Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
So reads the poem by Emma Lazarus carved onto the Statue of Liberty. But how many Americans feel like that now? For a country built on immigration, a country stolen from its original inhabitants, Americans sure feel entitled to close our borders to any unfortunate souls looking to make a better life for themselves.
Immigration has been on debate for years in the US, effectively taking the publics mind off of other matters like Iraq. It’s something most Americans feel strongly about and not in a good way. Hate crimes against immigrates, especially those of Hispanic origin, are increasing in the US. Americans don’t want them here. But why?
The economy is in a downward spiral and jobs are difficult to find. Americans don’t want immigrants coming to take their jobs. But most Americans aren’t jumping out into the fields with migrant workers, or mowing lawns, or cleaning other people’s houses. Those aren’t the kinds of jobs most Americans are entitled to. Those are beneath them, at least that’s the feeling I get. Hence, those are the jobs that immigrants, many of them illegal, take when they get here. Without several of those jobs being done, the entire infrastructure of the US economy would fall apart.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but getting into this country is very hard. I have Japanese friends who are extraordinarily productive members of society, yet they can’t become US citizens. If the government makes it that hard for a country that they are supposed to like, how hard is it for those from a country the government is at war with or don’t like?
Another problem is that most American’s seem offended that they might actually have to learn a language besides English or learn about other cultures. Last time I checked, there was no official language in America and, this country was built on a collection of cultures, a melting pot, if you will. This society is supposed to be made up of many, coming together and trying to make our lives better, together. And in this case, anti-immigration is just plain anti-American.
There are many, many illegal immigrants in the United States country, but there are also many, many more legal immigrants. It seems to me that the public needs to be more careful in their generalized portrayals of those who come to this country because the children are simply learning a new form of hatred and bigotry. It is one thing to instill in them right and wrong being here illegally is wrong and those people need to go back home until they follow the proper procedures for coming to this country, while there are those who are here legally and should not be viewed as bad or evil it is entirely different to teach them that everyone who is different is bad because they "Probably" are illegal.

Multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. In this sense multiculturalism approximates to respect for diversity.
In a political context it has come to mean the advocacy of extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specificethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central. Multiculturalism as "cultural mosaic" is often contrasted with the concepts assimilationism and social integration and has been described as a "salad bowl" rather than a "melting pot

In the United States, multiculturalism is not clearly established in policy at the federal level. Instead, it has been an issue primarily through the school system, with the rise of ethnic studies programs in higher education and with attempts to make the grade school curricula more inclusive of the history and contributions of non-white peoples. It has also become an issue for businesses as they address how to meet the needs of a workforce that is increasingly more diverse but not that does not always understand the differences that occur between cultures

In the United States, continuous mass immigration had been a feature of economy and society since the first half of the 19th century.The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of America's national myth. The idea of the Melting pot is a metaphor that implies that all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. The Melting Pot implied that each individual immigrant, and each group of immigrants, assimilated into American society at their own pace which, as defined above, is not multiculturalism as this is opposed to assimilation and integration. An Americanized (and often stereotypical) version of the original nation's cuisine, and its holidays, survived. The Melting Pot tradition co-exists with a belief in national unity, dating from the American founding fathers

The educational approach to multiculturalism has since spread to the grade school system, as school systems try to rework their curricula to introduce students to diversity earlier—often on the grounds that it is important for minority students to see themselves represented in the classroom. For instance, history classes can spend more time making students aware of the presence and struggles of ethnic minorities, and literature classes can assign texts by ethnic minority authors. Controversy still erupts over these issues: there are debates every year about the appropriateness of school Christmas concerts for student bodies who may have significant numbers of non-Christian student; there are also debates over how to make discussions of Thanksgiving more inclusive of the contributions of Native American tribes to the early English settlements. In 2009 and 2010, controversy erupted in Texas as the state's curriculum committee made several changes to the state's requirements, often at the expense of minorities. For instance, they chose to juxtapose Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address with that of Confederate president Jefferson Davis; they debated removing Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and labor-leader César Chávez and rejected calls to include more Latina/o figures, in spite of the high Latino population in the state

As the job market continues to grow more and more competitive, studies show that foreign language fluency is a great way to distinguish you from your competition. The Modern Language Association surveyed American businesses and found that many companies give preference to candidates with foreign language skills when hiring new management personnel, provided that other business experience and abilities are equal. And if you want to work within the government, around 80 federal agencies rely on professionals with intermediate- to high-level competence in foreign languages.

