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.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Saturday, January 16, 2016
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)