|
“Immigration: Why everyone losing is the best for all of us.”
In recent years immigration has undoubtedly become nothing short of a hot button topic. Joining the ranks of things never to be discussed at a first date, a persons stance on immigration determines nothing short of the character of the speaker. Immigration holds this prestigious position because recently in America, immigration has been debated on all of the major talk shows and by the most recent political candidates. Everyone agrees that immigration must be addressed, yet no reasonable courses of action are ever taken. Is it because America and Mexico are on two different sides of the issue? Or could it be that the American populace is creating a type of ethnocentric 'us vs them (them being Mexicans)' mentality against boarder crossers.
A case can be made then, that the only acceptable and patriotic response to the immigration debate, would be this: Immigration does nothing but hurt hard working Americans. And lets not forget that they raise taxes by using health care, public facilities, school, roads, and of course- they 'tirrrkk err jerrrbbss' as South Park so eloquently stated. From the American point of view, everything is taken form a macro perspective, and monetary loss or gain is at the for front of what is most concerning. Most American opinion holders seem to have a very firm grasp of what goes on at the boarder. However this could not be farther form the truth.
The average American is content with reading only the news ticker, and taking everything the big news networks tell them as the one and only truth. However this is simply one point of view in the immigration game. Many American media stations forgo talking about some of the other players involved in immigration. It strikes this student that American news/media has created a rather obtuse public opinion of the boarder. No thought is given to the Mexican government, the type of people crossing the boarder, boarder patrol, or the human traffickers themselves.
The Devils Highway is a piece of prose written by Luis Alberto Urrea. It chronicles his experience at the boarder, and also chronicles the tragic tale of a doomed group of walkers trying to cross the Us / Mexican boarder. After reading this book one thing seemed to strike me almost immediately. Everyone loses in the end, yet they all have the most to gain. The Devils Highway highlights the grim reality of the boarder. The book opens up a new avenue of debate on immigration. In a universal cultural value the boarder patrol, and Urrea himself show that the proper perspective to take on immigration policy is the human perspective. The first and foremost concern of those on the boarder- is human life.
Not only does The Devils Highway tackle 'the big picture' on immigration, it goes above and beyond in describing the immigrants themselves. Contrary to popular belief, most of the immigrants are not from Mexico. Most hail from southern parts of south America, and small villages far from the reach of modern civilization. The length at which The Devils Highway could be discussed is far beyond the breadth and width of this essay. Instead the writer would like to try and convey some of the more stimulating ideas from Urrea's work. It is the goal to take these ideas and compare them to cultural ideas discussed in class, and to then apply these ideas to a situation presented in Urrea's book.
In Immigration: Why everyone losing is the best for all of us it is this students goal to try and dissect the following ideas. Immigration has become a situation in which all the participants lose. Weather it be a monetary loss, a loss of life, a loss of security- every player in this game barters something. And with this gamble each player receives a monetary gain, a new life, or more security. Each side wants what is best, but by doing what is best they are doing what it worst.
It is surprising to see how different the immigration debate is from different cultures. In America illegal immigration is considered a crime. The immigrants themselves are nothing more than criminals in our eyes. In Mexico and South America, illegal immigration is the only affordable way to a better life. The immigrants themselves are seen as heroes. The Devils Highway in particular highlights a scene of dead immigrants returning home to nothing short of a fanfare. This is a clear example of a strong dialectic. (Martin, Nakayama, 71)
Immigration in America is a profitable endeavor. The Devils Highway crunches the numbers for us, and according to The Arizona Republic the numbers look good, really good.
Mexican immigrants paid nearly $600 million in federal taxes and sales taxes in 2002... Mexican immigrants use about $250 million in social services such as medicaid and food stamps...another $31 million in uncompensated heath care... leaves a profit of $319 million.
