In Romeo and Juliet, my least favorite character would have to be Juliet's cousin Tybalt. All the way through act 3 scene 1 when he dies, the only thing Tybalt does is express his unexplained hatred of the Montague family. It seems all Tybalt has done for anyone is incite conflict. He seems to be the only family member of the Capulets who dislike the Montagues. Even his death caused more hatred-- the rest of the Capulets against the Montegues. Tybalt had thought that all the fighting he provoke was justified, which I found really interesting. Because it clearly wasn't, it suggested that Tybalt was still childish and not fully mature.
In the opening of the play-- the fight scene-- the audience is exposed to the spitefulness of Tybalt.
In 1.1.71~73 Tybalt responds to Benvolio's offer to keep peace. " What, drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word/ As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee./ Have at thee coward!" Right away Juliet's cousin is portrayed as a cold-hearted character, claiming that he hates peace and the Montagues as much as he hates hell. Throughout all of the play that Tybalt takes part in, he never states why he has such disgust for the other family. So this makes me think that he picked fights out of jealousy or envy. And as an adult and respectable figure, I would imagine he would have other ways to cope with his feelings. But he reminds me of the stereotypical bully in the play yard, looking for another kid to punch. His fights seem very attention-oriented because there is no reason to have one. So he is full of jealousy, envy, and wants attention, just to name a few of his child-like characteristics.
At the party scene, when Romeo and Mercutio crash the celebration, it seems as though Tybalt is personally offended. "Now, by the stock and honor of my kin,/ To strike him dead I hold it not a sin." 1.5.66~67. Then Capulet replies, "Let him alone./ He bears him like a portly gentleman,/ And, to say truth, Verona brags of him," 1.5.74~76. Even with his Uncle telling him to calm down, he is reluctant. He says, "by the stock and honor of my kin," claiming that he would kill Romeo and it would not be a crime because it is for the honor of his family. But, Capulet doesn't seem to mind. It seems as though Tybalt is ignorant and is oblivious to the fact that he is the only one with such hatred. 1.5.102~103, Tybalt states, "I will withdraw, but this intrusion shall,/ Now seeming sweet, convert to a bitt'rest gall." This line built great annoyance in me when I read it. It doesn't have to turn into something bitter if Tybalt would just let it go! Why is it impossible for Tybalt to be the bigger person, and prevent an issue before it occurs?
Lastly, at his final fighting scene, he tries to invite Romeo to a duel. He declines, because he is already secretly married to Juliet, and states that he loves Tybalt more than he can understand. "Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries/ That thou hast done me. Therefore turn and draw." 3.1.67~68. Romeo responds " I do protest I never injured thee/ But love thee better than thou canst devise/ Till thou shalt know the reason of my love./ And so, good Capulet, which name I tender/ As dearly as mine own, be satisfied." 3.1.69~73. Here Romeo is saying that no, he hasn't done Tybalt any wrong, and he loves him and the Capulet name like his own. He wants Tybalt to be satisfied with his statements, and stop pressing him to fight. Yet, Tybalt doesn't stop. He kills Mercutio, and then after some more instigating-- he himself is killed. Tybalt needs self-control, and to think before he speaks. It was his words and actions that landed him dead.
Overall, I felt like Tybalt was not mature enough to face the truth and to let go of his random hatred. He tricked himself into thinking that he and he only knew what was right. Truthfully, without him, I don't think the story of Romeo and Juliet would be a tragedy. At most, Juliet had to marry Paris. Tybalt could not even present himself maturely. Instead he showed his ignorance, jealousy and desire for attention. But what do you guys think is responsible for Tybalt's actions?
Friday, March 15, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
What is love?
In the dictionary, love is defined as a feeling of strong affection and passion towards something or someone. But is it something more? Can it even be defined?
