According to Sarah Buduson, a Phoenix reporter for KPHO news, "Federal employees are using social network websites to investigate immigration fraud among petitioners who want to gain citizenship through fake marriages" (2010). Buduson explains throughout the article how it is quite easy to become friends with strangers through social media, which ultimately allows for a great deal of personal information to be made public.
Although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson, Chris Bentley "denied the agency dupes green card applicants or others immigration petitioners into making connections on social network sites" (2010), it is an interesting concept to consider. It is also worth noting that at the end of the article, Buduson reports that a different U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesman, Matt Chandler said that they do in fact "look at public information on social networking websites to investigate green card applications" (2010).
As social media has become more popular, companies have found it to be a useful means of obtaining information about potential employees- information that they would otherwise have a hard time getting. It does seem like an invasion of privacy, but is it? It is your personal information, but you are also the one putting it out in the open, thus putting yourself into a potentially vulnerable position. When information about yourself is put onto social media sites, many people can learn quite a bit about you- often without your knowing.
Ultimately, I think it is pretty interesting that Federal employees may be using social media to determine whether a marriage is real or fake for immigration purposes, but question how reliable such information could be in a case in court. I also am torn on how I feel about the issue, on one hand, I think it is wrong to probe social network sites for such information in order to use it as basis for deciding whether someone ought to be granted or denied citizenship. On the other hand, I think that people should be more conscientious when publishing personal information online and should consider the audience that has access to such information.
http://www.kpho.com/news/25510617/detail.html
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
'DON'T VOTE'...One Step Forward or Two Steps Back??
http://www.latimes.com/la-ed-latinos-20101021,0,3011817.story?track=rss
- On October 21, 2010 an article was published regarding a new attack ad in Nevada's Senate race. The attack ad is one from the group Latinos for Reform, the ad essentially tells Latino voters not to vote. According to Peter Overby, "it accuses both parties of neglecting Latinos- but it dwells on Democrats. It says Democratic leaders including Harry Reid are taking Hispanic voters for granted. It says not voting is the only way to get Democrats to take them seriously" (2010).
The ad producer, Robert Deposada insists that the ad is not telling Latinos to sit out of elections, but rather to "boycott politicians who haven't lived up to their promises" (2010). Instead of the ad ending with this statement, 'Don't vote for those who betrayed you', it ended with 'Don't vote' because of time constraints. According to the director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Brent Wilkes, Deposada's argument does not hold. He argued that, "It's just not believable. I mean, the whole ad is about 'don't vote, stay home.' It's not only the words but the pictures they show" (2010).
I think that the 'Don't vote' ad is counteractive in getting the Latino voice heard. According to Leo Chavez, one feature of citizenship is being able to act within the political realm (2008, pp.13). If Latinos decide against voting, how can they truly expect their voices to be heard when they are neglecting one of their most essential rights of being a citizen. Brent Wilkes of LULAC also points out that Republicans and Democrats are not very likely to "pay much attention to Latinos if they're not voting" (2010). Overall, it seems that the group, Latinos for Reform failed to assess how negatively such an ad could impact their very cause- if Latinos fail to participate in the elections their voices could be easily overpowered by those that choose to vote.
I think that the 'Don't vote' ad is counteractive in getting the Latino voice heard. According to Leo Chavez, one feature of citizenship is being able to act within the political realm (2008, pp.13). If Latinos decide against voting, how can they truly expect their voices to be heard when they are neglecting one of their most essential rights of being a citizen. Brent Wilkes of LULAC also points out that Republicans and Democrats are not very likely to "pay much attention to Latinos if they're not voting" (2010). Overall, it seems that the group, Latinos for Reform failed to assess how negatively such an ad could impact their very cause- if Latinos fail to participate in the elections their voices could be easily overpowered by those that choose to vote.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Canadians and Europeans OK...
On October 20, Elise Foley wrote an article entitled, Florida Immigration Bill Allows Police to Skip Over Canadians, Europeans. The Florida bill mimics Arizona's SB 1070 which "require[s] police to check legal status on anyone they "reasonably" suspec[t] of being in the country illegally if the police have already stopped them" (2010). The Florida bill also requires similar actions by their police, but allows them to assume the status of Canadians along with that of people from Western Europe (if they have a passport from said country). It has been argued that the provision clearly allows police to legally target a specific minority.
Representative William Snyder drafted Florida's bill and said "the language was meant to avoid deterring tourism from Canada. "What we're doing there is trying to be sensitive to Canadians"" (2010). He goes on to describe the bill's language as 'comfort' language.
Through reading this article I find it difficult to fully understand, or agree with William Snyder's reasonings for allowing "Canadians and Western Europeans to be presumed to be legally in the United States (2010), while non-citizens from other countries must carry around papers. Ultimately, I think it is absurd for Florida to propose such a seemingly discriminatory bill. I do not think that they should be targeting specific populations, while clearly excluding others. I think that this bill could potentially deter tourism from people that are not from Canada or Western Europe simply because they are at greater risk. In the end, I simply disagree with the language of this bill and think it should be scrapped based on that alone.
http://washingtonindependent.com/101195/florida-immigration-bill-allows-police-to-skip-over-canadians-europeans
Representative William Snyder drafted Florida's bill and said "the language was meant to avoid deterring tourism from Canada. "What we're doing there is trying to be sensitive to Canadians"" (2010). He goes on to describe the bill's language as 'comfort' language.
Through reading this article I find it difficult to fully understand, or agree with William Snyder's reasonings for allowing "Canadians and Western Europeans to be presumed to be legally in the United States (2010), while non-citizens from other countries must carry around papers. Ultimately, I think it is absurd for Florida to propose such a seemingly discriminatory bill. I do not think that they should be targeting specific populations, while clearly excluding others. I think that this bill could potentially deter tourism from people that are not from Canada or Western Europe simply because they are at greater risk. In the end, I simply disagree with the language of this bill and think it should be scrapped based on that alone.
http://washingtonindependent.com/101195/florida-immigration-bill-allows-police-to-skip-over-canadians-europeans
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Germany and Immigration
Today I read an article about Germany (and much of Europe) and their increasingly anti-immigration disposition. Their Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Germany's "attempts to create a multicultural society have utterly failed" (2010). She went on to say that "new arrivals need to do more to integrate into German society" (2010). When I read this article I kept thinking about how familiar the arguments sounded; the arguments made by some Germans regarding immigrant groups (especially Turkish people and Muslims) to their country seem to parallel arguments that are made by some Americans regarding Latino immigration.
Americans frequently argue that Hispanic immigrants continue to fail at truly integrating into American society. People arguing this point often refer to language differences and argue further that Hispanics are either not learning English fast enough, or simply do not want to learn it at all. This argument clearly influences Angela Merkel when she speaks about immigrants in Germany. Through her speech she declared that "immigrants need to learn to speak German in order to do better in school and integrate" (2010).
Another argument that has sprouted in Germany regarding immigration is discussed in the book, Germany Does Away with Itself by Thilo Sarrazin. This book "argues that Muslim immigrants are sponging off welfare and undermining Germany's culture, economy and way of life" (2010). This argument has been used frequently through history regarding immigrants in America. For example, in an article entitled, "Immigrants Find no Need to Learn English", Sam Francis argues not only that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants are not integrating into American culture as earlier immigrant waves have, but they are also bringing in "quaint Third World customs [such as] child marriage, female genital mutilation, and alien religions that are little more than voodoo and black magic" (2008).
Further into the article a vice president with the Social Democrats, Manuela Schwesig "called Merkel's speech a shameless embrace of a Seehofer-style black-and-white debate about immigration, instead of really addressing the problems" (2010). Schwesig's statement made me think of a recent discussion that we had in class where we concluded that it is often policy that causes said 'problems', not the immigrants themselves as being argued by many Americans and Merkel.
It is worth pointing out the irony of Germany's immigration debate, while they are presenting anti-immigration views, they "desperately need more skilled workers" (2010). Through American history, times of economic boom have demanded more workers which have led to increased demand of immigrant labor, but this does not seem to be the case in Germany. "Germany still has some of the toughest immigration and citizenship laws in the European Union. Those regulations are hurting its fast-moving high-tech businesses" (2010).
In the end, it is evident that Germany and America often speak of their immigrants in a similar manner which indicates the need for policy change along with overall attitude change. Immigrants may feel German or American, but be viewed by many native-born Germans or Americans as immigrants invading their society. This view ultimately drives myths concerning immigrants, these myths that assume a great deal and more often than not, shed negative light on immigrants.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130649146&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Americans frequently argue that Hispanic immigrants continue to fail at truly integrating into American society. People arguing this point often refer to language differences and argue further that Hispanics are either not learning English fast enough, or simply do not want to learn it at all. This argument clearly influences Angela Merkel when she speaks about immigrants in Germany. Through her speech she declared that "immigrants need to learn to speak German in order to do better in school and integrate" (2010).
Another argument that has sprouted in Germany regarding immigration is discussed in the book, Germany Does Away with Itself by Thilo Sarrazin. This book "argues that Muslim immigrants are sponging off welfare and undermining Germany's culture, economy and way of life" (2010). This argument has been used frequently through history regarding immigrants in America. For example, in an article entitled, "Immigrants Find no Need to Learn English", Sam Francis argues not only that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants are not integrating into American culture as earlier immigrant waves have, but they are also bringing in "quaint Third World customs [such as] child marriage, female genital mutilation, and alien religions that are little more than voodoo and black magic" (2008).
