Exploratory Journal #2
Lydia Birt
Perry, Leah. "Overlooking/Looking Over Neoliberal Immigration: Amnesty Policy In The 'Nation Of Immigrants'. "Cultural Studies 28.5/6 (2014): 84-868. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.
My second source is entitled Overlooking/Looking over NeoLiberal Immigration: Amnesty Policy in the ‘Nation of Immigrants’ and was written by Leah Perry. In her article, Perry discusses the amnesty program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, one of the first attempts at modern illegal immigration reform made by President Reagan. She argues that while the program of amnesty did offer some benefits to immigrants who were forgiven for their illegal entry into our country, it also punishes them for the same crime. Because of this contradiction in policy, she suggests that the passing of this Act did more to promote a neoliberal, or focused on the social good of all, society than it did to promote the wellbeing of illegal immigrants. She addresses two views on the Act, one that immigrants should be allowed amnesty because they possess ‘American’, hard-working attributes, and one that immigrants should be allowed amnesty because they offer an element of diversity. Perry argues that the second view, or putting a value on a person for their color, sent the wrong idea to the American public about immigration. While both of these views are important for the tolerance of immigration, Perry says that the amnesty program did not necessarily help immigrants as it should have, and the government’s policies on immigration need to be updated.
My second source is entitled Overlooking/Looking over NeoLiberal Immigration: Amnesty Policy in the ‘Nation of Immigrants’ and was written by Leah Perry. In her article, Perry discusses the amnesty program of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, one of the first attempts at modern illegal immigration reform made by President Reagan. She argues that while the program of amnesty did offer some benefits to immigrants who were forgiven for their illegal entry into our country, it also punishes them for the same crime. Because of this contradiction in policy, she suggests that the passing of this Act did more to promote a neoliberal, or focused on the social good of all, society than it did to promote the wellbeing of illegal immigrants. She addresses two views on the Act, one that immigrants should be allowed amnesty because they possess ‘American’, hard-working attributes, and one that immigrants should be allowed amnesty because they offer an element of diversity. Perry argues that the second view, or putting a value on a person for their color, sent the wrong idea to the American public about immigration. While both of these views are important for the tolerance of immigration, Perry says that the amnesty program did not necessarily help immigrants as it should have, and the government’s policies on immigration need to be updated.
My last sources, Gerking and Mutti, argued that a tax
given to employers of undocumented workers would be unproductive, as the labor
provided with illegals is cheap and the cost of production could only increase.
Perry agrees with this sentiment, as one section of the IRC Act imposed
sanctions on said employers, as well as increasing border security. While they
agree that the government’s current actions are inadequate in dealing with immigration,
Perry does not focus on economics, but rather the social detriments to the
government’s approach. Focusing on the fact that immigrants are diverse in race
and gender can also affect the American public’s opinion of immigration, and
therefore does not help in the assimilation of illegals. In reality, there are
many benefits to our society and government that immigrants offer, and Perry
argues that if our government can reward these benefits through an amnesty
program, they should not confuse the public with correlating punishments,
either legal or societal. Gerking and Mutti are also concerned with the public
opinion of immigration, but chose to analyze those who compete with illegals
for jobs rather than the effect on the immigrants themselves.
Perry’s article made me think about the power that the
government has in changing the public’s opinion. My first source talked about
the costs and benefits to the economic system that immigration offers, which
made me realize that the government would have a lot to gain from cheap labor
and increased production output. This made me wonder if there were other
benefits besides economic to our government that would persuade them to
legalize immigration. My second source discussed other useful additions to our
society that immigration brings, such as good ‘family values’ and diversity.
While these are good things, the government has the power to punish immigrants
in the same second as rewarding them for their help in our country and
contradicts itself in the eyes of the public. I said in my last journal that I
was curious about the solidarity of public opinion, and if the public would
come to one conclusion regarding immigration would action towards legalizing or
complete security finally occur. However, I am increasingly convinced that the
government needs to come to a conclusion first, as even its policies do not
agree. While the government is supposed to be more of a democracy, the second
article showed me that its actions influence public opinion, rather than the
other way around. Perhaps we can only reach a solidarity of public opinion if
the government reaches a solidarity of policy.
My next step in research will be to find a source that
discusses more current American policy. Then, I will try to find evidence of
the public’s current opinion towards the government’s policies. From there I
can research how much the public opinion affects the government’s actions, and
what specifically about the government’s policies is corrupting and influencing
public opinion. I am interested to know if the approach of highlighting
immigrants’ possession of American values or diversity is more appealing to
legal citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment