Cuban-American immigration - week of 3/30/2016

https://www.latina.com/lifestyle/our-issues/bill-end-special-immigration-benefits-cubans

A bill is now coming into discussion - that would end benefits for Cuban-Americans who came to the United States illegally due to leaving Cuba when it was under Castro and while the United States had a embargo on Cuba. Now, there is the dawn of the Cuban thaw - a new revival of Cuban-United States relations which causes a lot of people to argue that there is no need for this bill.

I frankly think pulling benefits from underneath people like a carpet is a pitifully incoherent idea. On the other hand, what could be done is that the requirements are made stricter as to who can and can not receive benefits.

Ted Cruz and immigration phobia yet again

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/ted-cruz-plays-to-fear-of-immigrants-in-arizona.html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/18/470925848/trump-picks-up-anti-immigration-endorsement-before-arizona-primary

Thus, more and more people are coming to realize that what Ted Cruz is saying - his rhetoric - is nonsense. There is no head or tails to it and nor does Cruz's rhetoric have any aspect of reality in it. All it is - is fear and fear mongering. It is a type of not-so-subtle demagoguery that makes conspiracy theorists look sane.

And we then come to Donald Trump, whose bread and butter is insulting immigrants. He is another anti-immigrant demagogue reminiscent of the Know-Nothings and he is now getting endorsed by other such demagogues. They want to make the general population believe that blatant and incomprehensible lie that "immigrants will take our jobs" or that they already have. As a note, Donald Trump's wall (along with his deportations and unnecessary war-waging) would cost the U.S. its economy.

A normal person will recognize the contribution of immigrants to American society and would have a fair policy for immigration that doesn't involve en-mass immigration or a giant wall.

So people of America- you have two choices: sanity or insanity. Take your pick.

The Immigrants of Spokane and Police of New Orleans

The people of Spokane are going to vote - and they will get to decide whether people in the city can be asked about their immigration status after an initial ban on being asked. This means that if this ban is repealed, workers who are illegal immigrants will now be vulnerable to being turned in for being "illegal" to U.S. immigration authorities. This news is actually somewhat surprising to me - I always thought that Washington was more liberal

On the other hand, let's go to New Orleans, Louisiana - where the exact opposite happened. Police will now no longer be profiling those whom they suspect of being "illegal" - go figure. So, in the South, they are helping immigration and in the Pacific Northwest, they may make it easier for illegal immigrants to get caught.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-2016-new-orleans-police-stop-profiling-potential-undocumented-2322052

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/controversial-immigration-initiative-may-go-to-spokane-voters/

Marco Rubio, Obama, and Latin Ethnic Identity - A Short Piece

Regarding the article
http://www.latintimes.com/obama-immigration-anger-translator-marco-rubio-coward-abandoning-immigration-reform-370105

Marco Rubio was called cowardly from going away from support for comprehensive reform in immigration - of course, the President did not name Rubio directly but mentioned him as a candidate and stated that he is "running away from the solution".

I agree with the President's analysis on Rubio's position - but my question for the President is what has he done substantively to pass comprehensive immigration reform just as the President signed after passing through the House and Senate - the Affordable Care Act.

In addition- I wonder whether Rubio's insecurities in regards to being an immigrant and Republican is making him go towards opposition to comprehensive immigration reform.

LA School District closes its campuses to immigration officers

The Los Angeles Unified School District has declared all schools in its district as safe zones. What that means is that immigration officers will not be allowed on campus to take away children who are illegal immigrants. I believe this move is a good step on the part of the LA Unified School District as it helps advocate safety and promote safety for all children - not just children who are our citizens or who are here legally. If we want a more just world, we must learn to be just to everyone and ensure human rights - not just rights for our citizens.

