Second of all for that matter, I don’t think it has to do with just being black! White’s “cry” reverse-discrimination quite often in hopes of obtaining money from their employer, although they’re usually not as successful. Regardless, in my opinion the people who so openly speak out against affirmative action need to get some of their facts straight. The law exists and developed for a reason, one that not every Chuck, Larry, and Tom is capable of ascertaining the reasoning behind. Maybe at some point in the future they will.
Every day I take for granted my birth status. The fact that I am a white male born to an upper-middleclass family means that I have far more capability from the get-go relative to a vast majority of other people. Frankly I think in order for people to justifiably bash Affirmative Action, they should at the very least be capable of reflecting on their lack of “need” over something like affirmative action in our society. I’m not sure how many whites I’ve heard, Democrat and Republican alike speak with open vulgarity over the concept of Affirmative Action. The general consensus seems to be that blacks utilize the opportunity to “cry” racism in the work-place, and reap the rewards otherwise. To these white people I have two things to say. First of all, I get the impression that many white individuals in present day America are not very familiar with history. Sure they’ve read the textbooks and watch the history channel, but I feel that it’s very hard for most Americans to visualize the hundreds of years of racism that led up to justifying something like Affirmative Action.
Only after this lecture did I realize the crazy extent to which Nepotism plays a role in our lives. These several friends of my dad’s who I now know in the legal department of his company will very likely prove advantageous to me in the work force sometime in the future. Even so, I find it fascinating how I did not work for a legal company (although I suppose all companies are legal to some extent) I still managed to network in hopes of benefiting my future legal career.
When I was sixteen, I took a summer away from the camp I had grown up with to intern with my dad’s contracting firm. The work was relatively easy (using a couple of easily explained programs) and the pay was fantastic (12 dollars an hour). In addition to the extensive amount of bank I established over the course of that summer, I met several of my dad’s friends in the legal department of his company, several of which I continue to talk to on a friendly basis.
Personally I feel that your comment "if you don't belong in this country, you don't belong" is nothing if not ignorant. I don't advocate for illegal immigration, as it is illegal. If the federal government deems one illegal activity to no longer be an issue, than there is nothing stopping the other laws from being justifiably breeched as well. However, in recognizing the "wrongness" so to speak of illegal immigration, we must also recognize the reasoning behind which these people are coming to our country. I think a statement regarding "who belongs" in this country is borderline racist in that no one "belongs" or "doesn't belong" short of their legal status here. In my opinion, your statement gives off the impression that you are a spoiled American without the capability to acknowledge the lives that these people are leading prior to their immigration.
When we see a Hispanic individual walking down the street, too often is the association made to an illegal immigrant. This country is widely renowned for being a melting pot, a place where many different cultures and peoples are citizens together. Yet despite this fact, racist associations and generalizations dominate our daily thinking. We must recognize our racism for what it is, and do our best to cease from instantly categorizing people from their external features. It’s immature, undeveloped, and will lead us absolutely nowhere as a society.
Like Sam said in lecture, when most people think of immigration problems, they think of Mexicans. Immediately Mexicans are labeled as coming into our country unjustifiably and are attacked as a group for negatively affecting our lives as Americans. I feel that before we can fault Mexicans for what they have done to this country, we must observe several facts. First of all, recognize that North America houses the only border in the world of a Developed and Developing Country (First and Third World). There are worse places to live in this world than Mexico, but by no means does that mean the majority of the country EVEN pales in comparison to what the average American enjoys the luxury of. In recognizing this, I feel as though we move away from blaming the immigration issue on the Mexican people, and addressing the issue as a more generalized problem that cannot be directed to any one thing.
One must consider the ramifications for no longer holding illegal immigration to be a matter of illegality. What differentiates one law in this country from another? In my opinion, the only enforcement tool the federal government has of ensuring that its laws are followed is the precedent set by the other laws which are a part of its legal system. I feel that disrupting this balance would be fatal.
Immigration is undoubtedly an issue. I think one of the largest issues with this issue is that it is too often overlooked as an issue in the first place. When we acknowledge that something needs to be done about it, we are being proactive. Actually doing something is another issue entirely. It is a lot easier to identify what is not a potential solution than to identify what is. For example, I do not feel that condoning any form of illegal immigration is in any way even remotely a solution. Either some sort of legal ramification needs to take place upon illegal immigration being found, or what is currently illegal immigration must no longer be considered to be illegal. When the federal government begins overlooking any “law,” it completely defeats the abstract value of our legal system.
I find it interesting that you say "I don't think it is normal" in regards to "gays." What is normal? My understanding is that normalcy is a relative concept. Something else that I find intersting is that you proceed to say "who am I to judge" immediately after you verbalize homosexuality's supposed lack of "normalcy." This bothers me. If homosexuality is not something that is normal, then clearly it is something abnormal. I think that if you had pointed out how homosexuality was less common than, say, heterosexuality: and as a result of its uncommonness was abnormal: it would be something different. Yet "our physical make up is that way for a reason." I implore you to emphasize on this point.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Brainchild