More and more businesses work closely with companies in other countries. They need many different kinds of workers who can communicate in different languages and understand other cultures. No matter what career you choose, if you’ve learned a second language, you’ll have a real advantage. A technician who knows Russian or German, the head of a company who knows Japanese or Spanish, or a salesperson who knows French or Chinese can work successfully with many more people and in many more places than someone who knows only one language.

Surprisingly, language learners improve their reading, writing, listening and speaking skills in English as well as their new language. Overall communication skills improve, and that is a boon to any potential employer. For the business owner or entrepreneur, it is even more important for you to maximize your ability to communicate with employees, clients or potential business contacts. There are many industries in which adding a foreign language would immediately be useful. Tourism, hotels and restaurants, advertising, marketing, military and defense, security, communications and journalism, just to name a few. Being able to communicate with customers, clients and contacts in their own language, even just to put them at ease and make them more comfortable with you and your business is clearly a great asset. Knowledge of a foreign language can make you more valuable to your company, giving you a better chance of a promotion or a raise. You may also improve your potential for reassignment or relocation, and therefore also an increase in pay. Obviously, learning a second language could get you a possible assignment in another country. The potential experience you could gain could lead to a whole new plateau in your career, or a new career opportunity altogether. The current climate of globalization is most likely here to stay. Mergers and acquisitions are internationalizing more and more businesses. Multinational businesses, global corporations, conglomerates and joint ventures are increasingly common. This means that learning another language is essential if you are going to be involved in any international business. It’s the only way to maintain a competitive advantage.Many businesses will contribute to or pay for an employees training or education. Foreign language is one of the few skills that can be learned a variety of ways including formal classroom study, tutors, language schools and even self-study. It’s one of the few skills you can gain on your own and affordably.

First of all there is the problem of lack of racial diversity in Centre County itself. As a result the lack of positive or reinforcing exposure unfortunately promotes negative stereotypes, which creates a cycle of negative racial attitudes when contact is not positive. This state of affairs is most unfortunate in the 21st century and has been evident even on Penn State’s campus as well. Currently, there are about 5,000 students of color out of a population of approximately 41,000 students at Penn State’s University Park campus.
To address the lack of diversity that is seen around campus, i believe that offering more culturally diverse events to the general public in penn state will facilitate people of all races to be interested in the minorities on campus which does not increase the diversity but it gives a sense of awareness which is the most we can do as students. In essence, we as students want to promote and increase a more welcoming atmosphere and inclusive racial attitude in the community and on campus.

It’s important to keep in mind that State College is surrounded by rural areas with an even less diverse population so there is no hiding the fact that white, middle-class students make up a large portion of the student body at Penn State. A large number of students come from surrounding suburban areas. Penn State, and some central, rural parts of Pennsylvania in general, definitely have diversity issues. Believe it or not, it is not unusual to see an occasional Confederate flag in these parts, despite being well north of the Mason Dixon line. Penn State in particular has been struggling with various racial incidents over the past decade. It is working on improving things, and has made progress, but it still has continued to struggle to attract underrepresented minorities.

The American university will change dramatically during the next 50 years. Distance learning will become a reality and quite common in the form of virtual universities already flexing their wings. International study will be common on most campuses, as will exchanges between faculty and students on a broader scale. Campuses will see great changes as the lines between technology and education blur. At the end of the day, it will be the measure of how well an institution educates its students for future service to this country and the world, which really matters. Here, you go to a football game, and the crowd is overwhelmingly white. You go to a basketball game, the crowd is overwhelmingly white. The faculty is overwhelmingly white, the student body is overwhelmingly white. So, white students can get the feeling they don't have to interact with people not like themselves. In many ways, Penn State isn't much different than society in general.

