Research log #3

Hurlbert, Stuart H. "Immigration Control and Biodiversity in North America." The Social Contract Spring 2011: 21-22. Print.

Mr. Hurlbert’s purpose or one of his purposes in this article is to talk about population, and how it has increased in size because of the amount of immigrants, illegal and legal, that are coming into the United States is increasing. He says in the article that 10-20% of the U.S. population is immigrants. Some of his main claims in this piece include a stabilized population, habitat and wildlife issues along the border, and biodiversity. He uses quotes from earlier articles and other authors such as Garret Hardin, Beck, R., and L. Kolankiewicz., Hidinger, L, and Hurlbert, S.H. A lot of his claims are based from reading these writers works, he has his opinion but uses quotes from credible sources to support his “ideas” or main claims.

Some key phrases or concepts in this article would include a stabilized population, which the United States would of achieved by now if it wasn’t for the growth rate of its population from the constant and growing flow of immigrants, illegal and legal. A stabilized population to me is where we can control our pollution and consumption of certain things.

He uses a quote from Garrett Hardin (1989), “Never globalize a problem if it can possibly

be solved locally.…We will make no progress with population problems, which are a root cause of both hunger and poverty, until we deglobalize them.… We are not faced with a single global population problem but, rather, with about 180 [now 200+] separate national population problems. All population controls must be applied locally; local governments are the agents best prepared to choose local means.” This is a very different perspective on this situation which I have never even thought of, instead of making a problem bigger, make it smaller instead, and let it be handled in smaller portions. Instead of the government trying to stop illegal immigration as a hole, let the local communities do their part in preventing it, lawfully that is. But I mean if communities are going to complain about things not being done, let the local council or whatever runs the community come up with a plan to stop it in their area. If more communities would do that, then it would greatly decrease illegal immigration and stop the over populating of the United States. All the communities would have to do is come together and find a middle ground where the majority agrees upon something such as reporting anything they know. There has to be some communities out there that are mad of the side effects of over population that could be prevented. I mean it sounds inhumane not letting anyone and everyone into the United States, but you must think about the long term effects, the effect of increase of pollution, habitat destructions, and over populated areas. Cities could become to populated, there could be a HUGE increase in homeless people because there are fewer and fewer jobs out there because were letting anyone into the U.S.

I chose this article to do my research log on because it was a different way to look at immigration, not just illegal immigration or the pro’s and con’s of the laws against it, but a bigger issue that no one really thinks about when they hear the word immigration. It’s kind of like an issue that if we don’t take care of, one day it’ll stab us in the back and we won’t even see it coming. I can go from here, well I can, but I am going to go from here and go into why we see it racist or discriminating to be anti-illegal immigration towards some races, but not towards other races. That seems like a great point to bring up because it seems to me like a double standard.

Research log number 2!

Harris, Craig, Alia B. Rau, and Glen Creno. "Arizona Governor Signs Immigration Law; Foes Promise Fight." The Arizona Republic 24 Apr. 2010. Print.

     The author's purpose of this piece was to give a perspective of what was going on when the Senate Bill 1070 became law at 1:30 p.m. The author gives quotes from the opposing and supporting side of this bill which Gov. Jan Brewer says the law represents another tool for the state to "work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix - the crisis caused by illegal immigration and Arizona's porous border." The author goes into detail on how long it'll take for the law to go into effect, what the opposing side said towards the law, and how they promise to do everything in their power to change it. The author also talks about how the people supported it, what they thought about the bill and how they were glad that it was signed, that it was a great day for Americans.
     The author had a lot of quotes from both view points on this topic. The author's purpose of this piece wasn't to persuade or give their view on this issue but to just discuss what actually happened and how both sides felt about it. I didn't really "react" so to speak, but soaked in what information I could. I learned how other people that supported this bill felt when it became a law. Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among the supporters who believe it will give officers more tools to detain illegal immigrants. "We've got some very serious crime problems out there, and this bill does not address them. It does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running for governor. This is one of the few parts of this piece that actually rose a reaction out of me, I don't know how close minded some one could be. How can they not see the bigger picture, majority of undocumented-immigrants have a criminal history let alone being in America illegally, also Terry says it does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels, why doesn't it? I mean if undocumented immigrants are leading this cartel and are helping it out, and this law allows officers to detain illegal immigrants, how does that not fight such crime problems?
     I chose this source because it has a direct relationship to my essay. I specifically wrote on the Senate bill 1070 in one of the first paragraphs because I wanted to bring it up because I knew it was a very controversial law. I want to dig more into what the opposing side thought about this bill, but also I want to read more quotes of the supporting side since there were very few in this article. I could go from here and look up similar articles on the Senate Bill 1070 because i guarantee there are many more articles such as this one.

Research Log 1 revised

Miron, Jeffrey A. "The Realities Behind The Immigration Debate." The Dailey Caller 18 May 2010. Print.

            This article talks about different methods of stopping illegal immigration. Jeffrey Miron, the author of this article, goes on to explain different methods of illegal immigration prevention techniques. He gives pretty good detail on each method, but the details or explanations he gives are mainly one sided. Mr. Miron talks about what they don’t do for illegal immigration instead of bringing up the positive things that these anti-illegal immigration methods actually do accomplish. I have to admit that the points he brings up are relevant and do make a good point to a certain level. He brings up credible groups such as NAFTA and CAFTA for support on one of his points, but the rest of it from what I read is mainly his opinion or his “hypothesis” on different scenarios.

            Jeffrey Miron writes, “Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.”, this quote from the first paragraph kind of leads into what he’s going to talk about, which is the four policies that he think can significantly reduce illegal immigration. He already begins his article off with saying the methods the government uses or want to use are wishful thinking, but that’s not all true. They are the first step in ending illegal immigration or at least slowing it down. Plans that are implanted and took into action first have to come from ideas or this “wishful thinking” to even exist.

            Mr. Miron’s first policy that he brings up is to allow more legal immigration. He thinks that the reason why we have such a bad problem with illegal immigration is because we restrict legal immigration. I agree with this policy idea to a certain point, I agree with that we could loosen up on allowing legal immigrants in, but to a certain extent. He believes we should allow all immigrants come in, but he doesn’t take into consideration that some may be convicted of violent crimes or be full blown criminals from where they are from. Why would we want to allow people with a violent history into our country, I mean you can tell me that’s inmoral not allowing immigrants in, but I can tell you that your crazy if you expect me to be okay with allowing violent criminals in. But to the contrary, a criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime, and some of these crimes could be minor such as stealing or something that isn’t as bad as it may seem when you hear criminal.

            The second policy Mr. Miron brings to the table is expand free trade. He says that if we expand free trade and make it easier for goods to travel across borders then the low-skill labor will shift from the United States to the poorer countries. This is a faulty policy, he’s correct that making it easier for good to travel across borders will allow immigrants to stay in their country and work their instead of in America, but that doesn’t mean that working in their country will be good. Foreign employers could use fear tactics on their workers, pay them less, or abuse them. But those claims are all skeptical and the only way of knowing what would happen is to actually try it out, but by then if it doesn’t work out we’d be screwed.

            The third policy or whatever you may call it because at this point in the article he gives up on calling these “policies” policies. And he has a good reason to because they are becoming more into the category of “wishful thinking” which is starting to make him sound like a hypocrite.  He started off and saying that the reality is only the four policies that he talked about in his article would stop illegal immigration, when the REAL reality is, that every idea is “wishful thinking”. But that’s not a bad thing because that’s where great ideas and great things come from is wishful thinking. So my reaction is, or well opinion for that matter, is don’t try and say you have the correct answer to ending illegal immigration and at the same time say that the other ideas aren’t as promising as yours, because you start to sound ignorant near the end of what you are trying to implement.