The state of Arizona alone is looking at $300million dollars in revenue from immigrants. Whats more is, America is making even more of a killing. The UCLA released a twenty-first-century study that found undocumented immigrants contributed at least $300 billion per year to the American GDP. The simple fact of the matter is, immigration is good for the American pocket book. (Urrea, 217-219) Even with a monetary increase with each and every single immigrant that passes into our boarders, American people still seem to hold on to their strong nativistic sentiment.
The Devils Highway also exposes some of the ethical problems associated with Americas current immigration action plan. Universally it is generally considered that murder, and the loss of life is a bad thing. However this is put on the back burner in immigration topics. Little thought is given to the thought of life saving. “...An average of one person a day died somewhere on the boarder, trying to get those last few miles toward the big American lights.” (Urrea 215)
Somehow there is a cognitive dissonance between Washington and the boarder. Where the boarder patrol builds emergency towers, and Samaritans build water stations, Washington does nothing to help in funding. Whats worse is, some stations are destroyed, or poison poured into the water. Americans can't come to grips with the ethical imperative presented to them at the boarder. For years maquiladoras have been used by big business to generate a quick profit. American business interest are exploiting the demographic region of Mexico and the boarder. By creating jobs opportunity on the boarder they are almost begging for illegals to come across and work.
America needs to ask itself, what is more important? America has been standing at the precipice of an ethical and economic imperative. For years we have committed to neither, but have always swayed towards monetary gain. Currently America is doing what is best for it's interests. Exploiting the poor working demographic of Mexico / South America, in lieu of a more ethical approach. America should be building more aid stations, and desperately trying to stop the preventable loss of life. Ethically America is not prepared to take a stand for the lives of thousands, if it means millions in profits.
On the other side of the boarder Mexico is also coming to grips with boarder problems. Mexico is the is drowning in corruption and unemployment. In fact, as much as 28% of the Mexican law enforcement was found to have been involved in narco-corruption in 1998 alone. With Mexico's unemployment at a staggering 40% it's little wonder why many people decide to take the risk. (The New Republic, Murder Money and Mexico, Susan E Reed)
Once again we are presented with a decision. There is the ethical, and the economical imperative at stake. Mexico profits from allowing this illegal traffic across the boarder. Yet the majority of the power holders inside of Mexico are turning a blind eye to the consequences. With hundreds and hundreds of their countrymen meeting their end in the desert, is the money worth it? Apparently yes. The two most powerful forces involved in the boarder problems choose to do nothing to stop the killing spree. Only those working directly on the boarder seem to take any notice of human life. Urrea clearly states:
“... The two things that most unify the two sides are each one's deep distrust of it's own government...”
This is the most perfect example of communication and context. As shown in this case, communication from boarder officials on both sides, has no context inside of their respective governments. The same can be said about the political decisions made away from the boarder. As much as the U.S / Mexican governments would like to make policy for the boarder, most if it has no contextual value. (Martin, Nakayama, 113)
Now that the big players have been discussed, it's pertinent to talk about this issue from a micro perspective. Urrea goes into great detail talking about the coyotes. In particular a certain coyote by the name of Mendez a.k.a “Rooster”. Treated as the scape goat, Mendez is held responsible for the deaths of the doomed expedition. The boarder patrol places all of the blame on this man, and many people consider him to be completely heartless. However this student would like to ask: Why was Mendez a coyote in the first place?
From the context of the boarder patrol and everyone else Mendez was in the wrong. However from his moral context, was trying to earn more money such a bad thing? “I worked legitimately at a factory making roof tiles in Nogales, Sonora. The wages were truly very low, and that was my reason for getting involved in the smuggling business.” Taken straight from the devils mouth, the single reason Mendez joined was for money. If you were to put yourself in his context, would guiding people for money really be that morally wrong? (Urrea, 70)
Everyone wants to be able to live a good life, and to provide for their loved ones. With Mendez stuck in a dead end, low wage job can you really blame him for wanting a better life? If there were no other job opportunity, and working an honest days work wasn't enough- what would you do? Putting all of the blame on Mendez was simply a luxury that boarder patrol agents had. They are so removed from the poverty stricken reality that is Mexico, it's no wonder the boarder patrol agents look upon the coyotes with disdain. Once again we are presented with the fact that Mendez, doing what is best for himself is what is worst for all.
In conclusion the following can be said about the boarder. The first is: There is a strong dialectic in the way that immigrants are seen through the public eye in Mexico and the United States. The second: Discussing boarder politics is problematic because of communication and the context of that communication. The third: Placing blame on any single party is not morally or ethically responsible. In each case described above, every part is ethically right from their moral context.
By making decisions that benefit only themselves the boarder dispute will never cease. The only way that illegal immigration, the deaths, and the corruption will stop is if everyone begins to work together. If Mexico and America could create a common moral, geographical, and communication context illegal immigration would cease to exist. To do what is right for others, instead of what is right by you should be the true goal of talks concerning boarder policy. Until all involved parties are willing to put aside selfish greed, and gain a bit of selflessness the condition of the boarder will never improve.
Bibliography
Urrea, Luis. The Devil's Highway. 1st ed. 1. New York NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2004. 70-219. Print.
Martin, Judith, and Thomas Nakayama. Intercultural Communication in Context. 5th ed. 1. New York NY: McGraw Hill, 2009. Print.
Reed, Susan. "Money Murder and Mexico." New Republic 207 (1997): n. pag. Web. 29 Nov 2009.
White, Deborah. "Illegal Immigration Explained - Profits & Poverty, Social Security & Starvation." About.com. 16 Dec 2000. About.com, Web. 29 Nov 2009. <http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi.htm>.
 
|
17065 Posts
Just four references?
:/
Also: in all of the essays you post, there are some pretty horrific proofreading errors. Do you even proofread your essays? In your conclusion alone, you refer to a "boarder" dispute and have a misplaced comma.
EDIT: Just skimmed the entire paper. The "boarder" issue exists throughout. How can you write about something and misspell it for an entire essay in a term paper? Not to mention the fact that you use an about.com article as one of your sources and don't give the website you got the New Republic source from.
EDIT: Ok just read it again. Ignoring the numerous proofreading errors (including some pretty egregious grammar mistakes), the entire essay is pretty stilted and hackneyed. If this is for a term paper, I'd adopt a less conversational tone, come up with better metaphors, and use more academic sources. Check out jstor or other online databases for scholarly journal archives. Your school should have a subscription. Also you don't use parentheticals correctly.
|
Hah... the "boarder" thing struck me as weird... especially for a term paper. Hopefully this isn't the final copy.
|
lol jesus, i don't even want to think about the kind of comments i'd get from my professors if i turned a paper like that in.
"From the American point of view, everything is taken form a macro perspective"
sadly, academic english =/= TL english
|
lol well thanks for the tips, good thing this is only rough draft lol
|
is this for college or high school?
|
On December 09 2009 04:26 skronch wrote:
lol jesus, i don't even want to think about the kind of comments i'd get from my professors if i turned a paper like that in.
"From the American point of view, everything is taken form a macro perspective"
sadly, academic english =/= TL english
Do you know what macro means outside of the context of starcraft? It makes perfect sense...
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Every sociology and anthro professor I've had has loved the phrase "macro perspective"
|
8751 Posts
omg that would have been horrible if you submitted it with "boarder" throughout...
|
17065 Posts
On December 09 2009 05:20 heyoka wrote:
Every sociology and anthro professor I've had has loved the phrase "macro perspective"
I think they'd rather you use the word "macroscopic" <_<
|
On December 09 2009 05:19 TimmyMac wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 04:26 skronch wrote:
lol jesus, i don't even want to think about the kind of comments i'd get from my professors if i turned a paper like that in.
"From the American point of view, everything is taken form a macro perspective"
sadly, academic english =/= TL english
Do you know what macro means outside of the context of starcraft? It makes perfect sense...