Oftentimes, couples in intercultural marriages face barriers that most married couples of the same culture are not exposed to. Intercultural marriages are often influenced by external factors that can create dissonance and disagreement in relationships.Different cultures endure vastly diverse moral, ethical and value foundations that influence their perceptions of individual, family and societal lifestyle. When these foundations are operating alongside the foundation of different cultural roots, as in intercultural marriages, problems and disagreement oftentimes occur.However, interracial marriages are not always intercultural marriages, as in some countries, such as the United States, people of different races can share the same cultural background.

The most common external factors influencing intercultural relationships and marriages are the acceptance of the family and the society in which the couple lives.Sometimes, the families of the partners display rejection, resistance, hostility and lack of acceptance for their kin’s partner.Specific issues regarding the family; including generational gaps in ideology, and how the wedding will be held; which ties into how tradition will or will not be practiced. Many intercultural couples report conflict arising over issues of how to carry out child raising and religious worship as well. Dealing with racism from outside sources is also a common area of potential conflict

Intercultural couples tend to face hardships most within-culture relationships do not. Various resources which focus on conflict resolution of intercultural differences in marriage relationships have become available in the media. Specialized counseling and support groups have also become available to these couples. Conflict resolution and mediation of the infrastructural issues faced by intercultural couples leads to a broader understanding of culture and communication.

Interracial relationships are more common now than in, say, 1950. But let's not kid ourselves. Interracial relationships represent approximately seven percent of couples in the country, which is incredible progress considering they represented just .07 percent in 1960. But for our ever-diversifying nation, these are alarmingly low figures. For the most part, everyone is still sticking to their "own kind.

One thing that is very noticeable is the lack of interracial relationships in pop culture and movies. If liberal Hollywood can't embrace the image of interracial love, what are the odds the Deep South will?
According to a 2005 Cornell study, most interracial relationships that last into adulthood were formed early on in the individuals' lives (late teens to early 20s). Adults looking for new relationships, however, were less likely to settle with someone of a different race. This makes sense. The younger a person is, the more genuinely accepting they are of others. The older we get, the more we've been influenced by our society, so it's just "easier" to stick to your own kind. But all the societal and political pressure can't compare to the pressure interracial couples feel from their own families.

In the huge debate over affirmative action, fairness is the hottest issue of all. Most people agree that employers should hire and promote people fairly. Does affirmative action make this happen? Americans disagree sharply: a July 1995 Associated Press poll found that 39 percent think it does, but 48 percent said giving preference to women and minorities produces even greater unfairness. These numbers barely scratch the surface of the antagonisms in a debate now more than thirty years old. Proponents argue that the benefits of affirmative action policies are tangible, deserved, and necessary. Opponents reply that these benefits hide the real harm done by affirmative action: rewarding the wrong people, devaluing the idea of merit, and punishing white men. The two sides disagree on what should be done, yet there is no shortage of ideas. In the 1990s, a flurry of arguments have come from politicians, academics, civil rights leaders, and reformers that are aimed at preserving, modifying, or ending affirmative action. President Lyndon B, Johnson once said regarding affirmative action: “Freedom is not enough…. You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying,” you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough to open the gates of opportunity.”

For affirmative action's strongest supporters, explaining the new harshness in the policy's politics is a matter of going back to the beginning. They point out that affirmative action was never supposed to be painless. Making room for groups that have historically suffered discrimination means that the very group that did not suffer—white males—now has to do so. This can be characterized as the sins-of-the-fathers argument. Critics frequently argue that affirmative action does an injustice to the idea of merit. Organizations representing police officers and firefighters, such as the national Fraternal Order of Police, complain that qualifications and standards have fallen to accommodate affirmative action candidates. This criticism is popular not only with whites, who have long claimed that better qualified candidates lose out as a result of affirmative action, but also with some leading conservative African American critics.

