Anchor Baby Video

I watched a video on anchor babies on Fox News. In Arizona, state legislators want to change the Amendment that any person born in America is automatically an American citizen. The state representative for Arizona felt that because illegal immigrants can come into America and have a baby that would become a citizen is a main reason why immigrants are coming into America. I disagree with this statement, as did Brent Wilkes of the League of United Latin American Citizens. Immigrants are sneaking into this country for a better opportunities like jobs and a better life style. Making this state law would go against an Amendment that has been a law in America for hundreds of years. Changing this law will not be the rule that gets immigrants not to sneak into the country. Wilkes felt that instead of making so many laws restricting people from coming into the country, politicians should make a better process to come into the country. Immigrants want to come to America, so maybe if there is an easier and better process than what there is now, less people would have to sneak in. I think a bigger problem is what do with the parents and the child when the illegal parents are caught.

Anchor Babies

I read an article from the Denver Post about problem with babies being born in America, and being granted citizenship, also known as "anchor babies." The author felt that words in the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment should be changed. Ireland recently changed a few words up in their Constitution about granting babies born in their country citizenship. They changed it so the baby needs to have at least parent who is a citizen of Ireland. This seems like a very good idea to solve the problem of "anchor babies." The even bigger issue is what happens to the parents when they have a child born in America. They are not citizens but their child is. Personally I think the baby should stay with the parents because families should stick together. The couple problems that I can think of for allowing the 14th Amendment to be changed where one parent must be a citizen is one, changing an Amendment around would never get done. People love and believe in the American Amendments, and feel that the Amendments are the basis of America, so it would be very hard to change around something as important as Amendment. Two, what happens to the other parent that is not an American citizen. This would split the family up even more, and in the end we are back to the same problem as before.

Border Fencing Is Crucial to Ensure American Security

Contrasting the last article I read, this one talks about how a border fence is necessary. At first I highly doubted that America would build a fence all along the border between Mexico and America, but instead they simply want to build fences covering the very rough parts of the border, where most of the drug trafficking occurs. This is not that far-fetched and seems like a pretty good idea to limit some of the bad drugs into America. However will it ever get done? The article on opposing view points said that to date only 12 miles of fencing has been done, with a plan of fencing 854 miles. The author of the article seemed upset that so little had been done, because the writer felt that it was the governments duty from the Secure Fence Act to finish completing the fence. It seems like whatever the government wants to get done takes forever to complete, so this person should not expect much. Some of the reasons why the author felt the fence needed to be built were a little out there, for example that it could stop the next major terrorist attack. But it could also help slow down the drug trafficking on the border. Overall I feel like some parts of the border should be fenced up, but even if its fenced, people will still figure out a way to come into America. No matter what border enforcement tries to do, people will still find a way to come into the country.

"Border Fencing is a Bad Policy"

I read an article on Opposing Viewpoints about how building a fence along the boarder would not be a good idea, and is a bad policy. The article had six reasons for why it wouldn't work. The first reason is that it wouldn't work. People have been getting through the border illegally for hundreds of years. No matter what way America tries to keep people out of the country, people are still going to find a way to get into the country illegally. The second reason is that it makes the problem worse. They brought up statistics how people used to just come to the border and work for a season, then go back. Now, however, people are trying to sneak in illegally and it causes many problems. This brings up the point that when things get harder and riskier to do, more people want to do it. Another great point that the article had was how costly it is to build a fence. Are economy is so bad that the pros of building a fence to not out way the cons to build in entire fence. Also Hispanics who come into the country might actually be benefiting the economy. At the end of the article they were unable to come up with any conclusion on what to do with the illegal immigration problem, but they did conclude that building a fence would not be the best idea. I also agree with this. I definitely do not think that building a fence would work, and it seems very far-fetched.

Race In America

After reading two articles from CNN and one article from the Chicago Tribune, my feelings toward the racism in America have only gotten stronger. Before learning about this in issues, I had always felt that there was some racism still in America, but I now realize that that is a great understatement. The first article I read was from CNN called, "Behind the Scenes: Life after San Quentin." This article told the story of a ex-convict, who had sold crack-cocaine, but was now trying to change his life. He has tried to get a good job, however the only jobs that he has been receiving are ones that are not enough to pay the bills. He originally had only a 4th grade education, father had left him, and his mother was a crack addict. This is not the type of surrounding where someone is more likely to succeed. He is very tempted to go back to selling drugs as an easy way to get money because no other job will give him enough money to get buy. It is sad because this is a man trying to change his life around, get a proper education, and a good job, but all the odds are against him. The second article I read was very startling. Also from the CNN website titled, "Study: Black man and white felon-same chances for hire." An experiment took place where people sent out fake applications with equal education and experience, but different races (white and black) for real entry-level jobs. They found that white applicants were twice as likely to get the job as black applicants. Even worse was that white applicants with felonies had the same chance, if not a higher chance, than black applicants with equal records. This brings up the same things as Andrew Hacker was saying that black people are born into America with a disadvantage. The people hiring the applicants may not look at themselves as racists, but self-consciously they racially profiling these applicants, favoring whites over blacks. The most surprising article that I read was from the Chicago Tribune titled, "Blacks better off during slavery." This was a very extreme short article that baffled me. He felt that because blacks have been struggling in America, they were and would be better off as slaves because they will serve more value in America. This article in itself shows the problems of racism in America. The fact that this man thinks that blacks would be better off with no freedom shows that not only should this man not be in politics anymore, and that there are clear racial problems that people are afraid to address because they do not want to look like racists. There is a lot of hidden bias in America, and it is limiting black people to their full potential. People do not want to admit that it is there, but these hidden biases clearly exist in America, and I am not sure when they will ever stop.