On December 09 2009 05:28 Empyrean wrote:
I think they'd rather you use the word "macroscopic" <_<
that's what i meant. macro is a colloquialism for macroscopic, it doesn't have a place in academic papers
|
'monetary loss or gain is at the for front of what is most concerning'
forefront! But that sentence kinda of sucks, say something like monetary loss or gain is always the first priority or something to that extent.
For an academic paper, you always want to have a clear defined thesis up front, and you don't got that. If it wasn't for your title, all I know is that the paper is about immigration in some context.
'A case can be made then, that the only acceptable and patriotic response to the immigration debate, would be this: Immigration does nothing but hurt hard working Americans. And lets not forget that they raise taxes by using health care, public facilities, school, roads, and of course- they 'tirrrkk err jerrrbbss' as South Park so eloquently stated.'
You're probably a bit too snarky for an academic paper. if you wanna include southpark, mention how this american view was satirized on south park, dont drop the line that most people wont understand (but explain the gist of it)
'The average American is content with reading only the news ticker, and taking everything the big news networks tell them as the one and only truth. However this is simply one point of view in the immigration game. '
Youre off track there a bit, esp with the first sentence. kind of irrelevant
'Many American media stations forgo talking about some of the other players involved in immigration. It strikes this student that American news/media has created a rather obtuse public opinion of the boarder. No thought is given to the Mexican government, the type of people crossing the boarder, boarder patrol, or the human traffickers themselves.'
it's BORDER not boarder. SC!!!!
im typing these notes as im going, so it's jumbled, but basically what you seem to be arguing is that americans really dont give a shit about the other factors involved. you need to deliver that, even in some kind of abridged form, up in the first graph. You also need to take out the references to yourself 'this student' 'me' 'i' etc. let your words argue for you, it generally makes you sound more articulate
'and Urrea himself show that the proper perspective to take on immigration policy is the human perspective. The first and foremost concern of those on the boarder- is human life.'
Why? you want to deliver your logic/reason here, and not continue on the book. the book is your stepping stone, not the final pillar your argument rests on
'In Immigration: Why everyone losing is the best for all of us it is this students goal to try and dissect the following ideas. Immigration has become a situation in which all the participants lose. Weather it be a monetary loss, a loss of life, a loss of security- every player in this game barters something. And with this gamble each player receives a monetary gain, a new life, or more security. Each side wants what is best, but by doing what is best they are doing what it worst.'
Think of what an opponent would say. What do I lose by someone I never met dying in the desert? It's one less job taken, one less person sucking off us welfare programs, etc etc. Your inclusion of immigrants coming fro mother countries is also irrelevant to what youre arguing really.
+ Show Spoiler +It is surprising to see how different the immigration debate is from different cultures. In America illegal immigration is considered a crime. The immigrants themselves are nothing more than criminals in our eyes. In Mexico and South America, illegal immigration is the only affordable way to a better life.
The immigrants themselves are seen as heroes. The Devils Highway in particular highlights a scene of dead immigrants returning home to nothing short of a fanfare. This is a clear example of a strong dialectic. (Martin, Nakayama, 71)
Immigration in America is a profitable endeavor. The Devils Highway crunches the numbers for us, and according to The Arizona Republic the numbers look good, really good.
Mexican immigrants paid nearly $600 million in federal taxes and sales taxes in 2002... Mexican immigrants use about $250 million in social services such as medicaid and food stamps...another $31 million in uncompensated heath care... leaves a profit of $319 million.
The bolded is contradictory. They're still both criminals, regardless of what public perception is.
Bottom: Mexican immigrants (no note of illegal or not; they probably mean legal, tax paying ones). not everyone who is against illegal immigration has a problem with legal immigration. Plus, why are you posting figures when you were bitching a few graphs earlier that Americans just think aobut the money and nothing else? Lose this shit
'Universally it is generally considered that murder, and the loss of life is a bad thing. However this is put on the back burner in immigration topics.'