The journey of affirmative action from its heyday to the present reflects great changes in the United States. Between the administration of President Johnson and the Republican-controlled Congress elected in 1994 lies a thirty-year experience with Great Society initiatives that has left many citizens soured on the idea of government assistance. Radical changes in the nation's economy and workforce have surely not made the journey any easier. Bridging this gap seems unlikely, given the vastly different history of white males on the one hand, and women and people of color on the other. From these two poles of experience, two opposing ideas of necessity emerge. Critics say the time is ripe to overhaul affirmative action, a well-intentioned policy gone bad. Supporters, perceiving a playing field that is still far from level, maintain that the real work of affirmative action has scarcely begun.

The problem of racism is a complex one; it is difficult to characterize it or place it into any one category due to its far-reaching effects and implications. It is evident, however, that moral issues generate social concerns which, in turn, must be dealt with by political means. Therefore, if the government’s response to social issues is inadequate, the moral issues that precipitated the problems will continue to exist and grow worse. Such is the problem of racism in America. I think that the racism against black people stemmed from moral issues due to the link with slavery, and the racism against Muslims is more political because of the September 11th attacks.
First of all what is racism? Racism is the belief that characteristics and abilities can be attributed to people simply on the basis of their race and that some racial groups are superior to others. Racism and discrimination have been used as powerful weapons encouraging fear or hatred of others in times of conflict and war, and even during economic downturns. In the US, racism is a well-known issue. From racial profiling to other issues such as affirmative action and the history of slavery and the rising resentment against immigrants.
Since the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, Security concerns have understandably increased, but so too has racial profiling, discrimination etc. In the early aftermath of the attacks some Americans that were understandably outraged and horrified, even attacked some members of the Sikh community where at least one was even killed, because they resembled certain types of Muslims, with beards and turbans. Various people of Middle East or South Asian origin have faced controversial detentions or questionings by officials at American airports.
But it can be seen very apparently in our society that the main racial focus right now is on Muslims and Arabs. Take for example the cultural center that was being planned in Manhattan, it gained so much negative propaganda to the point everyone started calling it the ground zero mosque even though it was not a mosque, it was not around ground zero, and there was already a mosque closer to ground zero than the one the cultural center that was planned. Another example is a study done by the nonprofit Discrimination Research Center suggests that much employment-related bias has focused on Muslims. In a 2004 study, the center sent out 6,000 fictitious resumes to employment firms throughout California. All applicants were similarly qualified, but the resumes included 20 names “identifiable” as white, Latino, African American, Asian American, Arab American or South Asian. The most notable thing they got from this study is that the name “Abdul-Aziz Mansour” that represents their Arab person only got 23% of his applications responded to.

Alright im going to start this off with a quote from the matrix.
“I know, that when I put this steak in my mouth, the matrix will tell my mind that it is juicy…and it is sweet. And then I tell myself…ignorance in bliss.”
But then comes the question: just how blissful is ignorance? I think one must distinguish what kind of knowledge is being debated. I, for one, take no pleasure in calculus and would argue that learning it does not improve my happiness, joy, or contentment. This differentiation may be grounded in actual learning versus being taught – as a person must have a sort of aptitude for or inner motivation to learn the subject before it becomes enjoyable (unless, of course, the have some sort of fascination with suffering.) These systems set up by man will not be interesting to everyone…however, I think that there are things that go to the core of a person – debating such things as ethics, beauty, morality, mortality, that will engage any human who is not concerned with impressing others with an air of indifference.
I think everyone enjoys and benefits from learning in its purest form, learning to think and to reason and to create. I’m not sold that all knowledge is beneficial.
Now another example of knowledge is knowing the truth about things. knowing the truth is suffering, and it has nothing to do with general knowledge. Upon looking at this, one must not desire to avoid the truth but rather understand that it’s not always joyful nor perfect; one must understand that friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, parents, etc all hide truths that we won’t like, but this applies to everyone, and we must not rebuke someone because of one single truth that we do not like (or we’ll end up rebuking everyone).
Truth is part of the world, and we must expect it. Just picture that someone has always been hidden from the truth and is suddenly confronted to it. Boom! On the other side, someone used to it and its often sad tone will get over it more easily than the ignorant one. I strongly believe that being used to the truth is much better than always ignoring it.
I think the pursuit of knowledge can be viewed as evil when it instills traits such as pride in its students. It’s easy to become arrogant when you’re smart. Or educated. Or cultured.
Knowledge can lead to unpopularity, to pain, to sadness. But ultimately, it leads to truth. There is worthin truth that goes beyond how it makes us feel, and it is a goal to be sought after even when the journey is difficult. But people enjoy their routine and breaking this cycle and exposing them to the truth might be more painful to them than living in ignorance.