William Shakespeare portrays so many views of love through his characters in Romeo and Juliet, and they all in some aspects, are true. Some of the characters describe love as painful and gruesome, and others a light and airy feeling. The characters who's explanations stood out the most to me though, were Capulet's and Romeo's.
Capulet's point of view on love seems to alter throughout the story, but in the beginning he seems sincere. In act 1 scene 2, he and Paris discuss the marriage of Juliet. "My child is yet a stranger in the world. /She hath not seen the change of fourteen years. /Let two more summers wither in their pride /Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride." Although Capulet is still agreeing to the marriage proposal for Juliet, he seems to be considerate of the time she needs to grow and learn. When he says that his daughter is a stranger to the world and asks for two more years, he knows that Juliet will not enjoy marriage at this age. He seems to understand that her love for him will not come so soon. Because marrying in your teenage years was common during the time period this takes place in, I think that it is fair and even quite generous of the father. If Juliet has not discovered herself and the world around her, how is she to love and marry a man her parents found suiting for her?
Romeo seems quite desperate for love during his recovery of heartbreak. He describes it as a: "Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health, / Still-waking sleep that is not what it is! /This love feel I, that feel no love in this." Obviously in stress, Romeo experiences the pains and aches of love. He feels so much emotions towards Rosaline that it weighs him down. It gives him even more heaviness facing the fact that she can never return the same passion. Romeo's description, in my opinion, is relevant in every relationship. I don't think that a perfect way to love exists. There will always be difficulties. Times of doubt, confusion, or just longing. Love is not an ideal feeling but an overpowering emotion that can change who you are if you cannot understand it.
These are two very different views on love, yet I can understand them both very easily. Capulet's view suggests that time is needed for love, whereas we come to learn with Romeo that love makes an entrance in the most unexpected places and times. I guess that my view is that love can take years, or it can take minutes. Love is a matter of seeing the good in a person, not how good the person looks. Love is hard to be defined, especially because there are so many meanings. But what is love to you?
William Shakespeare portrays so many views of love through his characters in Romeo and Juliet, and they all in some aspects, are true. Some of the characters describe love as painful and gruesome, and others a light and airy feeling. The characters who's explanations stood out the most to me though, were Capulet's and Romeo's.
Capulet's point of view on love seems to alter throughout the story, but in the beginning he seems sincere. In act 1 scene 2, he and Paris discuss the marriage of Juliet. "My child is yet a stranger in the world. /She hath not seen the change of fourteen years. /Let two more summers wither in their pride /Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride." Although Capulet is still agreeing to the marriage proposal for Juliet, he seems to be considerate of the time she needs to grow and learn. When he says that his daughter is a stranger to the world and asks for two more years, he knows that Juliet will not enjoy marriage at this age. He seems to understand that her love for him will not come so soon. Because marrying in your teenage years was common during the time period this takes place in, I think that it is fair and even quite generous of the father. If Juliet has not discovered herself and the world around her, how is she to love and marry a man her parents found suiting for her?
Romeo seems quite desperate for love during his recovery of heartbreak. He describes it as a: "Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health, / Still-waking sleep that is not what it is! /This love feel I, that feel no love in this." Obviously in stress, Romeo experiences the pains and aches of love. He feels so much emotions towards Rosaline that it weighs him down. It gives him even more heaviness facing the fact that she can never return the same passion. Romeo's description, in my opinion, is relevant in every relationship. I don't think that a perfect way to love exists. There will always be difficulties. Times of doubt, confusion, or just longing. Love is not an ideal feeling but an overpowering emotion that can change who you are if you cannot understand it.
These are two very different views on love, yet I can understand them both very easily. Capulet's view suggests that time is needed for love, whereas we come to learn with Romeo that love makes an entrance in the most unexpected places and times. I guess that my view is that love can take years, or it can take minutes. Love is a matter of seeing the good in a person, not how good the person looks. Love is hard to be defined, especially because there are so many meanings. But what is love to you?
