Dear Scholars,
Please read the following article and speech discussing the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070. The essay prompts will be taken directly from GRE practice workbooks, (but the GRE will not have an article to reply to).
The two articles to read are:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/immi-a28.shtml
and,
http://azgovernor.gov/media/Gov_Speeches.asp
The speech you have to read is entitled,
4/23/2010 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070)
Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.
"Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."
Essay Writing:
• Please remember that your essay must be in by Monday 9 a.m. (You can give me a hardcopy on Sunday night if you like. I'm in room 608 CWT.)
• Please remember to post a reply on someone else’s post of at most 100 words.
• Your essay must be between 400-450 words. At the end of your essay, please type the word count.
• Let’s have some fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Governor Brewer has enacted legislation that she feels is most appropriate to deal with the issue of illegal immigration in Arizona and while that may be, it is apparent that there is no clear consensus on whether or not this bill is a move in the right or wrong direction. I personally feel as though this law will ultimately do more harm than good. Of course you cannot pass a law permitting racial profiling, as is why Governor Brewer made sure that police action on the part of “race, color or national origin” is mentioned as being strictly forbidden and still unlawful. It however, is extremely misguided to in no subtle way allude to illegal Mexican immigrants and say that this law is meant to protect Arizonians from all illegal immigrants. It is nonsensical to cite border violence and crime as key motivators for the signing of Senate Bill 1070, but outright deny that no particular group is being targeted – Arizona shares its border with one foreign nation and there is no way, for a non-criminal, to be an American citizen from one state who is illegally in another.
ReplyDeleteMy main issue with this law is how laws already in place are being manipulated to prove a point. It already is a federal statute that aliens carry the proper documentation with them at all times. However, nowhere does that statue say that if you look like you are illegal police will stop you and demand to see your papers. Additionally, the idea of reasonable suspicion is largely subjective. The Supreme Court has generally ruled that reasonable suspicion relies on a totality of circumstances, without giving any such guidelines as to what those circumstances are, and as far as I know, neither has the bill signed by Governor Brewer. The police therefore are supposed to know what constitutes legality when they stop someone they suspect of being illegal – a fourth amendment issue. Even still, how can it be known and enforced that no racial profiling is taking place, and if it is known that racial profiling is taking place, will it be ignored so long as illegal aliens are caught?
Having done some outside research of my own, one Arizona newspaper cited that violence in Arizona border towns has not been increasing and has remained relatively flat, if it has not declined. The same newspaper cited that police there couldn’t recall any [drug] cartel violence having been an issue for several years and that in the last decade at least; an illegal alien has murdered only one American. This is largely opposite of the portrait portrayed in the media, suggesting that the entire picture is not being portrayed at all.
The article if anyone wanted to read it - http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html
-449 words
The issues of modern society remain within an endlessly shifting continuum laced by components of culture and moral behavior. Having such a complex relationship, many issues can only be guided, not solved, by laws and the legal system. Arizona’s immigration law directly reflects a complex relationship and links culture and moral behaviors with government and the legal system.
ReplyDeleteSigned by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, the Law, in a way, attacks immigrant workers and their culture by increasing their perceived stereotype. In many ways, the Law has immense consequences on both the American and immigrant cultures. By requiring police to stop people of “reasonable suspicion” for being an undocumented immigrant, it leaves room for much discretion and subjectivity in a system of law that is very objective. It doesn’t necessarily enforce a productive law, but rather, enforces the common perceptions of an illegal immigrant. Should the law be able to rely on the generalized ideas of appearance and association to define a criminal?
Perhaps the inevitable territory of our nation’s democratic legal system cannot avoid stereotyping, but it is certain that it has caused much turmoil in our nation’s workforce. Having ideas suggesting a new passport system to prevent undocumented workers, the bill would reflect the nation’s exercise of power, as well as, its fears of corruption by acting as a monitoring system. The bill requires punitive measures that would promote self-incrimination which completely violates the 5th Amendment. These measures would provoke the dignity of both American and immigrant cultures; with the almost impossible chance to work for legal residency, an immigrant’s image essentially becomes tarnished. The idea of a “guest worker” program would, once again, exploit a hierarchical power because workers would have almost no rights while working at their employer’s mercy.
In my opinion, this “guest worker” program parallels with similar ideas of slave labor; I take a humanist approach. We should not be first realizing an issue based on the public and media’s extreme protests. Whether a US citizen or not, if an employer uses an immigrant’s labor, they should act humanely, with a sense of dignity and pride that represents America, rather than completely exercising their authority and controlling an immigrant’s identity. Yes laws are needed, but I think issues arrive when they begin to provoke a sense of humanity. Should we be defining our own nation by incriminating immigrants through the perceived values of society? It is clear the legal system cannot completely solve Arizona’s (and the entire nation’s) many issues because the dynamics of moral behaviors are deeply rooted to our culture. It should not take the controlling of an individual’s self-value to promote our nation’s identity.
Word Count: 442
What does it mean to engage in moral behavior? Are we bound by codes that prevent us from doing what’s right? From a legal perspective, moral behavior may be considered something that is developed from ethical ideas based on what it means to do that which respects the rights of individuals. Perhaps in answering these questions we must consider society’s current issues and how our nation has attempted to solve them.
ReplyDeleteSenate Bill 1070 of Arizona is an anti-immigration law recently passed in an effort to prevent “undocumented immigrants” from residing in the United States illegally. It seems to be causing controversy because of who will be targeted by the new ordinance. Police and law officials have been instructed to stop anybody who they reasonably suspect may be an illegal immigrant. The discretion left to these officials has not been specified and appears to be left to their own acumen. It seems as though they will approach people based on certain criteria as simple as perceived race. Essentially, Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer has licensed her community to alienate people on the basis of physical appearance. As a result, the bill “will inevitably lead to the racial targeting of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and other Hispanic populations” as the article mentioned.