Someone dying on the way to illegally crossing the border isn't murder. that's like me wanting to go to florida but not having enough money for a ticket, so i swim and drown and you claim that I was murdered by American Airlines.
'Whats worse is, some stations are destroyed, or poison poured into the water. ' Hugeeee claim, either back it up or lose it
Your whole hting basically falls completely apart after this. There's a huge transition jump, it goes into shit you should have been talking about from the get go (ethical, humanitarian reasons for why america is bad) but you basically use some other guy's abstract, wtf coyote thing that really has no bearing on anything. It's worthless to the whole thing really, at least in the context youve presented it. Your conclusions are lame too. 1. is a big NO SHIT 2. how the hell can you say this, it's pretty much the only reason our politicians ever interact and 3. is the only thing that has any merit to it, but you havent done anything to support that. And it sure as shit isn't what i though i'd see at the end when i started reading.
even for a low level writing course, you'd get a very bad grade, even without the huge huge typos, grammatical errors and everythign else. The logic and train of thought pretty much fails all around
The only way this gets a passing grade—in high school or college—is if your teacher is a lazy idiot who grades based on word count or is sympathetic and feels bad that you actually spent time writing a ton of stuff that really amounts to nothning
|
I should post my term paper prior to submission and have every proof it for me too. BRILLIANT.
|
United States22883 Posts
What kind of class are you writing this for? I think the actual writing this 'paper' would have been destroyed in my high school English classes.
I'm studying global migration under an eminent immigration professor in Turkey, and I really don't know what to make of your essay. It doesn't really address anything, it just kind of drifts between different pieces of conjecture and doesn't give any detail for anything. Case in point, you begin the essay with "Everyone agrees that immigration must be addressed, yet no reasonable courses of action are ever taken" and end with a completely nondescript, inconsequential statement like "To do what is right for others, instead of what is right by you should be the true goal of talks concerning boarder policy." I'm glad you saw Lars and the Real Girl, but you just perpetrated your own complaint. And wasted a few pages of paper to do it. :/
I mean, even if the English were improved, the content is still extremely weak. Also, you should call it 'irregular migration', unless the books you're citing specifically use 'illegal'.
|
On December 09 2009 06:06 Jibba wrote:
And wasted a few pages of paper to do it. :/
He did post his draft here, not print it, so your precious trees are safe your dirty treeehuggggerrrrrrrrrrrrr. Now let us focus on what dem beaners be doin taken err jerbs
|
United States22883 Posts
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd expect that paper to be turned in by some of the students here. God this school is awful.
|
On December 09 2009 06:14 Jibba wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd expect that paper to be turned in by some of the students here. God this school is awful.
Every school in the world, no matter how prestigious, will have students who write like this. There are EE geniuses who write like 4th graders. It's unfortunate, but true.
|
On December 09 2009 06:14 Jibba wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd expect that paper to be turned in by some of the students here. God this school is awful.
Aren't you in Iran? Have you been skullfucked by a nightstick yet?!
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 09 2009 06:17 Ganfei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 06:14 Jibba wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd expect that paper to be turned in by some of the students here. God this school is awful. Every school in the world, no matter how prestigious, will have students who write like this. There are EE geniuses who write like 4th graders. It's unfortunate, but true.
No, it's a sizable number that would. At first I thought it was the language barrier (classes are entirely in English here), but they've started speaking up since midterms and I've realized that there's just a lot of spoiled idiots at this school. To be fair, the entire education system (including the professors) have a big part in molding them that way. Since being here, I've come to appreciate how excellent the universities in the US are.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 09 2009 06:26 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2009 06:14 Jibba wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I'd expect that paper to be turned in by some of the students here. God this school is awful. Aren't you in Iran? Have you been skullfucked by a nightstick yet?!
Turkey. Istanbul is basically like any other Western European city, except the beer here sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