            I chose this source because it kind of brings out the other side of illegal immigration. It gives good detail on the other side of my argument and I believe it is necessary to know the other side of your argument so you can cripple it. But not only that, if you learn about the other side you can describe why your side is correct compared to your “opponent”. Also if you don’t know the other side of your argument, you’re in for a crude awakening when they start bringing up ideas that are in favor of their side and all you can do is sit there with your tongue tide. I might want to know a little more of the opposing side to my argument, because this is just one perspective to pro illegal immigration or in other words allowing more immigrants into our country. I could go from here and include in my essay a little more about why Americans should support the prevention of Illegal Immigration and the laws passed to stop it, because these ideas in this article show how faulty the opposing argument really is.

"Stung" by Elizabeth Kolbert Annotation

     I would summarize this article as a first hand experience on beekeeping that stemmed from an article on the colony-collapse disorder. Elizabeth Kolbert read beekeeping manuals and catalogues to learn more in depth information on bees and beekeeping. She learned things such as "different "races" of honeybees, each with its own "dialect"", different diseases, different hives used to hold bees, and different bee suits from these beekeeping manuals and catalogues. Readings those was a great way for Mrs. Kolbert to gain secondary research, which to me is information that's gone through two or more people. But to get more in depth, first hand research she bought her own beehive. She says "But by that point I wasn't sure whether I was writing the story to keep bees or keeping bees to write the story" which show she was getting caught up in her writing and it became an excuse to pursue a newly found interest.
     Her research goes into details about variety of bees all with scientific names such as, Andrena florea, a small European bee, relies exclusively on the delicate white blossoms of bryonty plants. She researches different traits of honey bees; for example, Apis mellifera, meaning that it will feed on just about anything that is blooming. She also goes into details on how honey bees are very common and that they are used to pollinate crops.
     She gives examples of the dependence on bees. A good example would be how California's increasingly large almond industry is almost entirely honeybee-dependent.
    Elizabeth Kolbert describes the moving of bees, how they are typically shipped by flatbed trucks, the hives are stacked on pallets then unloaded with a forklift. But that this hard on bees and keepers expect to lose at least ten percent of his queen bees simply as a result of the jostling. A con to this is that mass movement on honeybees spreads parasites and disease.
    She uses a primary source, David Hackenber, to further her research on the colony-collapse disorder, CCD. David Hackenber gives details on how his hives grew tremendously from when he started. He tells her the amount of travel bees go through in a season.
     Mr. Hackenber was the first to see CCD. He tried to come up with a reason why it was happening but couldn't come up with anything promising.
     Mrs. Kolbert then goes to tell about her experiences on owning a hive, how she went to a bee organization meeting to gain more research. She also talked to Van Engelsdorp, a Penn state apiary inspector, who David Hackenber contacted earlier about the CCD.
     This Article was helpful for me, not for my topic of research, but on my knowledge of honeybees and how they are kept. This article could be used to shape many arguments on honeybees such as, are they being kept properly, are they being mistreated, or that is there a viral disease spreading through them that may end up being able to come in contact with humans. This topic hasn't really affected my thought on illegal immigration because it's really hard to relate to that topic, unless you think of it as a disease but that seems inhumane to me.

Something that I feel is important for people to know about?

A great topic that I finally decided on, after many brainstorms of great ideas, would be certain things that affect school. And I don't just mean affect the school itself but things such as, what motivates students to actually go to school? such as someone going to see their friends or to increase their social standing on the food chain of high school or college. Or student athletes go to school to get good grades or at least passing grades, so that they could play sports. Another one would be different clubs, drama, cheer leading, literature, etc. etc., where you have to participate in school to join them or attend them, either that or they happen during school hours so you must go to school to go to the clubs activities. All these things affect school, because they motivate individuals to put forth the effort and go to school, go to their classes, and turn in assignments. But then at the same time, what are all these different "environments" so to say having on the bigger picture? Such as bringing the community closer, people who live in that town go to athletic events such as Friday night football games and cheer on those student athletes, or people go to attend different plays put on by the drama club or attend a coin drive to help fund different clubs. So this is a topic that i feel is important to me, well at least important enough to bring relevant to the class.