It has ever been morally acceptable for authority figures to have the power to stop and question an individual solely because of the way they look. There needs to be more to it, otherwise it just appears as though the nation is looking for the easiest solution to enforce immigration policy without taking into consideration its negative impact. In all truth, Senate Bill 1070 is a form of racial profiling. Aren’t we supposed to be a nation that swears by equality and justice for all? Although I agree with some proponents who say there are certain correlations between race and social issues that give reason to law proposals such as Senate Bill 1070, we have chosen as a nation to enact legislation protecting the rights of individuals against unwarranted searches as in the 4th amendment. In effect, it is only fair for us to continue to uphold the standards we have used to govern ourselves as a people for some time. Even considering Schumer and Graham’s proposed legislation, our nation would still encounter an issue of respecting ones privacy and handing over too much power to the government over personal lives; even more to add to the question of morality. Without a doubt, finding a remedy to issues of enforcing immigration policy has been a difficult task. However, that is not to say we should just take the easy way out without much regard to its effects of continued discord.
Word Count: 448
The national debate regarding the extent of governmental powers is one of seemingly continual antagonism throughout the political stage. Our actors stand in a precarious position; having to oft choose between allaying societal issues and allowing personal liberties intact. The question of whether or not to regulate moral behavior does not offer a simple solution.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent legislative decision, the state of Arizona enacted a bill in which the act of “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document” became classified as a state misdemeanor. Although many attempt to categorize this new law as a legislation of moral behavior, it is in reality merely an issue of safety. According to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (signed by President Bill Clinton), the federal government made immediate deportation a possible consequence of misdemeanors—including shoplifting. If a limited, central government is assumed, one primary concern of said government must be the safety of its citizens.
It is due to this reason that the new enactment by the legislature and the executive branch of the state of Arizona cannot be construed as an infringement upon civil liberties. The Arizonian law merely serves as a supplement to the 1996 federal law. In fact, the inclusion of illegal presence in the United States as a misdemeanor serves to fulfill the main purpose of the government: to ensure safety.
The statement regarding the regulation and legislation of moral behaviors is indeed invalid to the extent that the government is charged with the responsibility of protecting its citizens. When said protection ensures a fundamental right of United States citizens—namely the right to life and the pursuit of happiness—however; regulating moral issues is, indeed, necessary.
In a recent review of the Arizona bill, Tom Eley points out that the Obama administration is utilizing this event as an opportunity to seize power from the American people via biometric Social Security cards “to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs.” Unfortunately, this new push is precisely the type of precarious overstep previously mentioned. When the government crosses the proverbial line of fundamental protection of citizens and seizure of similarly fundamental civil liberties, the country’s citizens must question the validity of such measures.
Biometric identification is, indeed, an infringement of fourth amendment rights and, furthermore, provokes the questioning of our government officials’ true objectives. However, the pursuit of increased safety measures for its citizens is certainly a valid reason to legislate a select number of moral issues.
Word Count: 415
“And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid -- stable and steadfast”. These were the words that Governor Jan Brewer used in her speech to defend the passage of Senate Bill 1070. This bill authorizes law enforcement agencies to arrest individuals and treat them as criminals solely on the inclination of them being illegal immigrants. As we all know, illegal immigration is an issue that has dominated the floor of congress and has been one of the deciding factors in the recent elections. While the importance of the issue cannot be denied we must not lose sight of the individuals involved in the situation. This country was founded on the basis that, “[…] all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights […]”. Now I would like to believe that this country has moved towards these ideals, but the wording of this bill and its implications paint a very different picture. While Governor Jan Brewer said, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent, or social status” I ask, how else is it possible to identify a person of a particular group if without one of these factors? It is a proven fact that humans use a set of parameters with which they organize and characterize their world. It is not necessarily a form of prejudice or discrimination, but a strategy of simplification that the brain implements. In order to implement this law, officers will need to possess an outline by which they could identify these “suspicious individuals”. While the process may begin as one that attempts to remain unbiased and non-bigoted, eventually such will not be the case. Factors such as skin color, accents, and culture will become factors in the questioning of innocent individuals who are trying to create a better life for themselves and their families, even if they are legal immigrants. The simple truth is that this bill is a direct attack on the culture and language of Hispanics in this country. Whereas the legal system in this country is based on the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty, this bill supports the position that one with “probable cause” of being an illegal immigrant is guilty until proven innocent. The United States has many lessons to learn in its path to complete equality, but instituting a bill that would reinforce the backward-minded thinking, in terms of race and culture that once dominated many societies of the world, would be an insult to our forefathers.
ReplyDeleteWord Count: 430
The laws of the United States are meant to protect its citizens and provide them with the rights to pursue their happiness, but many modern problems of society cannot be solved through legislation. Moral behavior cannot be legislated within our diverse nation. Often, honest legislation that attempts to make a significant difference cannot be positively implemented because it’s success rests on the morals of those implementing the law. Their lack of morals can adulterate the laws true intentions and can lead to a more unlawful situation then the original. It is only when laws understand and consider human nature that they can truly be effective.
ReplyDeleteIn many instances, one’s civil rights enervate due to attempts at new legislation. A recent example is new legislation that was signed into law this past April, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which allows police officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and ask for proof of legal residency. This new law can begin to eliminate the illegal Mexican immigrant population in Arizona, but it is at the expense of the rights of legal Mexican residents. Even though the governor of Arizona proclaimed in an address to the state that he “will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona”, it is unclear how anything but one’s race can make authorities suspicious of their immigration status. Though the law prohibits racial profiling, it will be practically impossible for authorities to avoid, even though it is immoral to do. The law attempts to legislate moral behavior in order to protect the civil rights of Arizona residents, but it is artless to believe you can legislate something that is so intrinsically logical. In the end, as strictly as law enforcement may be trained, they will be forced to racially profile, stripping Mexican Americans of the rights we hold most valuable in the US.
It wrong to pass this law and put it into effect, knowing that it will lead to immoral behavior. In this case, the end does not justify the means when all Arizona citizens will be putting their civil rights in jeopardy to prevent an increase in illegal immigrants. There is a bigger picture and for one to make a moral decision, they need to see that picture from all angles and make a resolution that allows everyone the rights they deserve. Rights should never be sacrificed for the sake of a problem that may never be solved.