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Second Chance
The article "Crime and Punishment" by Patricia Smith discusses the controversy of one of the Supreme Court's new ruling. Teens who have been sentenced life without parole due to homicide or other vile acts, will be tried once more. Many scientists and researchers seem to agree with this ruling, due to findings on the growth and development in the brain of a teenager. But many others think that it is a dangerous mistake. Kent Scheidegger, a worker for the Criminal Legal Justice Foundation, says "There are some truly horrible crimes committed by 17-year-olds, and those crimes deserve life without parole." But the other side of the debate says that the mistakes made by kids do not always reflect the personality they will hold as adults.
The author wants the reader to feel that the ruling is fair. Smith does this by filling the article with facts to back up the argument. For example, psychology professor Laurence Steinberg states the "Ninety percent of teen offenders do not become adult criminals," which is why not all teen cases should be tried as adult ones. Patricia says that the crime rate in teens have gone decreased because those who have committed crime are in jail. This suggests that most teenagers do not commit crime as a daily activity. Most time spent behind bars is a result of small mistakes in their childhood. The author uses an example of Rebecca Falcon, who has been sentenced life without parole.When she was 15, she and her friend who owned a gun, got drunk one night and one or the other shot a taxi cab driver. Although it was unclear the actual events, Falcon is now 30 and still in jail. She wishes and is hopeful that she will be tried again. Smith states that a person's actions at 13 or 14 are a poor sign of the kind of adult he or she will become.
Could the cruelness and hate be of the same level, if a 14 year old murders someone, or a 30 year old murders someone? My point of view on the topic overall is quite mixed. It is clear that adults have to be independent and make their own decisions. But in class, we were discussing that sometimes, children have to make their own decisions too. And in very few cases do the parents allow their child to kill or commit crime. Teenagers always complain that they should be treated as adults, but when in court they beg not to be. Does this mean they should? Yes, kids make the mistake of doing drugs and drinking, but adults can make mistakes also. Why should a murder be let go opposed to another murder?
Then again, I feel like a crime done by a child may most likely be an act done by impulse. Have teenagers fully matured enough to realize the repercussion of their actions? If many struggle to think before they speak, how can one manage to think before they act? I believe that the court's ruling is fair, because they aren't suddenly letting thousands of prisoners free. They are allowing them the privilege of a second chance, to think over their cases from more than one point of view. Why should one mishap rule ones life? All in all, I thought the article was extremely informative, but I can't quite place a firm opinion.
Bibliography:
The author wants the reader to feel that the ruling is fair. Smith does this by filling the article with facts to back up the argument. For example, psychology professor Laurence Steinberg states the "Ninety percent of teen offenders do not become adult criminals," which is why not all teen cases should be tried as adult ones. Patricia says that the crime rate in teens have gone decreased because those who have committed crime are in jail. This suggests that most teenagers do not commit crime as a daily activity. Most time spent behind bars is a result of small mistakes in their childhood. The author uses an example of Rebecca Falcon, who has been sentenced life without parole.When she was 15, she and her friend who owned a gun, got drunk one night and one or the other shot a taxi cab driver. Although it was unclear the actual events, Falcon is now 30 and still in jail. She wishes and is hopeful that she will be tried again. Smith states that a person's actions at 13 or 14 are a poor sign of the kind of adult he or she will become.
Could the cruelness and hate be of the same level, if a 14 year old murders someone, or a 30 year old murders someone? My point of view on the topic overall is quite mixed. It is clear that adults have to be independent and make their own decisions. But in class, we were discussing that sometimes, children have to make their own decisions too. And in very few cases do the parents allow their child to kill or commit crime. Teenagers always complain that they should be treated as adults, but when in court they beg not to be. Does this mean they should? Yes, kids make the mistake of doing drugs and drinking, but adults can make mistakes also. Why should a murder be let go opposed to another murder?
Then again, I feel like a crime done by a child may most likely be an act done by impulse. Have teenagers fully matured enough to realize the repercussion of their actions? If many struggle to think before they speak, how can one manage to think before they act? I believe that the court's ruling is fair, because they aren't suddenly letting thousands of prisoners free. They are allowing them the privilege of a second chance, to think over their cases from more than one point of view. Why should one mishap rule ones life? All in all, I thought the article was extremely informative, but I can't quite place a firm opinion.
Bibliography:
- Smith, Patricia. "Crime and Punishment." New York Times Upfront 17 Sep. 2012: 8-11.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Ignorance Is Bliss
The Fault In Our Stars By John Green
"Mr. Martinez asked who among us had ever fantasized about living in the clouds, and everyone raised their hand. Then Mr. Martinez told us that up in the clouds the wind blew one hundred and fifty miles and hour and the temperature was thirty below zero and there was no oxygen and we'd all die within seconds... He specialized in the murder of dreams, Hazel Grace let me tell you. You think volcanoes are awesome? Tell that to the ten thousand screaming corpses at Pompeii. You still secretly believe that there is an element of magic to this world? It's all just soulless molecules bouncing against each other randomly. Do you worry about who will take care of you if your parents die? As well you should, because they will be worm food in the fullness of time." "Ignorance is bliss."
The protagonist of this book is Hazel Grace, a 16-year old girl currently living through cancer. Her dearest friend Augustus Waters is an amputee in remission. Way ahead of their years, they are both aware of the truth that is hidden beneath childhood hopes and beliefs. This particular rant given by Augustus Waters stuck out to me mainly because of Hazel's simple response.
In Augustus's little spiel, he recites with disgust his science teacher's explanations and probabilities of situations that all kids have dreamed about. Basically, his reasoning is straight forward, and with no sympathy he easily hits his students with hard facts. So when Hazel Grace says "Ignorance is bliss," she remembers the time of innocence, and being naive. Because she already knows that she will die of her illness, she wishes for a the feeling of not knowing what risks and dangers are. She wants the feeling of living carefree-- without the constant presence of death hanging right around the corner, ready to strike. So, in someways, being oblivious can be a privilege. There is a little less weight on your shoulders. There is hope for something good, in a situation where there is no clear answer.
When I was younger I used to believe in things likes Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and I always wished for the moment when I would become an adult because it seemed oh-so-fun. But one Christmas I woke too early, to find my parents wrapping gifts. When I lost my tooth I woke to my mother's hand underneath my pillow, sneaking a dollar bill. I started to notice the pattern of my dreams being rudely awakened by reality. While I still have a lot to discover, I'm old enough to know that adults have to work many hours a week. They have to pay bills and do their taxes. Adults don't get allowance for doing the dishes or taking out the garbage. When your adult you figure out your life and you know what is ahead of you, where as when you are a kid you can dream and wish. It gives us a motive, to try and succeed. But if we are exposed to the likeliness of maybe becoming a celebrity or a millionaire, then what is there to look forward too? How much confidence or trust would you have if you were told that the beliefs you grew up with were too good to be true?
"Mr. Martinez asked who among us had ever fantasized about living in the clouds, and everyone raised their hand. Then Mr. Martinez told us that up in the clouds the wind blew one hundred and fifty miles and hour and the temperature was thirty below zero and there was no oxygen and we'd all die within seconds... He specialized in the murder of dreams, Hazel Grace let me tell you. You think volcanoes are awesome? Tell that to the ten thousand screaming corpses at Pompeii. You still secretly believe that there is an element of magic to this world? It's all just soulless molecules bouncing against each other randomly. Do you worry about who will take care of you if your parents die? As well you should, because they will be worm food in the fullness of time." "Ignorance is bliss."
The protagonist of this book is Hazel Grace, a 16-year old girl currently living through cancer. Her dearest friend Augustus Waters is an amputee in remission. Way ahead of their years, they are both aware of the truth that is hidden beneath childhood hopes and beliefs. This particular rant given by Augustus Waters stuck out to me mainly because of Hazel's simple response.
In Augustus's little spiel, he recites with disgust his science teacher's explanations and probabilities of situations that all kids have dreamed about. Basically, his reasoning is straight forward, and with no sympathy he easily hits his students with hard facts. So when Hazel Grace says "Ignorance is bliss," she remembers the time of innocence, and being naive. Because she already knows that she will die of her illness, she wishes for a the feeling of not knowing what risks and dangers are. She wants the feeling of living carefree-- without the constant presence of death hanging right around the corner, ready to strike. So, in someways, being oblivious can be a privilege. There is a little less weight on your shoulders. There is hope for something good, in a situation where there is no clear answer.
When I was younger I used to believe in things likes Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and I always wished for the moment when I would become an adult because it seemed oh-so-fun. But one Christmas I woke too early, to find my parents wrapping gifts. When I lost my tooth I woke to my mother's hand underneath my pillow, sneaking a dollar bill. I started to notice the pattern of my dreams being rudely awakened by reality. While I still have a lot to discover, I'm old enough to know that adults have to work many hours a week. They have to pay bills and do their taxes. Adults don't get allowance for doing the dishes or taking out the garbage. When your adult you figure out your life and you know what is ahead of you, where as when you are a kid you can dream and wish. It gives us a motive, to try and succeed. But if we are exposed to the likeliness of maybe becoming a celebrity or a millionaire, then what is there to look forward too? How much confidence or trust would you have if you were told that the beliefs you grew up with were too good to be true?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Same Love
The song Same Love by Macklemore and Mary Lambert, produced by Ryan Lewis, advertises their support of gay marriage. The message of this song is that no religion or belief justifies the mistreatment of the certain group of gay people. They should have human rights just as any other, because they love like any other.
"The right-wing conservatives think it's a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion" Many religious people believe that one chooses to like another of the same sex, and fails to understand that that is the person they are. Many religions teach that being gay is a wrong doing, and it is a characteristic that can simply be taken away through treatment.
But being gay is not an illness.
"Live on and be your self, when I was at church they taught me something else. When the preach hate at service those words aren't anointed, and the holy water you soak in has been poisoned." Churches are strongly against gays as it, "goes against the bible," but by practicing this intolerance in church it preaches hate. It forces a predijuce on people who practice that faith. But when religions cannot accept all who wish to practice, then their services and holy water that bring one another together becomes of a lesser meaning.
"'Man that's gay' gets dropped on the daily, we've become so numb to what we are sayin'." Over the years the word gay has become a word of hate instead of what it truly is. It's a rude term yet society has turned it into an every day saying and thats why people who use it don't take into consideration its meaning.
When I first listened to this song a while ago, I was touched by the sincerity of his words. But at the same time I was hit with his powerful message. Our nation has achieved a lot of things, yet the one that is most important has not been fully accomplished. Human rights. While we are working on it, creating new laws and bills, I feel their will always be a hidden hate untill true acceptance is found.
This hatred is : "the same hatred that caused wars on religion... the same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins." So why isn't it as important?
"The right-wing conservatives think it's a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion" Many religious people believe that one chooses to like another of the same sex, and fails to understand that that is the person they are. Many religions teach that being gay is a wrong doing, and it is a characteristic that can simply be taken away through treatment.
But being gay is not an illness.
"Live on and be your self, when I was at church they taught me something else. When the preach hate at service those words aren't anointed, and the holy water you soak in has been poisoned." Churches are strongly against gays as it, "goes against the bible," but by practicing this intolerance in church it preaches hate. It forces a predijuce on people who practice that faith. But when religions cannot accept all who wish to practice, then their services and holy water that bring one another together becomes of a lesser meaning.