In addition, I find it somewhat appalling that immigration officials would want to go to schools to snatch children from schools. Firstly, what would doing something like that say about how the U.S.  views education? Secondly, it would also be a slippery slope - today, it is a school district. Tomorrow it will be a hospital. Are we going to put people's education, livelihood, and even lifespan at risk simply because they do not have a visa or an American passport. I find it absurd to say the least.


http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/02/10/los-angeles-schools-close-their-doors-to-immigration-agents/

Exploring the Pakistani Americans of California

The Californian Pakistani-American diaspora of California is very interesting as it is diverse. There is a big difference between the Pakistani-American diaspora in the Bay Area for example versus the Pakistani-American community in Sacramento. For starters, those who are in the Bay Area are more educated in the sense of they are more likely to obtain higher education and come from urban cities of Pakistan such as Lahore and Karachi or Islamabad whereas the Sacramento community contains people more from village areas such as Okara, Gujrat, or even smaller cities like Faisalabad (formerly called Lyalpur).  When I mentioned this, it was pointed out to me that there could be two enclaves coming from the same place but their method of migration and their culture could be different although the push factor and pull factor could very well be the same.

The Two Poles of "Urgency" on the Immigration Debate

On CNN, I recently saw an article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/gomez-immigration-column/) regarding the moral urgency to take action to help  immigrants stay in this country in light of the rounding up of 120 people including women and children for deportation. I believe allowing them to stay is a matter of moral urgency. Many of these  people who come here from overseas are people who see the American dream - in spite of the dismal reality of their quality of life. They work long and hard for little pay - and yet they see the American dream in that. But with that side of the argument of "moral urgency", there is an opposite group - they also believe that there is an urgency. I hesitate to use the term moral for their argument - because their argument has anything but compassion. It lacks a sophistication of a properly established political idea, the practicality of governmental policy and any sort of compassion that would allow it to be referred to as a "moral urgency" or "ethical urgency". In actuality, it is a sentiment of fear-mongering, hate, and cowardice - fear of something new and unknown and due to that fear, hate. I had been speaking to Dr. Fitzgerald and I had expressed my surprise that there could be such rhetoric in a nation that is so heterogeneous in comparison to countries like Pakistan - that are more homogeneous. But when you look around internationally, you start to realize this fear of immigration is not an American problem as much as poverty or illiteracy is not an American problem. This is at the end of the day - a human problem. It is a matter of the lower self - something that we must overcome at both a national and international level.

"Natural Born Citizenship" and the Stigma of Being an Immigrant

As our Presidential elections are coming up, we are hearing more and more about the controversy surrounding Ted Cruz. Firstly, I must note that it is ironic that the very person who questioned the natural-born status of President Barack H. Obama is now being criticized for being born in Canada. However, it is not exactly clear what the term "natural-born citizen" means, even after many U.S. court cases and examinations of American jurists on the constitution and the United States  code. It is not as Ted Cruz would have it - "established law" or what have you. It is wholly ambiguous and also causes one to question: Is there a need for this amendment anymore and is it relevant or was it ever needed?

The United States from its inception is a nation of immigrants - people who came from other countries to what is now the United States. As we discussed in class, the main reason for people to come to the United States was for financial gain. I find it absolutely impractical and illogical that we should bar someone from serving as President - simply because he was born in another country. In addition, the main reason for the creation of this amendment was, as per the Washington Post, because of " their openly expressed fear that “foreigners were disloyal”.  This can tell you many things including that there was a stigma attached to immigration - a sort of nationalism based on where one was born. Thus, if someone was born in the United States, he is loyal but if someone was born in a foreign country but came to the United States, even if he is a citizen now, he is not to be trusted.

To be quite blunt, I find that idea to be preposterous and an example of discrimination against immigrants. It is time that the United States progressed and went beyond these generalizations - to create a more perfect union that ensures that no one - simply based on where they were born  - is considered "disloyal" to the United States. It is time that we have an Amendment to repeal the "Natural Born Citizen clause" of Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution to allow all U.S. citizens to pursue the office of President of the United States.