Word Count: 402
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Kyle
ReplyDeleteI like that you broke down what you saw as the root problems of the law, allowing for total understanding of each of your points. I also liked that you asked questions to allow the reader to look at the issue through their own eyes, coming to a conclusion of their own after hearing (or reading) the argument of someone else who has drawn conclusions from first hand knowledge (personal experience) and not solely the opinions of those in the media, possibly pushing their own agenda. Lastly, the use of facts are are irrefutable, such as the possible 5th Amendment conflict you mentioned, gives your response more solid credibility as well.
Word Count - 111
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete-Patricia: The way you blend the history of legislation with the importance of morality is quite effective. By referring to specific examples, such as the 4th amendment, you reinforce your stance with concrete evidence. Perhaps the US government is, in fact, "looking for an easy way out" with Senate Bill 1070. You make great points and I believe we take a similar stance on this issue; however, I wish you spoke a bit more about the power struggle between the government and the nation. What could the bigger issue be? Do you think US government is only exercising this power to further establish the American pride that has been important throughout history?
ReplyDeleteWord count: 112
@ Ricardo
ReplyDeleteI liked your use of quotes. I think that it gave more depth and understanding to the argument you were making. I liked the main points of your arguments, but you could have elaborated more on the idea that "humans use a set of parameters with which they organize and characterize their world". I think if that had been more of a focus throughout the entire essay, it would have been a stronger argument. Otherwise, I think that you articulated your thoughts clearly and made a strong conclusion with your closing remarks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@jdglasner...
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though you took the time to really consider all possible perspectives on the issue of morality and legislation. While most of us may have chosen to discuss the more apparent viewpoint regarding racial profiling, you geared towards safety and governmental power. With that said, perhaps you read into the article with a deeper critical eye. I feel this is probably a good thing because often times authors have more to say beyond the surface, and expect us to gain a better understanding by reading between the lines. However, I think it would have been more effective for you to consider what proponents to your perspective might have tried to criticize and further your discussion in a way that makes your essay more convincing.
It is interesting to see two very different approaches and tactics used in arguing for each individual’s own perspective on the Arizona Immigration Law SB1070. Driven my passion, both the speech and article employ charisma and empathy to articulate the two disparate sides. However, it is to my understanding that neither of the articles propose a solution or plan of action. Rather they argue their point by pointing out specifically the problems of immigration and reinforcing why their opinion is valid.
ReplyDeleteThe purported histories of our country, tells us that the first people to inhabit America emigrated from Great Britain. Once the thirteen original colonies were established, as early as the 1600s immigrants came from all over Europe and from other countries to settle in the lands. Ultimately, the colonies were finally liberated from the clutches of England’s Parliament, and thus The United States of America was founded with the reputation as the prosperous land of the free and of better opportunities. It was only because of the immigrants and migrant workers that America was able to exponentially grow in population and in prosperity. The great lure of America was not only for these reasons but because it was known as the great melting pot of diversity, where people from all over could come and enjoy freedom, while working for a better life. Immigrants have played such an essential role throughout the history and creation of the United States that it seems absurd to deny and restrict entrance into the country.
The Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 is unfair and reprehensible in its weak attempt to mask racial discrimination as a means of protection. I truly feel that laws and the legal system cannot solve the vast majority of the problems that arise in modern society. This is due in part because moral behavior cannot be legislated, and when it hides under the façade of legislation it is no longer moral. Morality cannot be impressed upon the general public through laws because then we are responding out of fear. The Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 is being used to instill fear into the general public that all Mexican immigrants are affiliated with drug cartels, and in turn using this fear to racially profile and discriminate against anyone that looks suspicious. However this methodology is completely flawed in the fact that suspicion is subjective and cannot be quantified in the form of an infallible rubric. Even further with the implementation of this law, the increase of policing treads on the rights on individuals and reduces the rights of individuals on a visual basis.
Word Count: 432
Most people believe that creating a law or legislation will stop a problem in society. However, history has shown than laws and legislation can be manipulated, adjusted or completely ignored. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act was instituted to improve students academically. However, many school districts enforced teachers to instruct students on the best test taking skills instead of teaching them the course material to a degree of understanding. Thus students suffer at higher levels of education because they do not fully understand the basic concepts. This situation shows how laws and legislation might have good intentions however they are incorrectly based.
ReplyDeleteSenate Bill 1070 allows for people to be charged with a misdemeanor if they do not have or carry an alien registration document in Arizona. Governor Brewer says, “I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.” However Arizona’s international border is only with Mexico thus the immigration law will predominately if not only impact Mexican looking people. How will law enforcement be able to execute this law without racial profiling? Are they going to stop white people in addition to Hispanic looking people for identification checks? If not, then anything they do can be considered racial profiling.
The immigration problem should not be fixed with a law that prohibits law enforcement to harass people who fit a description. The issue at hand is a moral problem within society. A sociological perspective should be used to analyze both why people choose to enter the U.S. illegally and how to promote these people into become U.S. citizens. An analysis will not only free jail space but also truly let America be the home of the free and home of the free souls looking for a better life.
In regards to the drug cartels, increased law enforcement of the current laws both in America and Mexico should be used to stop the spreading of addictive substances harming both countries. Officers should protect the border more and do more searches of people entering the country in all modes of transportation. Creating a new law or bill usually doesn’t help any situation. Instead, the government should improve the current system based on what does and does not work currently.
In conclusion, introducing new laws and legislation rarely solve societal problems because they only trim the problem instead of removing the root. A sociological analysis should be done to fully assess not only the Immigration in Arizona but also other issues throughout the country.
Word Count: 415
The statement states that many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws or the legal systems, in my opinion I think that the reason why the legal system cannot resolve many of the problems of modern society is because we as human beings have develop throughout history, now we express our views and opinions to the world. We are free to express our opinions something that at some point in history was impossible for most people due to the differences that were set by those with more power. Now we have equal rights and due to this freedom that we have acquire the differences between humans are more apparent and laws have a minimum power to what they used to have, since we have the power to relinquish a law. The second part of the statement states that legislating moral behavior could be the solution to many of the unsolved problems of modern society. But, by legislating moral behavior we are constraining human opinion and giving more power to law which is just the opinion of a portion of the human race.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand that we as humans have different opinions and views which sometimes lead to problems if we do not respect others. In relationship to the articles, in my opinion I think that do to fear and the increasing violence in Mexico, those states who share the border with Mexico specially Arizona are taking quick actions to try to prevent an incensement in crime in the American side and since the federal government has not taken actions open previous requests, the state is taking actions upon it, but by taking those actions they are unfortunately making assumptions and blaming on illegal immigrants for the increment in crime. In The article “Support Our Law Enforcement and safe Neighborhoods Act” Brewers says “Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state” he is saying that illegal immigrants are the cause in crime in Arizona at the same time he is saying that they do not belong to the United States even thought many of them have supported to the economy by working and living there for years. History comes into play here since the United States was establish by immigrants who were searching for freedom and a better place for their future generations, something that most illegal immigrants are searching for. I understand that they want to protect their people but immigrants are people too, also once a person crosses a border to another country that person becomes part of that country. By supporting Senate Bill 1070 we are at the same time legalizing racial profiling since the only people who would be ask for documentations are those who are suspicious of being illegal immigrants and even thought the bill clearly states that racial profiling will not be tolerated, it will happen since physical appearance will be the main aspect an officer will use to determine if a person is an immigrant or not. The differences in human’s opinions, ignorance and fear are leading the human race to a major debate among ourselves.
word count: 527
It is obvious to see in modern society that laws and the legal system cannot legislate moral behavior. Some questions that one may ask is who dictates what moral behavior is and is it possible for the legal system to define what is ethical for everyone. Someone’s definition of right and wrong can differ from that of the majority. Laws and the legal system are inaugurated to influence the behavior of people towards their counterparts and society. The legal system is a structure or guideline for people to abide by and does not necessarily solve all problems. The controversial topic of abortion is an example of the legal system attempting to legislate moral behavior. Abortion has been argued to be moral and is an issue of woman’s rights. Abortion can be seen as the right for a woman to control their own body and consequently the fetus. Another outlook of the argument is that the fetus is a person with rights, which makes abortion murder and should be illegal. This particular outlook on abortion displays how it can be seen as immoral. In this case, it shows that there can be adversity when using laws and the legal system to determine how moral behavior is defined.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Jan Brewer has proposed to “solve a crisis caused by illegal immigration” and while doing so ensuring the constitutional rights of all in Arizona. The new bill requires that police stop anyone under reasonable suspicion that they may be undocumented immigrants and anyone without the proper identification could possibly be deported. This gives police unprecedented discretion and brings in to question the procedures of finding someone under reasonable suspicion. Racial profiling is in fact illegal, but also seems inevitable in a situation that the Senate Bill 1070 would apply to. The Senate Bill 1070 may appear to be a step in the right direction to protect the citizens of Arizona, but will most likely take us two steps back. Arizona is composed of 30% Latino population who are all at risk of having their rights invaded due to the color of their skin, hair or a diminutive accent. The Senate Bill 1070 also appears to be profit motivated since it will impose new disciplinary measures on undocumented workers who want to become a legal citizen. It is another way of exploitation for the illegal workers to become legal by forcing them to pay back taxes, community services, fines and other chastisements. In the US declaration of Independence it states, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Word Count: 447
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ James
ReplyDeleteI liked the fact that you include sources other than those provided and refuted the Governor Brewer’s statement of illegal immigration being the cause of violence in the statement “couldn’t recall any [drug] cartel violence having been an issue for several years.” It is always good to prove what someone is saying based on one’s own research. Also the questions you pose to the reader improve your argument. One question from you makes the reader think of more thus swaying them to disbelief the opposing side’s case. I missed where you clearly justified or refuted the message in the prompt?
Word Count: 100
It is true that many of the issues facing modern society cannot be solved entirely by the judicial system and its laws. These said issues, which often include violence and war, new technological limitations, and immigration reform, may seem difficult to legislate because they are of a moral nature. Is it moral or immoral to go to war? Is it moral or immoral to bully on the internet and how far is too far? Is it immoral for an immigrant to work without proper documentation or to demand removal of a burka for fear of terrorism?
ReplyDeleteMany times there is no agreed upon definition for moral or immoral behavior. We as human beings may agree that it is wrong for one man to kill another man whom he does not know and yet, it is heavily debated whether going to war is justifiable under certain conditions, jus ad bellum. We may say that bullying on the internet is immoral, but if a law bans certain words or certain kinds of comments, then it violates our First Amendment rights here in America, which is immoral. We may also say that a family doing anything possible to have a better opportunity for their children is moral, but becomes immoral when they break the law to achieve these ends.
Because morality is not universally
understood nor agreed upon, we cannot effectively legislate to our most full capacity. We cannot then enforce the said legislation without difficulty, because there is dissent of the law. An example would be the new Arizona 1070 law, which allows law enforcement authorities to stop someone under reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. Since the legislation inherently suggests illegal immigration is not morally acceptable, the argument shifts to whether or not the authorities may perform a self prescribed scan to weed out those whom may be illegal immigrants. We do not have the answer as to whether this is acceptable moral behavior or not and therefore, we are unable to effectively solve the problem at hand, in this case, immigration.
Regardless, this sort of legislation will continue to arise globally in efforts to deter further modern societal issues from escalating. Legislation is enacted and enforced for the promotion of our well being and health as a society, and when dealing with humans, morality will always be called in to question. So although issues may not be resolved completely, by having these attempts at legislating them, we as a society are moving closer towards a working definition for morality and its limits in the name of the law. But, we must always remember that what constitutes moral behavior is a very personal matter that can never be fully legislated.
450 words.
@ Dani
ReplyDeleteI totally agree both articles just seem to discusses their position on the SB1070 instead of proposing an solution to the problem, but at the same time I feel like the problem is to reduce crime in the state rather than do something about illegal immigration I feel like throughout history illegal immigration has excited and now is becoming an issue due to the increasing violence in Mexico and the fear of states such as Arizona about an incensement in crime in their state. I also agree that SB1070 is not the solution to the problem or any other law because a law should not be used to control a human live.
@Ariel I liked how you attacked the prompt by using multiple examples including the No Child Left Behind Act instead of exhausting the Senate Bill 1070. I also chose a similar approach. This example showed how “laws and legislation might have good intentions however they are incorrectly based”. I also like how you tied this in with the Senate Bill 1070.
ReplyDelete@ Ricardo
ReplyDeleteI like that you provided a perspective on the historical basis of immigration with reference to the ideals and morals this country was built on. It says a lot when looking at the issue of immigration today. I thought your opinion about characteristics such as skin color, accent etc becoming part of the racial profile law enforcement will use was very relevant and important. I too believe that the issues Gov. Brewer hopes to prevent will be inevitable and ultimately be caused without the direct intention. I thought it was also useful to begin using a quote, as it provides a strong message about the discussion and your sentiments.
(110)
Some problems that we face in modern society are easily solved by a law, such as banning cell phone use while driving but for many issues, such as immigration it becomes a matter of the morality. Laws sometimes contradict what we know to be morally right. Immigration has been a pressing issue for this country in the past several years. When this country was once accepting of individuals from all different countries, it becomes hard to fathom that one day they would close the doors on those who are often times looking for the American Dream.
ReplyDeleteIn the speech given by Governor Brewer, she is adamant about protecting Arizona citizens from the violence and crime associated with the border and illegal immigrants. I could appreciate wanting to protect the people from violence and crime but at the same time, violence and crime are issues everywhere and they do not typical seem to be a priority for most people. No matter what you do, law or no law, there will still be violence and crime. I did not appreciate that Governor Brewer dehumanized the immigrants. While some may be participating in acts less than acceptable, most are not. It is intriguing to me that she assures the people that there would be no discrimination or racial profiling and that the police would be “properly trained” and would only act with “reasonable suspicion”. It is inevitable that the police would be looking for individuals of Mexican or Hispanic descent. It is also likely the police could abuse those powers. It is not lawful or morally sound to alienate a group of people based on “reasonable suspicions”. In the article, I find it even more disturbing the support of Obama’s administration has supported the law. To sit and say that it was “ill-conceived” and “unhelpful” but condone it anyway is unimaginable.
The American people, as a whole seem to be worried more about the moral implications of the government’s actions. That is not a way to live. People should not live in fear that someone should question their right to be here based on their race or the “suspicions” implicated by such. Even if someone did enter our country, should they not be given the chance to stay here? Should we not give people a chance to make their lives better?
Immigration is an issue that cannot be addressed with a law; the moral implications are far too great and must be considered. In the end, we must weigh if the ends justify the means. Is the prevention of crime and violence more important than millions of Americans worried about their livelihood because they fit a profile?
Word Count:444
The controversial topic of immigration is one which has existed in the United States Government since the early 1900’s. We often forget that this country was built and has in large part been successful due to the vast diversity and influences immigrants have brought to our great country. Although President Obama has not taken a strong approach on the distasteful Senate Bill 1070, his wording that it is “misguided,” is perhaps extremely accurate. It has been my strong opinion that the problems caused by immigration go far beyond the word. The issue has indeed brought several issues such as increased violence and drug trade but again what about the benefits immigration has to offer. Perhaps the problem is not immigration but that these immigrants are caught up in a frustrating and seemingly impossible process to become legalized.
ReplyDeleteToday, we live in a society where in order to be successful in our policies we must take a step back and realized that not every problem can be solved by a law. The fact of the matter is that solving issues on the basis of law is difficult and almost impossible considering that issues such as immigration are largely influenced by things such as morals, and values which cannot by any means be legislated by laws. Senate Bill 1070 will have a very difficult path ahead for the reason stated above. Although Governor Jan Brewer has great intentions and seems to be putting her constituents at the forefront of her cause, she is however in my opinion ignoring a problem much deeper than illegal immigration. According to Senate Bill 1070, police are required to stop any person under the mere “reasonable suspicion that they may be undocumented immigrants.” The question of whether racial profiling will become an issue is one that cannot by any means be answered without taking into account a single person, in this case the police officer’s morals and values. Should we allow ourselves as people and a Democratic nation to believe that in the past and present, both large and small issues have developed on the basis of someone’s ethnicity, race, skin color etc. We must not pretend that racial profiling does not exist and will not play a role in carrying out the bill in Arizona. Arizona has a heavy Latino population that has resided there for many years. Because we cannot and should not look at someone and assume they are illegal, law enforcement will be forced to stop those people who resemble the image of an illegal immigrant in their own minds. The problem of illegal immigration is indeed one which must be addressed, but it must be addressed intelligently and with regards to today’s modern society.
(450)
@ Amanda C.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about the racial profiling and how it will be virtually impossible to find reasonable suspicion without its use, thus encouraging immoral behavior. I tend to agree with you that despite the training they will receive it is natural to fall back on the senses ("That person looks Mexican...reasonable suspicion") However, I was intrigued how you moved from the difficulty in legislating moral behavior to the idea that those who legislate, if they do so immorally, will corrupt the entire law in the first place. I had not thought of the prompt in this manner.
@ Ricardo
ReplyDeleteI love how you use a scientific approach in breaking down how a police officer might initially have an outline of how a possible illegal immigration may look like. However, does the bill only limit identification of illegal immigrants to physical appearance? For instance, is it possible for those “parameters” in which a police officer may “organize and characterize” his suspicion of an illegal immigrant be something other than skin color, language, accent ethnic trace etc?
@SC^2 (Suzanna)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that by supporting the Senate Bill 1070 we are not only supporting, but also condoning racial discrimination and profiling. It is important to note that through the passage of the bill we are allowing the rights of our fellow human beings to be compromised. It is important for human beings to express their opinions, which is made possible by the first amendment. However when new legislation oversteps its boundaries and treads on our essential rights this causes problems. I agree with you that it is necessary for respect to mutual amongst all human beings, and that it is only when respect is present that we can begin to solve these problems which are brought on by fear and ignorance.