Class work, answering questions on Bouldering's article 9-20

Chad Durkin

Itzel Ponce

Mitch Longerbone

“Can there be world citizenship” by Boulding

1. How does Boulding describe the problems with the current state of “World Citizenship”? Find a quote or two that helps support your claim.

-Boulding says that there is a number of problems with making world citizenship today such as “The (same) issue of assimilation versus creative diversity faces the world in the institution of the United Nations Itself.” “Conflicts per se among humans are inevitable because each of us, Is a unique person, but responses to conflict are learned.”

2. Describe the term “three-fold citizenship.” What would this proposed global community look like in reality? Do you have any personal examples?

-Three-fold citizen can be broken down into local, state, and international. Your role in the community, your role in country, and what you can do globally. It’s really making people be more self-reflective, but gives you the sense that we are all one cooperative civilization. Examples: Role as a family member, friend, team mate.

3.  Does this proposed “governance for the planet’s citizenry” seem possible? What are the restricting factors? What seems possible?

-No, it’s idealistic though. It’s more of a less tangible idea, where a lot of people want this idea to happen, but don’t want to make change for it, to a certain extent. Economic variables, lack of communication, people want to stay in their nitch, they want to do what’s convenient for them even if it affects others negatively. Given time we can see humanity come together eventually, but that’s just one of many futures the world can hold, at any time something could change and affect the whole world, either for the better or for the worse.

"Can There Be World Citizenship?" reading response

     First of all this article was writen in a way where you had to read it about three or four times before you understood what the guy was talking about. It was written in probably the most complex way possible.
     "Can There Be World Citizenship?" is the question Elise Boulding asks for her topic of this article. I will tell you now that this question, how she approached it in her article, is pretty much impossible for one person to grab every perspective there is on it. She brings up that there is a "three-fold citizenship for every human being" and how she describes each of the three citizenship's makes it easier to understand what the point she is trying to get across. Which to me, her point was simple: "we the people of the United Nations" should all be treated fairly, but fairly in the eyes of the beholder, not treated how other people believe "fairly" is. That when a state or local government law restricts us from doing something that is part of our culture or binds us to land, we should go to a higher government, in this case the United Nations, and have something done about it.
    She states "conflicts per se among humans are inevitable because each of us, is a unique person, but responses to conflict are learned. People can learn to use violence in the face of differences, or they can learn to resolve differences peacefully" and I agree with this statement, but it is way easier said then done. For one person to prove another person wrong, it's going to upset that person, and not everyone can handle being wrong as well as others. So there is going to be cases where one person will lash out at another person, its just inevitable. The idea, the thought, of resolving our differences peacefully, is something of a far greater society that we have yet to become. Or will become for many generations. So I say, go for it, try to reach these goals, it won't be easily accomplished, and here is where I answer the question, "Can there be world citizenship?" from my perspective, I know there can be, but it'll be practically impossible to achieve world citizenship anytime soon. Because to reach world citizenship, one must persuade and show others how you can resolve differences peacefully, and that it is possible to resolve something without violence. But the problem that they will encounter, is different cultures believing different ways of resolving things. Someone would have to find a middle ground for all society's and for all cultures to meet and agree on something.
     The two articles "Generation Me" and "The Why-Worry Generation" go to show why we won't be able to achieve world citizenship for generations to come. These two articles state how our generation is all about themselves and only looking out for number one, you. For there to be world citizenship we would need a generation that care more about society becoming one, and cultures coming together, or how Elise Boulding put it "If we of the 10,000 ethnic groups put our imaginations to work on the world as it could be and on the United Nations as it could be. Serious vision work during this United Nations Decade dedicated to a Culture of Peace can eventually guide our strategies toward a workable action program.....to bring that citizenship into action."