Mock Trial Recap and Response

The first trial that we heard from in class was between a couple who had been dating for a while, and one night the boyfriend wanted to have sex with her, but she did not. It started to get physical, when finally he had sex with her. It took her a day to realize, but then she thought about it, and felt that he raped her. In the end, the jury, me included, decided that he was not guilty of raping her. Some of the compelling facts to this case was that in the past during their relationship, she was never very clear about when "No" meant "No." There were times where she would say no and wouldn't mean it, so it was hard to determine whether she meant it or not. Another point that the defense brought up was that she may have had other motives to say that he sexually harassed her. There was a note given to him by a student in his class. This note was an inside joke about their class, but she misinterpreted it, and got very angry. This was a big fact in the case because this whole case could have been a result of jealousy. This changed the motives of the case. Not only that but the man in the relationship was thought of by many of the witnesses as a great guy that would not harm a fly. The case seemed to iffy, and it was hard to tell if it was just a case of jealousy, so I still feel like this is not a case of sexual harassment. The big problem with the plaintiff was that their expert witness did not really seem like a real expert. If the examination would have gone better with him, then maybe my opinion would have gone differently.
The second case is a much harder decision than the first one. To be honest I am still swaying between if the District of Columbia is guilty of sexual harassment, or if they are not guilty. Elyse Roberts was someone who was very hard to deal with, and even though the District of Columbia handled this problem in the wrong way, it did not seem like Ms. Roberts handled it very well. This case seemed, and was described as a childish problem that the two could not solve. Some key facts of the case were that Ms. Roberts' transfer was not a promotion or a demotion, and eventually would be a better fit for her because she was not a very good trial attorney. Not only that, but Kevin Murphy was one of the best trial attorneys, and very well liked throughout the office. This is one of the reasons why it was such a tough case because either Ms. Roberts was misinterpreting Mr. Murphy's humor, or unlike what everyone else in the office thought, Mr. Murphy had taken it too far. One of the biggest key facts of the case was that every other woman in the office liked Mr. Murphy, which made it look Ms. Roberts was just being sensitive. However I will admit that the Sports U.S.A. issue was definitely handled poorly. In the end I feel like everyone in the District of Columbia handled this poorly, and this could have easily been avoided. They could have switched offices, Mr. Murphy could have apologized, or Ms. Roberts could have been transferred because she was not a suitable trial attorney. Any one of these options could have solved this case, instead of going to trial.
Sexual harassment is an issue that I don't think people take too seriously (and maybe I am an example of that). A lot of times people just look at it as a women being too sensitive, however women should never have to feel uncomfortable at the workplace or at school because they should be considered equal. It is hard to say what is considered as sexual harassment and what is considered as just a women being too sensitive, which is why these cases become very complicated. I don't think sexual harassment is that big of an issue at DHS because the administration is very strict on the subject, and punishments can be very severe. The culture at Deerfield is that sexual harassment is very frowned upon. Even though it may exist at times, people are very conscious about the issue, and try not to make people feel too uncomfortable, which is why it is not too big of an issue at DHS. These problems can be addressed by teaching kids about the problems of sexual harassment and the punishments for harassing someone.

State of the Union Address

Even though this speech was made awhile ago, there are still a couple of things that President Obama addressed that I was very happy about, and others that I am a little worried about. The main point that President Obama was trying to stress was the importance of the future. Things may be looking down now, but if we all work hard then the future may not be so bad. One of the things that he talked about a lot was teachers. When there are better teachers, it produces better students, and with better students, it creates a smarter America.

Over the past years more and more countries have been testing higher than students from America. Obviously America strides for being number one in everything that they do, so it is important that we move up as students in the world. There are many schools out there that do not have updated books, proper teachers, and facilities. In a country like America, we would expect that everyone deserves a proper education, but this is not the case. Which is why Obama stressed the importance of teachers and how teachers should be considered as one of the most important jobs in America. And when you think about it, you come to realize how important teachers are. They are the backbone of every school, and a person's school stays with them for the rest of their lives.

The only thing I did not like about the speech was the hundreds of goals it seemed like President Obama had. It is important to have goals as a President, however when you set so many, it seems nearly impossible to complete all of them. As usual President Obama pumped up the crowd and the rest of America with his signs of hope of an incredible future, but once again we are all still waiting for this incredible future. I do like President Obama, and i think that he is a great speaker, however I feel that there are times in his speeches where he brings false hope to the people, and I just hope that he will be able to complete at least some of the goals that he has set.