Word Count: 126
The current employment crisis in America has government officials desperate to find a solution. The most convenient response is to target illegal Mexican immigrant workers. According to the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) article, the proposed solution to the employment problem lies within the language of Senate Bill 1070 which seeks to alienate members of the Hispanic population and stop them “under the mere ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be undocumented immigrants.” Although in her speech, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona affably assures her constituency that the Bill will not be enforced through policies of racial profiling; the implementation of the law inherently calls for such action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that many of the problems of today’s society cannot be solved by the laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated. However, I don’t believe that this is a sentiment shared by the Arizona governor or the White House. According to the proposed legislation, Brewer believes that her state’s social problems will be solved with the hard crack down on illegal Mexican immigrants; however, Brewer insists that no exercise of racial profiling will be employed to accomplish these goals. This statement seems truly naïve. The WSWS article warns that there is nothing in the 1070 Bill “to prevent police from applying its broad powers for warrantless apprehensions,” no training can negate the fact that members of the police force are fallible and liable to have an affinity for being suspicious about people and situations they can easily categorize. While they may be trained to counter these reactions no one is perfect. I am not convinced there will be measurements taken to impartially identify any suspected of being an illegal Mexican immigrant won’t be based on phenotype.
I foresee that the negative effects of the implementation of this bill will have more ramifications than benefits for the people of Arizona, especially the Hispanic population. They will likely feel unfairly targeted and harassed, which will greatly reduce their quality of life in the state of Arizona. If Brewer’s main concern is the prevalence of drug cartels and violence, this does not warrant harsher punishments on undocumented Mexican workers. Perhaps he should turn his attention to the policemen already equipped to apprehend these individuals. Brewer claims that she is signing this bill in efforts to protect her state from drug related violence; however, it only serves to help solved a different problem. The Senate Bill 1070 helps to solve the national crisis of limited jobs available to legal United States’ residents, but does little to help her proposed social problem. This bill needs to be held in abeyance until a reevaluation of its objectives is conducted, if they want more than an ephemeral solution.
Word Count: 456
@ Patricia,
ReplyDeleteI liked the way you asked questions that include the issues that are been used to protest against the law, which concerns the rights of people and like you say a society that swears to have equality and justice for all. Agreeing with this point, I like to point out that on the speech about the law SB 1070, the secretary is very clever of not using the word people, and instead she uses citizens, which seems to be more specific, not like the constitution which many time has used the word people or all.
@Little Leeah
ReplyDeleteI like how you related to the immigrants and called for them to be recognized and evaluated on a more individual basis, rather than getting lumped up as one immigrant group. I also agree with the frustration that you felt upon learning of the Obama administration’s support of the new law. I noticed you posed a lot of questions at the end; I would have liked to see an introduction to those concerns earlier and the ways the documents supported or illustrated your view on the moral implications of the new law.
At James :
ReplyDeleteI think you have a strong thesis which gives direction to your essay. I like the fact that you have an opinion about this issue and that you provide evidence to back up your arguments. It is interesting that you did your own research and have the citations of an article. In addition, I like how you introduce quotes from the articles because this makes your point stronger. You have good organization skill which makes the essay easier to read and it gives it a flow. You tied all your ideas together and it was a strong essay as a whole.
A central question posed by the prompt asks whether or not laws should be enforced through legal codification or through social values. Under the former, laws are arguably reflections of society’s values where a legislative body, acting through representatives of the people, determines laws that ‘moral’ and just for society. In the later, a more pluralistic approach is taken; instead of official institutions governing ‘moral’ values per se, social norms and mores informally enforced to deter ‘immoral’ actions. Neither view presented here are self-evident truths; laws are created both as reflections of the people’s will and through informal social institutions. People legitimize laws, and once people deem an elected body’s law as illegitimate, it becomes invalid. It is because the Arizona law is not the least restrictive alternative and does not implement a legitimate means to an end that it is illegitimate under both conceptions of ‘moral law.’
ReplyDeleteIn Governor Jan Brewer’s address supporting the enforcement of SB 1070, she asserted that part of the reason the state government had to act was because the federal government had failed to address the problem of illegal immigration enforcement. Governor Brewer’s assertion is not totally without merit; slow federal response to the problem of a porous US/Mexico border does indeed prompt state governments to strengthen boarder security measures. The problem lies with the what is called the ‘least restrictive alternative.’ The State of Arizona has adopted a crime-control, law enforcement strategy to what is essentially an economic, supply and demand problem. Individuals come to Arizona to work. A less restrictive, all encompassing measure would have called for the state to further develop eVerify technologies and to require Arizona businesses to verify the citizenship of employees before hiring them.
The problem of with the Arizona law is that it improperly uses law enforcement as a means to an end. Popular conceptions of the drug war perpetuated by the media have improperly framed the problem as one related to ‘immigration.’ Indeed, the U.S./Mexico boarder is currently a hotbed for illicit economies, but the reality does not match the proposed policy solution. Criminal activity along the boarder is related to the “drug war”, not immigration. In fact, some criminologists have asserted that trends in immigration patters across generation have traditionally not led to spikes in crime. Immigration and crime are not correlated, and using the police as a mechanism to enforce citizenship improperly burdens the community-police relationship.
‘Moral laws’ as defined by society, or in this case, state legislatures, are presupposed to be based on sound, less-restrictive policy. In the case of immigration, the State of Arizona has improperly defined the scope, nature of and definition of the problem. Regardless of the ethical questions raised by lowering the standard police can pull individuals over to ‘reasonable suspicion’, formal social law needs to be based a proper foundation within an appropriate framework. The support of SB 1070 within Arizona further illustrates the point that neither maxim is a self-evident truth: laws can be immoral while passed by a state legislature and supported by the public. The question then may not be morality, but legitimacy, and indeed laws not based on sound policies are not immoral, but not legitimate.
Senate Bill 1070 is a very powerful piece of legislation. Unfortunately though, it is very easy to see how it might be used negatively. The first thing that came to mind after reading about its general details was that Hispanics would be unlawfully targeted. The assigned article suggests that because of Senate Bill 1070 there will be nothing to prevent police from abusing their power and targeting ethnic racial and cultural minorities. The article also suggests that the reason this law was passed is so that it could lessen competition for employment in a time of economic unstableness. The article talks about demonstrations against the Senate Bill 1070 across the country and it mentions various sets of negative feelings towards the bill.
ReplyDeleteThere is an obvious negative appreciation of Senate Bill 1070 by the author of the article and the article is told through the lens of that viewpoint. As an international student living in the United States for two years now, it was pretty easy to buy into the ideas of the assigned article. However, after reading the speech by Governor Jan Brewer I opened my mind to alternate viewpoints. Based on the tone of her speech it appeared that the Governor contemplated the bill vigorously before signing it. She also appeared to be genuine and to have the best interest of Arizona in her mind. There was nothing to suggest that the bill was being passed to reduce job competition for American citizens or too target minorities of any racial or ethnic background. The governor was aware though, that the new legislation will bring new responsibilities Arizona’s police force but she insisted and stated explicitly that she will not tolerate racial discrimination.
Based on the words of Senate Bill 1070 it is an adequate piece of legislation that makes sense. According to the Governor, there seems to be a crime problem in Arizona which is escalated by illegal immigration. I think perfect execution of this Senate Bill would do a great job in combating that issue. However, perfect execution of the bill might very well be impossible. Despite the training that involved police officers will get, this bill requires the use a lot of moral judgments which is sure to undermine any training that police officers (who are only human) may have. I think it is very easy for police to abuse their power despite all the training that they receive and I do suspect that Hispanics and other minorities would be targeted by this law.
This law makes perfect sense on paper, but I think it would fall apart in practice due to the moral element in its practice.
442 words
ReplyDeleteOverall, this essay seems to be well organized and many of the ideas expressed in your essay are expressed in mine. My question to you is how does the Senate Bill 1070 help to solve the crisis of limited jobs in the United States? I thought the bill was for the purpose of reducing crime and violence and as well as keeping illegal immigrants out. I can see the relationship you were going for. However, I think with that we open a whole new issue. There are jobs specifically targeted to individuals trying to “make it” here in America. We are entering the realm of exploitation. There are plenty of jobs those individuals are willing to do that Americans would not do.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age a plethora of public issues loom largely over society. And though the issues vary widely from health care to immigration, their impact on society remain equally significant. As a result, it makes legislation on these issues enormously important and thus these issues become tedious and complex when deciding how they should be handled by the government. Laws in general should be dictated by morality, and if they aren't, then they are not just laws. Thus, morality should ultimately be the deciding factor when constructing legislation. Morality is not difficult to verbalize, and as a result many of the problem's in modern society can be solved by creating laws based on morality.
ReplyDeleteWhen one looks back to the creation of the US Constitution, its original purpose was to serve in the best interest of all beings equally. The only way to do this is to allow morality to be the guide to decision making. And that line of thinking has been evident as the country as socially progressed. For example, although it took the struggle of Civil Rights Movement to allow for racial equality in the US, once the majority of the country had changed their views and allowed morality to prevail the laws were changed to ban acts that encouraged racial prejudice. Like racial equality, issues such as abortion and immigration can be dictated by morality.
Some may argue that some issues are too morally complex to have a clear cut moral view point that can be articulated; such a torture. However, the fact of the matter is the act of torturing is, by nature, immoral. And as a result, it should be treated as such. There are times when it may be necessary to torture in order to prevent an imminent disaster. In such cases torture may be morally permissible, however, it is not realistic to think the law can be adjusted to accomodate such instances. In this case, the law is still the law but as history has shown (i.e. Civil Rights) laws are sometimes made to be broken for the greater good. In this case a seemingly morally complex problem is really one that is straight forward.
Laws should be created and enforced to make a morally stable society. Thus, any issue of concern should be approached at a moral vantage point. Every issue can be put into a moral perspective, and thus many of society's problems can be effectively addressed by law if morality becomes the deciding factor is what governs the decision.
Morality is not determined by laws but by values instilled by society and culture. The legal system was developed in order to create boundaries within the social order and to impose punishment for failure to adhere to these boundaries. Societal problems cannot be solved by the legal system because it does not function based on devising moral principles but rather by maintaining order, punishing violators, and by the differing opinions of defining morality.
ReplyDeleteLaws are meant to lead us towards a crime free society. Yet crime continues to be a prevalent issue within society. Is this because we fail to take into consideration everyone’s idea of right versus wrong? The government focuses so much on order maintenance that they fall short of the moral issues that lie behind the reasoning and potential deterrence of the crime.
In addition, law is established in order to punish violators. Illegal immigrants sneaking into the country is wrong yet using racial profiling to catch them is just as wrong. Knowing this dilemma the Arizona Law 1070 is still passed allowing such actions which most likely will target Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Latino’s, to occur. If morality were incorporated into punishment the use of profiling would not be a legitimate form of response to the issue of illegal immigration.
Defining what is morally right and wrong consists of different perceptions to various individuals. For example, while the Obama administration and the Democratic Party promote the Arizona Law SB 1070 due to the belief that anti-immigration is an acceptable moral standing others disagreed through walkouts and demonstrations that the bill incorporates racist elements. But despite these conflicting notions, in order to maintain order within society, the government of Arizona has allowed the passage of this law. The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, states that her reasoning for signing the bill is due to, “border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration.” Racial profiling is seen in the eyes of many as morally wrong yet in Arizona it is now legal to do so.
The legal system does not solve all of our problems because moral behavior cannot be legitimatized. This is a result of the complete focus on order maintenance, punishing violators for exceeding legal boundaries, and the differing opinions associated with morality. In order to have a more cohesive legal system we must take into account other aspects that could potentially influence behavior such as morality.
401 words
ReplyDelete@ Mark
ReplyDeleteI like how you compared the two views?approaches in looking at abortion. It shows that morality is a self inscribed ideal not a socially constructed one. But what is the alternative now? If a law can be seen as neither completely moral or immoral how do we proceed?
