Journal Entry #3

Exploratory Journal #3

Lydia Birt

Mukherjee, Sahana, Ludwin E. Molina, and Glenn Adams. "National Identity And Immigration Policy: Concern For Legality Or Ethnocentric Exclusion?." Analyses Of Social Issues & Public Policy 12.1 (2012): 21-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

            My third source was written in 2012, which applies to more recent policies regarding immigration, specifically in Arizona. I was looking for a source like this because I was concerned with what the government was actively doing to enforce policies and promote security. This article discusses opposing views that say either that those who consider immigration to be based on culture (nationalism) would also say that enforcing policies would be considered racial profiling, or that those who think immigration is be based on law and order (patriotism) would say that the enforcement of policies would be purely constitutional. Those who insist racial profiling is a factor, or nationalists, argue that the government should punish people who employ illegal aliens as strictly as the illegal aliens themselves, and also argue that the government itself promotes a racial bias. Others, the patriots, argue that the upholding of America’s laws in our Constitution is the purpose of enforcing our immigration policies. Mukherjee and Adams question the government’s actions and explore the effects of said actions on the public impression of American identity.

            My first source, by Gerking and Mutti, was also talking about the double standard between those who break out laws to enter this country and find work and those who employ illegal aliens, thus breaking the law themselves. While our government is occupied with enforcing laws forcing immigrants to provide documentation, as stated by Mukherjee and Adams in my third source, it does not seem to be so active in punishing American citizens who break similar laws. Both my first and my third source agree that there is some controversy over this bias; however, Mukherjee and Adams argue that the government’s inaction towards equal punishment promotes a skewed view of American identity by denying human rights to immigrants and rewarding immunity to legal citizens. My second source, by Perry, was also concerned with the effect of the government’s policies and actions on American’s perception of immigration. Perry, Mukherjee, and Adams all argued that putting focus on an immigrant’s race or culture does not in any way benefit immigration, as it initiates a racial bias which leads to inequality.

            I find it very interesting that all three of the sources I have found that discuss our government’s policies on immigration all mention the double standard in punishment between employers and illegal employees. This definitely points to some contradictions in our policies, and makes me question the government’s motives behind enforcing or not enforcing said policies. What the American public currently sees, as shown by my third source, is that people of color should be treated differently in accordance with our Constitution. Some of my sources have pointed out many benefits of immigration to our country, mostly economic and social, but our government’s policies only reflect negativity. Not only are its punishments inconsistent, but the way in which they enforce their policies is damaging to the American opinion on immigration. I think that the government’s informing the public of their policies and actions is inadequate, but I also think that the reasoning behind their policies is unclear. In my third source, Mukherjee and Adams took statistics from citizens of Arizona and found that most voters encourage the enforcement of policies regarding stricter security. I think that if citizens were more aware of the benefits of immigration and were not informed from a perspective that is purely racial they would vote to reduce the enforcement of current policies. Perhaps the government shies away from informing the public because its intentions are not pure, and they intend to coerce the voters into believing immigrants are purely invasive.

            My next step in research will be to focus more on the public’s opinion on government policies and where they get their opinions from. My third source was surprising, because it showed that Arizona’s citizens were in support of current policies. I have a feeling that not all states have the same opinion- I will probably adjust the geography settings on the MU libraries database to see if states closer to the border are in agreement with the enforcement of policies and northern or coastal states do not share the same feelings. I also want to research how the government communicates its position to different states around the country, and if that effects voting in any way.