"'Man that's gay' gets dropped on the daily, we've become so numb to what we are sayin'." Over the years the word gay has become a word of hate instead of what it truly is. It's a rude term yet society has turned it into an every day saying and thats why people who use it don't take into consideration its meaning.
When I first listened to this song a while ago, I was touched by the sincerity of his words. But at the same time I was hit with his powerful message. Our nation has achieved a lot of things, yet the one that is most important has not been fully accomplished. Human rights. While we are working on it, creating new laws and bills, I feel their will always be a hidden hate untill true acceptance is found.
This hatred is : "the same hatred that caused wars on religion... the same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins." So why isn't it as important?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Bravest of Them All
~ I have just finished the book, The Book Thief by Markus Zusak and I strongly recommend this book to everyone!!! It provoked so many strong emotions, and I felt so much empathy for each character. It was beautifully written. ~
"You coward." spat Hans Junior to his very own father, and stomped out to vanish onto Himmel Street. Hans Huberman? Papa? A coward? For not being apart of the Nazi Party? For being against Hitler? Not in my opinion. No one there on Himmel Street was a coward. Every neighbor's bond created a friendship so strong it could overcome any beast. It is Junior who is the coward.
Hans Huberman is one of the most inspiring characters to me. Because in a world that was then ruled by fear, he still managed to do what was right.
He was a painter. He was a father. He was a friend. So when Hitler came into power, he didn't have the heart to deny a Jew from his services of simply painting an insult off of his store's window. Strike one. He hid a Jew named Max into his family's basement. He cared for and shared what little his poor family had. Strike two. During a march of Jewish prisoners through the town on Munich, he gave an old man bread. He received a public whipping, and was the drafted to battle in Russia.
What am I trying to say? Well, it is those who joined forces with Hitler who are beneath us. The men who became Nazis although convinced themselves it was a good cause, were just hiding from the wrath of Adolf and his followers. It was people like Hans Huberman who against all risks did not fall under the brain washing of the tyrant who were courageous. It was them who were brave. Hiding a Jew during the Holocaust was life-threatening. It was not a small task. Those who did were standing up to a whole army of soldiers; once-innocent men who were blinded with hate.
So no, those German soldiers, back in 1930, they were not brave.
Max was, for staying some what sane during the time period.
Leisel and Rudy were, for befriending Max, and knowing right from wrong.
And Hans Huberman, who most definitely, was not a coward.
"You coward." spat Hans Junior to his very own father, and stomped out to vanish onto Himmel Street. Hans Huberman? Papa? A coward? For not being apart of the Nazi Party? For being against Hitler? Not in my opinion. No one there on Himmel Street was a coward. Every neighbor's bond created a friendship so strong it could overcome any beast. It is Junior who is the coward.
Hans Huberman is one of the most inspiring characters to me. Because in a world that was then ruled by fear, he still managed to do what was right.
He was a painter. He was a father. He was a friend. So when Hitler came into power, he didn't have the heart to deny a Jew from his services of simply painting an insult off of his store's window. Strike one. He hid a Jew named Max into his family's basement. He cared for and shared what little his poor family had. Strike two. During a march of Jewish prisoners through the town on Munich, he gave an old man bread. He received a public whipping, and was the drafted to battle in Russia.
What am I trying to say? Well, it is those who joined forces with Hitler who are beneath us. The men who became Nazis although convinced themselves it was a good cause, were just hiding from the wrath of Adolf and his followers. It was people like Hans Huberman who against all risks did not fall under the brain washing of the tyrant who were courageous. It was them who were brave. Hiding a Jew during the Holocaust was life-threatening. It was not a small task. Those who did were standing up to a whole army of soldiers; once-innocent men who were blinded with hate.
So no, those German soldiers, back in 1930, they were not brave.
Max was, for staying some what sane during the time period.
Leisel and Rudy were, for befriending Max, and knowing right from wrong.
