Thorton, James "Ati-Illegal Immigration Laws Would Benefit Society." Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Mary Williams. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 113-118. Print.
Preview this book
James Thorton believes that anti-illegal immigration laws would benefit society. “Providing public benefits to these illegals is extremely costly; Proposition 187 will allow legal residents and citizens to take control of their lives by diminishing the aliens’ averse impact on society and the economy.” He states the outrageous number of immigrants that enter California every day. He says that taxpayers of California paid $3.6 billion per year. Thorton believes they are a danger to the citizens in California because, “60 percent of homicides, and 80 percent of drug-related crimes are traced to illegals and foreigners.” In his opinion illegals are potentially harming voting results because, “Investigators are discovering that many non-citizens are registered and voting in American elections.” He stands behind Proposition 187 and believes it is the answer to America’s problems. “Proposition 187 represents a potential turning point for our beloved country and it is proof that a few determined, patriotic citizens can stand up to cowardly politicians an public official to change the course of history.” Thorton’s opinion backs up everything that Proposition 187 stands for and potentially prevents.
Even if the Proposition was set aside for being unconstitutional, it is important that Thorton writes about it. This important piece of forgotten legislation potentially has the power to arise again if the support is present. This article is highly opinionated and is loaded with lots of statistics that really help the readers for there own opinion. “Health care for illegals in Los Angeles alone, one of the areas most heavily impacted by the immigration invasion, cost $203.1 million in 1992 and continues to escalate extremely every year.” Personal one question that comes to mind after reading this article is, “Do I feel sorry for someone who commits so much crime in my home country and costs me so much?” Thorton’s purpose is to make his readers think just as I did when responding to his article. He writes, “The reality is that illegals have chosen to live outside the law, so in turn they should choose to live outside American luxury resources.” In the same sense, if they choose to live outside the law, aren’t they choosing to take a risk? Readers may relate this risk to the hazard immigrants face when choosing to cross the Arizona/Mexico desert.
Showing posts with label Anthology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthology. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
What Would Jesus Do?
Edwards, James R. "A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy." Debating Immigration. Ed. Carol M. Swain. Cambridge University Press, 2007. 46-62 Print.
Preview this book
In James Edward’s opinion, immigration is a problem. He believes there are principles in the Bible that are made clear about immigration and the principles should be used by Christians. He has translated the insights and commands of the Bible in order to better explain the purpose of civil government, and what the Bible says about immigration and a biblical immigration policy. Edward translates, “In addition to the duty to punish criminals, government has the duty to defend the nation against foreign invaders.” He makes it clear that while the Bible commands us to obey legitimately constituted authority, Scripture specifies no particular form of government as being favored by God. From researching and studying the Bible Edward has noticed that the Bible speaks more on how we should treat immigrants more then it does about some sort of immigration policy. Edward quotes from Leviticus, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. He must be treated as one of your native-born.” He also translates Philippians by explaining to us that God made the earth we are blessed to live on therefore we are all aliens and equal. Edward believes in the Bible and he accepts that immigration should not be ignored but the was we treat immigrants should be the way God intended. “Immigration policy has an important effect in shaping the future of our nation.”
Just as Edward is a firm believer In the Bible and Christianity, Daniel Millis is a follower of God. When Millis illegally placed water in the Arizona/Mexico desert he believed like any other Missionary, that he was doing the will of God. Millis was treating those immigrants with kindness, which according to Edward is in fact God’s will. What Millis may not of known is that God also wants us to follow the law of civil government. Edward writes, “Civil magistrates hold responsibility under God for the protection of the people whom God has placed authority.” He believes there are principles obvious in the Bible that Christians should follow. “I believe they are the principles that should guide all Christians in making public judgments, even if we do not always agree as to their application in specific cases.” What Edward is saying is very important because anyone who is a believer of Christ and is unsure of what political decisions to make, this is a great source. Religion is a factor in almost every political debate and Edwards makes a great argument for readers to think about.