Further into the article a vice president with the Social Democrats, Manuela Schwesig "called Merkel's speech a shameless embrace of a Seehofer-style black-and-white debate about immigration, instead of really addressing the problems" (2010). Schwesig's statement made me think of a recent discussion that we had in class where we concluded that it is often policy that causes said 'problems', not the immigrants themselves as being argued by many Americans and Merkel.
It is worth pointing out the irony of Germany's immigration debate, while they are presenting anti-immigration views, they "desperately need more skilled workers" (2010). Through American history, times of economic boom have demanded more workers which have led to increased demand of immigrant labor, but this does not seem to be the case in Germany. "Germany still has some of the toughest immigration and citizenship laws in the European Union. Those regulations are hurting its fast-moving high-tech businesses" (2010).
In the end, it is evident that Germany and America often speak of their immigrants in a similar manner which indicates the need for policy change along with overall attitude change. Immigrants may feel German or American, but be viewed by many native-born Germans or Americans as immigrants invading their society. This view ultimately drives myths concerning immigrants, these myths that assume a great deal and more often than not, shed negative light on immigrants.
Here is the link to the article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130649146&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Monday, October 11, 2010
Car Crash Brought Up Within Immigration Debate
http://www.environmentalprograms.net/guidance/eco-econ/#prof
On September first an article was published by USA Today entitled, "Fatal Crash Latest Flashpoint in Immigration Debate". The article discusses an illegal immigrant that is "charged with drunken driving in a crash that killed a nun and critically injured two others[, he] could face a felony murder charge in the case" (Gomez, 2010). The fact that the driver was an illegal immigrant led some groups of people to cite it "as an example of a failed policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the United States" (2010).
The article quoted spokesman Bob Dane from the Federation for American Immigration Reform stating that, "this guy would have been identified as being an illegal alien several violations and incarcerations ago, and he would be back in his home country. He wouldn't be driving without a license and killing people" (2010), if America's immigration policy were reformed.
When I read this I thought of the book, A Latino Threat by Leo Chavez and how Mexicans have come to be associated with the term illegal alien (2008, p.24). This statement is also a good example of how Latin American immigrants have been essentially "turned into statistical means" (Chavez, 2008, p.43). The statement made by Dane singles out immigration policy as the root cause of the fatalities caused by the crash- not the fact that the man was driving drunk. (Not to mention the fact that drunk driving is a prevalent problem across all nationalities, genders, and races)
The Benedictine Sisters of Virginia were quoted later in the article expressing "that they were "dismayed and saddened that [the] tragedy [had] been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal-immigration agenda"" (Gomez, 2010). The president of American Immigration Lawyers Association, David Leopold also stated that "[the] issue in this case [was] not that an undocumented driver was driving drunk. The issue is drunk driving, period. There is not a problem in this country with any particular ethnic group. It is a national problem from state to state" (2010). I think that both of these statements indicate positive movement away from such generalizations of Latin American immigrants that Leo Chavez discusses which Dane exemplified.
Overall, I think it is interesting and unfortunate that there are people such as Dane that continue to not only take isolated cases and generalize them across whole populations of people, but additionally continue to use the term illegal alien to define particular ethnic groups- namely Latin Americans. Although using such a term may seem minuscule in regards to its effect on society overall, its continuous use embeds the idea into people's minds where it is eventually internalized. When ideas like that of a person being an illegal alien to a particular country are internalized the virtual lives of the aliens overshadow their actual lives. This has clearly happened with regards to Mexican and other Latin American immigrants over the years.
"Once constructed in this way, Mexican and other Latin American immigrants and even United States- born Latinos, are ready to be represented as "space invaders"- as Nirmal Puwar has put it- whose reproduction both social and biological, threatens to destroy the nations identity" (Chavez, 2008, p.40).
On September first an article was published by USA Today entitled, "Fatal Crash Latest Flashpoint in Immigration Debate". The article discusses an illegal immigrant that is "charged with drunken driving in a crash that killed a nun and critically injured two others[, he] could face a felony murder charge in the case" (Gomez, 2010). The fact that the driver was an illegal immigrant led some groups of people to cite it "as an example of a failed policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the United States" (2010).
The article quoted spokesman Bob Dane from the Federation for American Immigration Reform stating that, "this guy would have been identified as being an illegal alien several violations and incarcerations ago, and he would be back in his home country. He wouldn't be driving without a license and killing people" (2010), if America's immigration policy were reformed.
