Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?" I thought this was important because it has to deal with human rights: the right to their own language and culture. The next paragraph in the article, when the narrator was reprimanded for trying to show a teacher the pronounciation of his name, shows the sad truth of some Americans- "If you want to be American, speak 'American'." I think that kind of viewpoint is just terrible; no one should have to completley forget who they are or their culture when they are living in a different place.