Preview this book
In James Edward’s opinion, immigration is a problem. He believes there are principles in the Bible that are made clear about immigration and the principles should be used by Christians. He has translated the insights and commands of the Bible in order to better explain the purpose of civil government, and what the Bible says about immigration and a biblical immigration policy. Edward translates, “In addition to the duty to punish criminals, government has the duty to defend the nation against foreign invaders.” He makes it clear that while the Bible commands us to obey legitimately constituted authority, Scripture specifies no particular form of government as being favored by God. From researching and studying the Bible Edward has noticed that the Bible speaks more on how we should treat immigrants more then it does about some sort of immigration policy. Edward quotes from Leviticus, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. He must be treated as one of your native-born.” He also translates Philippians by explaining to us that God made the earth we are blessed to live on therefore we are all aliens and equal. Edward believes in the Bible and he accepts that immigration should not be ignored but the was we treat immigrants should be the way God intended. “Immigration policy has an important effect in shaping the future of our nation.”
Just as Edward is a firm believer In the Bible and Christianity, Daniel Millis is a follower of God. When Millis illegally placed water in the Arizona/Mexico desert he believed like any other Missionary, that he was doing the will of God. Millis was treating those immigrants with kindness, which according to Edward is in fact God’s will. What Millis may not of known is that God also wants us to follow the law of civil government. Edward writes, “Civil magistrates hold responsibility under God for the protection of the people whom God has placed authority.” He believes there are principles obvious in the Bible that Christians should follow. “I believe they are the principles that should guide all Christians in making public judgments, even if we do not always agree as to their application in specific cases.” What Edward is saying is very important because anyone who is a believer of Christ and is unsure of what political decisions to make, this is a great source. Religion is a factor in almost every political debate and Edwards makes a great argument for readers to think about.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
DO NOT ENTER!
Davis, Garrett "America Should Discourage Immigration (1849)." Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Mary Williams. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 25-31. Print.
Preview this book
In 1849 Garrett Davis delivered a speech promoting America to discourage immigration. In his opinion immigrants endanger America. “It is because the mighty tides of immigration, each succeeding one increasing in volume, bring to us not only different languages, opinions, customs, and principles, but hostile races, religions, and interests, and the traditionary prejudices of generations with a large amount of the turbulence, disorganizing theories, pauperism and demoralization of Europe in her redundant population thrown to us.” He admits that among masses of immigrants there are men of noble intellect and great moral worth, “but the number is lamentably small.” He states that there is no way to distinguish the noble from the vicious. Davis mentions a problem in the government with the German and Slavonic races and how they attempted to elect candidates of their own blood to congress. “This is the beginning of the conflict of races on a large scale.” Davis says he has anxiety for the future of America and that, “No well-informed and observant man can look abroad over this widespread and blessed country without feeling that way.”
Davis’ opinion is very important because his main concern is the safety of Americans. He has evidence that nationalism has become a threat to the government and his fear comes out in his writing. He also questions the nobility of the immigrants and their loyalty to the country. By purposing that immigration is a threat to American’s safety he challenges his audience to consider agreeing with his point of view in order to fix this so called problem. Davis stresses that immigration is and always will be a problem and as far as fixing it, “the sooner the better.” Davis writes very convincingly, “If they are more vicious, they will corrupt; if less industrious, they will promote idleness; if they have different ideas of government, they will contend; if the same, they will intrigue and interfere.” Davis’ fear of the future comes out in his writing, which can potentially strike fear in his readers. He makes a believable argument that is very enticing for readers that feel that immigrants possible pose a threat to the safety of American citizens.
Preview this book
In 1849 Garrett Davis delivered a speech promoting America to discourage immigration. In his opinion immigrants endanger America. “It is because the mighty tides of immigration, each succeeding one increasing in volume, bring to us not only different languages, opinions, customs, and principles, but hostile races, religions, and interests, and the traditionary prejudices of generations with a large amount of the turbulence, disorganizing theories, pauperism and demoralization of Europe in her redundant population thrown to us.” He admits that among masses of immigrants there are men of noble intellect and great moral worth, “but the number is lamentably small.” He states that there is no way to distinguish the noble from the vicious. Davis mentions a problem in the government with the German and Slavonic races and how they attempted to elect candidates of their own blood to congress. “This is the beginning of the conflict of races on a large scale.” Davis says he has anxiety for the future of America and that, “No well-informed and observant man can look abroad over this widespread and blessed country without feeling that way.”