I think that a lot of my decisions are based on predetermined events tat surly affected the way I think or act about a certain situation. Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will. In philosophy, the theory is based on the metaphysical principle that an uncaused event is impossible. The success of sociologists in discovering causes of certain behavior and in some cases affecting its control tends to support this principle. On the other hand I am not a full believer in this because I know that with hard work and determinism people can work around these predetermined events and break the cycle. In philosophical discussion, will is usually paired with reason as one of two complementary activities of the mind. The will is considered the faculty of choice and decision, whereas the reason is that of deliberation and argument. Thus a rational act would be an exercise of the will performed after due deliberation. There are many things in my life that I could use as examples, going to college, how I act around my friends just to name a couple. For the example of going to college, my grand father was a fisherman in a small town that fishing and diving for pearls was the main source of income. My uncles and aunts grew up with not a lot to live by since some days the weather was just not good to go out and catch fish or dive for pearls so my grandfather wouldn’t make any money on that day. My whole family kept on living like that on a day by day bases wondering if there was going to be any food at the end of the day or not. Then when my oldest uncle graduated he felt a responsibility to help my grandfather and the rest of his family financially so instead of going to college he got a job straight out of high school and so did my second oldest uncle, but then when the time came for my father to graduate high school and start working both my oldest uncles told him he would not be working and that he needed to go get a degree no matter what and that they would provide for him if he needed. And so on happened with the rest of my uncles until even the two oldest left their jobs to get their own degrees. Growing up with a history like that pushed me to do your best and achieve the most I could during high school so I could go to college and prove that the hard work that all the generations before me put in would not go in vain and that I would keep on this chain of working hard.

You would be surprised just to see how much humans in reality are very close to “just being monkeys”. If you ask anyone about how civilized they were, or on a scale of 1-10 how barbaric and primal are you, your results would not be that astonishing since everyone is going to say they are civilized and give themselves a score of 1 or even argue with you that they are not even a 1 but a 0. Humans like to think of themselves as rational-thinking, superior beings, intellectually distant from the herds of lesser animals. Yet beneath the civilized appearance, which most of the times turns out to be thin, lie driving forces that will most defiantly link us to our cavemen ancestors and to almost every other creature
So what are primal instincts? First of all feelings like love and happiness are not very much understood, but those that surround lust - excitement, pleasure, motivation and elation - are vital to our instinct to reproduce, leaving any 'higher' human intellect aside. The two main things that instinctively drive humans are survival (ie food, water and shelter), and a need to continue our species (sexual reproduction). Even though the means that we use to achieve these drives have been honed and are thought of to be sophisticated rituals or acts they are nonetheless a way to fulfill these aims.
Fear is a good example here; it is purely a chemical reaction in which it gives a mechanism to protect ourselves from danger. Any perception of danger we have brings almost immediate pumping of hormones, like adrenaline, all around the body, preparing it to fight or to flee. This chemical reaction is the same when a human sees someone who wants to fight him or her as it is when a buffalo senses a lion. Anger too is seen in both humans and animals, and is a protective emotion that is used as a self-defense mechanism against threats from within and outside.
So in conclusion, are humans really monkeys? Research shows more and more that it shouldn't come as a surprised that we are a little different from other mammalian species. Humans share with chimpanzees a mind-blowing 98% of their DNA, and it has been observed that they show similar behaviors as humans do, like faking groupings and double-crossing each other in the struggle for food and sexual dominance. Researchers know that mammals experience pain and pleasure, but the key debate here should lie more around just how 'aware' they are of these emotions and what has triggered them. Can they think about abstract concepts or reminisce about the past? How well does a monkey understand and control its emotions versus how much a human does.