And Hans Huberman, who most definitely, was not a coward.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
A Modern Form of Racism
Illegal immigration has been a leading factor of discussion in politics since the 1700's. Many see unfairness in illegal immigrants taking their jobs, and maybe even being in higher ranking occupations. In order to fix this problem, states like Arizona have passed laws that allow police officers to randomly search anyone of whom they assume could be an illegal immigrant. There is much controversy on this law, however, because many see it as a racist act.
During the industrialization period, immigrants where mainly of Irish or Chinese descent. Later in the 1900's it was the Italians. Now in the twenty-first century, the majority of immigrants are from Mexico. So, while currently there are a lot of immigrants from other places besides Mexico, Hispanics as a whole are being targeted. New laws expect everyone to carry around their citizenship papers in the possibility that he or she might be questioned. Everyone meaning if you happen to "look" like an immigrant.
Based on the author's questioning on whether or not the government's way solving the issue will improve, she is not for the new immigration laws. She states that even from the very beginning of construction of America, most Americans were immigrants. While describing the conflict in Arizona she quotes people who are on either side in the debate."It's a law based on racism. I know a lot of people who are afraid of going out in the street. They just take their children to school and go right home. They feel like their safety is threatened." -- Gamboa, a U.S citizen, son of illegal immigrants. Gaheen is someone who feels very strongly against any illegal immigrant. The author, Patricia Smith, chose two very opposing opinions to show the severity of the issue at its most.
I can understand both point of views, for instance, being angered that someone who is illegally living in the U.S. got the job you wanted--needed. At the same time though, there must be other ways to solve the problem of illegal immigration. I agree completely when Gamboa says it is a law based on racism because it discriminates against Hispanics. I think that instead of deporting people who may or may not be an illegal immigrant, the government should just create a more structured way in preventing more from entering. There is no real ethical way of removing the immigrants who are already in the U.S., seeing that everyone deserves a better life and new beginning. Because there are over 11 million illegal immigrants already in America, I don't see the benefits in making it harder for people like them to succeed. Overall, any law that is passed needs to be fair to all the races and nationalities that make our nation.
Bibliography:
During the industrialization period, immigrants where mainly of Irish or Chinese descent. Later in the 1900's it was the Italians. Now in the twenty-first century, the majority of immigrants are from Mexico. So, while currently there are a lot of immigrants from other places besides Mexico, Hispanics as a whole are being targeted. New laws expect everyone to carry around their citizenship papers in the possibility that he or she might be questioned. Everyone meaning if you happen to "look" like an immigrant.
Based on the author's questioning on whether or not the government's way solving the issue will improve, she is not for the new immigration laws. She states that even from the very beginning of construction of America, most Americans were immigrants. While describing the conflict in Arizona she quotes people who are on either side in the debate."It's a law based on racism. I know a lot of people who are afraid of going out in the street. They just take their children to school and go right home. They feel like their safety is threatened." -- Gamboa, a U.S citizen, son of illegal immigrants. Gaheen is someone who feels very strongly against any illegal immigrant. The author, Patricia Smith, chose two very opposing opinions to show the severity of the issue at its most.
I can understand both point of views, for instance, being angered that someone who is illegally living in the U.S. got the job you wanted--needed. At the same time though, there must be other ways to solve the problem of illegal immigration. I agree completely when Gamboa says it is a law based on racism because it discriminates against Hispanics. I think that instead of deporting people who may or may not be an illegal immigrant, the government should just create a more structured way in preventing more from entering. There is no real ethical way of removing the immigrants who are already in the U.S., seeing that everyone deserves a better life and new beginning. Because there are over 11 million illegal immigrants already in America, I don't see the benefits in making it harder for people like them to succeed. Overall, any law that is passed needs to be fair to all the races and nationalities that make our nation.
Bibliography:
- Smith, Patricia. "The Great Immigration Debate." Upfront New York Times Magazine 6 Sep. 2010. 13 Jan. 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)