Post by Admin on Mar 15, 2015 7:12:30 GMT
Angels in America
Angels in America is an article in the New York Times written by John Tierney. The article is about deportation laws. The author tries to portray the double standard applied by Americans mostly the republicans when issuing citizenship to immigrants. Immigrants from Mexico are treated differently from their European counterparts. The European immigrants are granted citizenship much easier while a Mexican in a similar condition would have to work twice as hard to enjoy similar privileges. To pass across this point, the writer tries to use his grandfather who is of Irish origin in comparison with a Mexican, Espinoza, who both move to America and end up marrying American citizens. The authors grandfather is awarded citizenship while Espinoza is denied the same because he was apparently caught at the border and was sent home with an order to stay out.
The author seems to be biased towards the non-provision of citizenship to Mexicans. He claims that even though Espinoza was caught at the border, the reason he was being denied the citizenship, his grandfather didn’t have to get caught since there weren’t European quotas at the time. This shows the level of different treatment accorded to the different races. In the first paragraph, the writer explains why he also doesn’t seem to agree with the republicans on capital Hill for trying to deport Espinoza.
The author achieves his objective quiet well in this piece. He has succeeded in painting a discriminatory picture on the republicans who are in support of stringent immigration laws. Even though the writer is right on some of the explanation he gives, he fails to dig deep into assessing the reasons on why the republicans are applying the stringent laws on immigration. The writer uses the fact that Mexicans children are more and more becoming either bilingual or dominant English speakers. As much as this is true, it is a biased view since it ignores other statics that would prove how negatively relaxed immigration rules will affect America and its citizens. For instance, it would not be fair to ignore the increase in Latino gangs in the US, which most republicans seems to referring to. The writer, being objective, touched on the perceived vicious cycle of Mexican families. The vicious cycle involves the fact that they are less educated and therefore less likely to be poor and perform poorly in schools or even drop out and end up as an underclass living in linguistically isolated ghettos. This shows somewhat the objectivity of the writer as he was willing to share the other parties concerns in so far as the immigration rules are concerned.
I tend to agree with the write on most of his assertions for instance, racial profiling. Racial profiling when it comes to immigration has been a hard thing to avoid. A large part immigrants, legal or otherwise are Mexican and therefore while speaking of immigration laws the most affected group is the Mexicans. The government therefore has applied less strict laws to the European immigrants as compared to the Mexicans. However, I tend to think that it is important to look at both sides of the coin. Mexicans on the other side have had a hard time assimilating to the population as well. This makes the government suspicious about them and for this reason may apply strict regulations on them.
In conclusion, immigration is and will remain a thorny issue in the America especially when it comes to Mexicans. The government should apply equal treatment to immigrants in spite of where they come from. As it is state in law, justice must not only be served but also be seen as served. The Mexicans should be able to feel that they are treated equal to other immigrants regardless of the law America will adopt.
Angels in America is an article in the New York Times written by John Tierney. The article is about deportation laws. The author tries to portray the double standard applied by Americans mostly the republicans when issuing citizenship to immigrants. Immigrants from Mexico are treated differently from their European counterparts. The European immigrants are granted citizenship much easier while a Mexican in a similar condition would have to work twice as hard to enjoy similar privileges. To pass across this point, the writer tries to use his grandfather who is of Irish origin in comparison with a Mexican, Espinoza, who both move to America and end up marrying American citizens. The authors grandfather is awarded citizenship while Espinoza is denied the same because he was apparently caught at the border and was sent home with an order to stay out.
The author seems to be biased towards the non-provision of citizenship to Mexicans. He claims that even though Espinoza was caught at the border, the reason he was being denied the citizenship, his grandfather didn’t have to get caught since there weren’t European quotas at the time. This shows the level of different treatment accorded to the different races. In the first paragraph, the writer explains why he also doesn’t seem to agree with the republicans on capital Hill for trying to deport Espinoza.
The author achieves his objective quiet well in this piece. He has succeeded in painting a discriminatory picture on the republicans who are in support of stringent immigration laws. Even though the writer is right on some of the explanation he gives, he fails to dig deep into assessing the reasons on why the republicans are applying the stringent laws on immigration. The writer uses the fact that Mexicans children are more and more becoming either bilingual or dominant English speakers. As much as this is true, it is a biased view since it ignores other statics that would prove how negatively relaxed immigration rules will affect America and its citizens. For instance, it would not be fair to ignore the increase in Latino gangs in the US, which most republicans seems to referring to. The writer, being objective, touched on the perceived vicious cycle of Mexican families. The vicious cycle involves the fact that they are less educated and therefore less likely to be poor and perform poorly in schools or even drop out and end up as an underclass living in linguistically isolated ghettos. This shows somewhat the objectivity of the writer as he was willing to share the other parties concerns in so far as the immigration rules are concerned.
I tend to agree with the write on most of his assertions for instance, racial profiling. Racial profiling when it comes to immigration has been a hard thing to avoid. A large part immigrants, legal or otherwise are Mexican and therefore while speaking of immigration laws the most affected group is the Mexicans. The government therefore has applied less strict laws to the European immigrants as compared to the Mexicans. However, I tend to think that it is important to look at both sides of the coin. Mexicans on the other side have had a hard time assimilating to the population as well. This makes the government suspicious about them and for this reason may apply strict regulations on them.
In conclusion, immigration is and will remain a thorny issue in the America especially when it comes to Mexicans. The government should apply equal treatment to immigrants in spite of where they come from. As it is state in law, justice must not only be served but also be seen as served. The Mexicans should be able to feel that they are treated equal to other immigrants regardless of the law America will adopt.