Davis’ opinion is very important because his main concern is the safety of Americans. He has evidence that nationalism has become a threat to the government and his fear comes out in his writing. He also questions the nobility of the immigrants and their loyalty to the country. By purposing that immigration is a threat to American’s safety he challenges his audience to consider agreeing with his point of view in order to fix this so called problem. Davis stresses that immigration is and always will be a problem and as far as fixing it, “the sooner the better.” Davis writes very convincingly, “If they are more vicious, they will corrupt; if less industrious, they will promote idleness; if they have different ideas of government, they will contend; if the same, they will intrigue and interfere.” Davis’ fear of the future comes out in his writing, which can potentially strike fear in his readers. He makes a believable argument that is very enticing for readers that feel that immigrants possible pose a threat to the safety of American citizens.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Mayflower From Mexico
Nicholas Thomas L. "America Should Welcome Immigration (1845)." Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Mary Williams. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 17-24. Print.
Preview this book
In Thomas Nichols’ opinion, America should welcome immigration. He believes, “The right of man to emigrate from one country to another, is one which belongs to him by his own constitution and by every principle of justice.” He believes that immigrants have as much right as the first settlers in America because the settlers were technically immigrants themselves and without their pursuit we may not be the country we are today. “They came to improve their condition, to escape from oppression, to enjoy freedom, or similar, reasons as now prevail.” Nichols’ titles one section Let Them Come, and that itself states his opinion. He sees no harm in their presence admits that the worst thing that can be brought against any portion of our foreign population is that in many cases they are poor and will resort to the almshouse. Nickolas ends his viewpoint with this quote, “Alas! Shall the rich, for whom they have labored, the owners of the house they have helped to build, refuse to treat them as kindly as they would their horses when incapable of further toil? Can they grudge them shelter from the storm and a place where they may die in peace?”
The one thing that I believe is so plausible about Nicholas’ opinion is that he brings up immigration from the beginning of European settlers. He compares their impact then and their impact now. Immigration is what started America and Nicholas reminds his readers of that. He also mentions prejudice and how it is a big part of American’s opinion on immigrants. It is very important to recognize prejudice, and set it aside in order to make a fair opinion. When he writes, “Alas! Shall the rich, for whom they have labored, the owners of the house they have helped to build, refuse to treat them as kindly as they would their horses when incapable of further toil? Can they grudge them shelter from the storm and a place where they may die in peace?” the first thing that came to mind was Daniel Millis helping the thirsting immigrants survive the Arizona desert. Nicholas’ source has the potential to change opinions.
Preview this book
In Thomas Nichols’ opinion, America should welcome immigration. He believes, “The right of man to emigrate from one country to another, is one which belongs to him by his own constitution and by every principle of justice.” He believes that immigrants have as much right as the first settlers in America because the settlers were technically immigrants themselves and without their pursuit we may not be the country we are today. “They came to improve their condition, to escape from oppression, to enjoy freedom, or similar, reasons as now prevail.” Nichols’ titles one section Let Them Come, and that itself states his opinion. He sees no harm in their presence admits that the worst thing that can be brought against any portion of our foreign population is that in many cases they are poor and will resort to the almshouse. Nickolas ends his viewpoint with this quote, “Alas! Shall the rich, for whom they have labored, the owners of the house they have helped to build, refuse to treat them as kindly as they would their horses when incapable of further toil? Can they grudge them shelter from the storm and a place where they may die in peace?”
The one thing that I believe is so plausible about Nicholas’ opinion is that he brings up immigration from the beginning of European settlers. He compares their impact then and their impact now. Immigration is what started America and Nicholas reminds his readers of that. He also mentions prejudice and how it is a big part of American’s opinion on immigrants. It is very important to recognize prejudice, and set it aside in order to make a fair opinion. When he writes, “Alas! Shall the rich, for whom they have labored, the owners of the house they have helped to build, refuse to treat them as kindly as they would their horses when incapable of further toil? Can they grudge them shelter from the storm and a place where they may die in peace?” the first thing that came to mind was Daniel Millis helping the thirsting immigrants survive the Arizona desert. Nicholas’ source has the potential to change opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)