Monday Matters #15

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-26/alabama-immigration-law-workers/52807466/1

In yet another column, this time on USA Today by New York attorney Raul Reyes, about the "strictest-in-the-nation" immigration law in Alabama, the harmful and unintentional consequences of the Alabama HB 56 law are displayed, but this time in greater detail. Reyes, however, notes that revising such a law is not going to solve the problem, only repealing it will. The entire state has been harmed because even though the immigrants are illegally--and thus against the will of the us--entering the country, without them "farmers face a crisis and U.S. workers haven't filled the gaps". Even illegal immigrant workers are essential to the country's wellbeing, especially when it comes to filling up agricultural and small business jobs; the businesses that are now suffering heavy financial losses or closing altogether because of the lack of workers that are now fleeing the state. The state's reputation is also harmed since it no longer looks like a "good place to do business" since corporate officials, such as that of Honda and Mercedes-Benz according to Reyes, are being ticketed and arrested because of license violations essentially set up by the new law. Immigrant kids are dropping out of schools and "Alabama's undocumented population [that] collectively paid $130 million" is now rapidly leaving the state.
Reyes suggests another alternative: make it easier for illegals to become citizens and aid the economy, but it seems a bit idealistic and flawed because if the US becomes overpopulated, the economy will do anything except getting better. This column raises an interesting point, however. Since illegal immigrants are this important to the US's wellbeing, legal immigrants--that being my potential essay forcus--might have an even greater influence and vitality, something that I intend to research more deeply.

Monday Matters #14

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-28.html
  In her column, Mrs. Schlafly presents a very open ended argument on the issuesof government spending revolving around legal and illegal immigrants. She notes how "today's low-wage immigrants and lower-wage illegals" simply don't earn enough because of their lack of American education to support themselves, and that "nearly half of immigrant households, 45 percent, are in or near poverty". This causes programs that support immigrants, who don't pay as great a sum in taxes, with taxpayer money from the rest of the coutry to arise. Such large-scale government spending is in part hurting the economy, but instead of taking solely one position, Schlafly argues that "walling immigrants off from government benefits once we've let them in is a fantasy" and that another solution must be found. Even though people "survived the Great Depression of the 1930s without a welfare state" and without social security and healthcare, such programs, she implies, are still essential and shouldn't be simply taken away, no matter how much they are damaging the economy. She leaves her argument open ended, offering each member of the audience to consider their own alternatives. Such a topic could be used for research that could be a continuation or a response to the argument, addressing such assumptions as that all immigrants earn low wages that she makes, or could focus on potential solutions, be it stricter immigration control, lower benefits for illegals, or educational reform that will allow immigrant children to earn higher wages in the future and not rest on the money of taxpayers.

Monday Matters #13

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-02/alabama-immigration-HB-56-religion-christians/51588034/1

In her column, Mallory McDuff, a professor at Warren Wilson College, notes that the recent HB 56 legislation in Alabama, an extremely strict anti-illegal immigration law that requires school to report possible illegal students and forbids the employment of, college education of, or property ownership or rent by illegal immigrants, only enlarges the state's record of shame. Even people raised in that state, she claims, "have a moral obligation to resist this legislation" as it is morally wrong and often results in racial profiling that would have been illegal otherwise. Her stance puts morality and faith in front of the problem of constant illegal immigration, and she implies that anti-illegal immigration, such as this one, can cross the line between national welfare and inhumanity. This is why the public has to resist and seek a more spiritual and moral path, so that such terrible things, such as "more than half the detainees [being] separated from family and children", with or without proper evidence and reason, at certain checkpoints, can be avoided, and the illegal immigration can be approached a different way. This kind of an issue is becoming more and more relevant today since in the past years, the country has actually not had enough effective anti-illegal immigration laws, and can be expanded into further research by monitoring issues with legal immigrants as well, an issue with personal meaning to me.

Monday Matters #12

From the three columns Steve Chapman has written lately on Obama's chances at re-election it is easy to discern that Chapman is not the type of person to pick sides. He presents the information on Obama objectively citing different resources such as members of congress, his Republican opposition, and political critics and gives it to the audience in a balanced manner, giving as much good information as bad. From the core, however, Chapman seems to support Obama because no matter which issues he addresses that seem to be prime reasons to mar his reputation, he still pulls out postivive elements from them, such as several economic reforms Obama pushed through as well as scrapping the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the army. However, being the realist that he is, Chapman notes that no matter how good of a person or a leader Obama really is, it is always hard to get reelected when the economy is at as bad a state as it is now, and with Obama's middle name changing slowly from 'Hussein' to 'Hoover', there is no better time to pull out of the presidential race than now. Chapman sees how overly critical society is of public figures in general and does his best to offer a moderate view by objectively analyzing the situation and offering a realistic way out.