When I read this I thought of the book, A Latino Threat by Leo Chavez and how Mexicans have come to be associated with the term illegal alien (2008, p.24). This statement is also a good example of how Latin American immigrants have been essentially "turned into statistical means" (Chavez, 2008, p.43). The statement made by Dane singles out immigration policy as the root cause of the fatalities caused by the crash- not the fact that the man was driving drunk. (Not to mention the fact that drunk driving is a prevalent problem across all nationalities, genders, and races)
The Benedictine Sisters of Virginia were quoted later in the article expressing "that they were "dismayed and saddened that [the] tragedy [had] been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal-immigration agenda"" (Gomez, 2010). The president of American Immigration Lawyers Association, David Leopold also stated that "[the] issue in this case [was] not that an undocumented driver was driving drunk. The issue is drunk driving, period. There is not a problem in this country with any particular ethnic group. It is a national problem from state to state" (2010). I think that both of these statements indicate positive movement away from such generalizations of Latin American immigrants that Leo Chavez discusses which Dane exemplified.
Overall, I think it is interesting and unfortunate that there are people such as Dane that continue to not only take isolated cases and generalize them across whole populations of people, but additionally continue to use the term illegal alien to define particular ethnic groups- namely Latin Americans. Although using such a term may seem minuscule in regards to its effect on society overall, its continuous use embeds the idea into people's minds where it is eventually internalized. When ideas like that of a person being an illegal alien to a particular country are internalized the virtual lives of the aliens overshadow their actual lives. This has clearly happened with regards to Mexican and other Latin American immigrants over the years.
"Once constructed in this way, Mexican and other Latin American immigrants and even United States- born Latinos, are ready to be represented as "space invaders"- as Nirmal Puwar has put it- whose reproduction both social and biological, threatens to destroy the nations identity" (Chavez, 2008, p.40).
Monday, October 4, 2010
Immigrants Vs. Natives Within the Workforce
The other day when I signed onto Vista I saw this article posted by Professor Nuno and thought it was very interesting and relevant to current immigration debate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092401774.html?nav=most_emailed
I think it is interesting when people complain about immigrants "taking" "our" jobs as it does not seem justified at all, this article does a great job of arguing that.
Last semester I took labor economics and found a research article that discussed what the Washington Post's article addressed along with points regarding the fact that natives actually benefit from immigration. The article entitled The Economic Benefits from Immigration was written by George J. Borjas. According to Borjas, natives mainly benefit from immigration "because of production complementarities between immigrant workers and other factors of production, and that these benefits are larger when immigrants are sufficiently "different" from the stock of native productive inputs" (1995, p.5). Borjas further explains that although benefits are relatively small, the "gains could be increased considerably if the United States pursued an immigration policy that attracted a more skilled immigrant flow" (1995, p.5). (Article is from The Journal of Economic Perspectives; Volume 9, Number 2, pp. 3-22). What Borjas means when he mentions production complementarities between immigrant workers and other factors of production is that they benefit each other and ultimately work to make the other more efficient- they do not work as substitutes- immigrant workers are not replacing native workers, but rather they are complementing them.
Both articles made me think of the movie entitled, "A Day Without a Mexican" which is a ultimately a comedy- but written to address very real points. It was filmed in 2004 and essentially explored the idea of what life in California would be like if all Latino workers refused to work for one day. NPR interviewed Yareli Arizmendi, an actress and co-writer of the film on May 1, 2006 as protests were being planned in effort to change the United States' policy on illegal immigrants. The article can be found at the following address; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5372878
I think it is interesting when people complain about immigrants "taking" "our" jobs as it does not seem justified at all, this article does a great job of arguing that.
Last semester I took labor economics and found a research article that discussed what the Washington Post's article addressed along with points regarding the fact that natives actually benefit from immigration. The article entitled The Economic Benefits from Immigration was written by George J. Borjas. According to Borjas, natives mainly benefit from immigration "because of production complementarities between immigrant workers and other factors of production, and that these benefits are larger when immigrants are sufficiently "different" from the stock of native productive inputs" (1995, p.5). Borjas further explains that although benefits are relatively small, the "gains could be increased considerably if the United States pursued an immigration policy that attracted a more skilled immigrant flow" (1995, p.5). (Article is from The Journal of Economic Perspectives; Volume 9, Number 2, pp. 3-22). What Borjas means when he mentions production complementarities between immigrant workers and other factors of production is that they benefit each other and ultimately work to make the other more efficient- they do not work as substitutes- immigrant workers are not replacing native workers, but rather they are complementing them.
Both articles made me think of the movie entitled, "A Day Without a Mexican" which is a ultimately a comedy- but written to address very real points. It was filmed in 2004 and essentially explored the idea of what life in California would be like if all Latino workers refused to work for one day. NPR interviewed Yareli Arizmendi, an actress and co-writer of the film on May 1, 2006 as protests were being planned in effort to change the United States' policy on illegal immigrants. The article can be found at the following address; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5372878
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)