Modern society has been affected by various issues that influence how the legal system runs today. Such topics continue test the bounds of morality in the law because the law does not always take into account the opinions and believes of all people. Even though laws have been created to have order in the society, sometimes there can be confrontations between people who support the law and people who don’t. Some of the issues that have encompass the moral behavior of society are many times controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration, which involved morals and opinions that are very complex, making it challenging for everyone to agree in the with the laws.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the issue of abortion has probably been a long passed problem, it can be used as an example of why moral behavior cannot be legislated. It is important to take into account that by creating abortion laws, it already involves moral beliefs, since some people make think that abortion is immoral, while others might believe to be something that women have to decide. The subject at hand can then be argued between pro-life and pro-choice supporters, thus creating confrontations that might lead to the creation of larger problems. This involved beliefs that might make things more complicated for the legal system and for its citizens to follow the laws.
Another matter of concern that has been confronted in the United States in the past few years has been same-sex marriage. This is an issue that again, involves morals that cannot be legislated in a way that everyone will agree too, easily. The reason for this is that can create laws that affect other human rights and that at times can be discriminatory. Which them leaves everyone discontent with the legal system because it goes against what they believe to be right or wrong, concerning this subject.
The more recent issue that has re-appeared is the immigration issue. Although the laws, like SB 1070, are trying to stop and regulated illegal immigration, they may not always consideration other problems it can create. Again, this is because is trying to control the beliefs and moral behavior of a society, which citizens have different opinions about this issue. Many people believe that these laws like many other laws involving this issue are discriminatory, while others believe is fair. At the end this laws can generate larger problems, like the one’s been faced by the State of Arizona.
At the end, with issues like abortion, same-sexed marriage, and immigrations, the legal system has to be careful when trying to control the moral behaviors of this complex society. The issues and problems in society can become overwhelming for people which can lead them into acts of violence, while trying to defend their point of view by challenging the legal system. This is why trying to control people’s moral behavior cannot solve all problems of society because at the end it creates larger and more compound problems.
Word count: 496
“… Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state, to my Administration and to me, as your Governor and as a citizen.” While the increasing violence and crime rates in Arizona and the correction of such are clear objectives for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer cannot be denied, I am convinced that Senate Bill 1070 has the potential to reverberate concepts of racial profiling and stereotyping because this bill allows law enforcement to arrest immigrants without proper identification solely based on “reasonable suspicion” that they have illegally migrated into the country. Although this bill is not specific to Mexican immigrants, one of Arizona’s chief complaints concerns the adversity caused by the “porous” borders separating Arizona from Mexico and therefore targets these individuals residing in Arizona and impedes on their privacy. Making their highest priority to protect the citizens of Arizona, “we [Arizona] cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We [Arizona] cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromises our quality of life.” Although, the anger related to the Mexican drug cartel is justifiable, not all individuals (illegal or not) from Mexico are involved nor should be held accountable or suffer the consequences of that group actions. The Bill was an adamant step forward for Arizona to take charge of their current living conditions. However, because of the vagueness of this Bill, it is easier for law enforcement to abash individuals by “applying its broad powers for warrantless apprehensions to wider layers of the population”. Although the Governor claims to not tolerate racial inequality in her speech, utilizing this bill in a state practically aghast by illegal immigration and frustrated by the lack of intervention by the Federal government, can create such a strong impetus to stop illegal immigration that it indirectly tries to justify unreasonable search and seizure of a person, household, etc... “The law makes it a crime for any person, group, or community to shelter undocumented workers, and requires local governments to enforce its measures or face lawsuits”. While it is easy for this point to be viewed as unhelpful, even Governor Brewer seemed adamant in her speech of how delicate and easy it will be for law enforcement especially to racial profile and stereotype individuals by admonishing the general protection statute and executive order to develop appropriate training fact that it only takes one mistake. Since the Bill was recently passed by the Senate this past April, it is difficult to know exactly how the new bill with impact Arizona. However one things are certain, 1) it will only take one mistake by law enforcement to offset the balance between patrolling Arizona for criminals and stereotyping and profiling individuals based on certain characteristics; 2) the laws our modern system cannot legislate moral behavior, and human nature will act accordingly, regardless of training received.
ReplyDeleteWord Count: 486
@ Paul
ReplyDeleteYou make a number of sound arguments. I am particularly swayed by your idea that the real solution lies within the parameters of making it possible for illegal immigrants to gain a new identity via an eVerify system or even a “documented worker” program. My concern with your argument is your statement that illegal immigration is not correlated to crime. I would be interested to see such studies, however; if law enforcement officials were to arrest those same drug cartels of which you speak, it would be a safe assumption that the majority would be people illegally residing within the United States.
@Little Leeah
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the points you made in your perspective. It was mind-blogging to see how Governor Brewer could “assure” the Arizona residents that racial profiling would not occur based because she orders an executive order to not do so… If individuals were to abide by this “order” like they have done with all the other previous orders and laws, there would not be any crimes in the first place, and that includes crimes committed by law enforcement and government officials. You also make it clear point that the system is not perfect. However, subjecting all immigrants to these conditions is not the way to correct the problem. Moreover, it was simply disgusting to see her try to justify these potential immigrant arrests with “reasonable suspicion” that may barely extend beyond judging an individual on certain characteristics before asking for proper identification.
Word Count: 149
"Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."
ReplyDeleteFor as long as there has been civilization, there has been a legal system. a system designed to evolve on its own under its own guidelines n the hope of protecting the common good. it has been argued that this system has begun to fail in the twenty first century since the problems facing society are derived from the erosion of morals and such can not be addressed by the legal system. while I agree that many of our problems result from the erosion of the sense of a moral code among our nations citizens, I disagree that the legal system is not capable of addressing these problems. on the contrary I believe the legal system is best equipped at addressing these issues since the law sets a clear definition, has clearly defined punishments, and is flexible enough to change with societal needs compared to morality.
Morality is an implied set of rules foster by ones upbringing and influences, while the law is a clearly defined statue. most morality is instilled by religious institutions and practices, which leads to a lack of uniformity of the principals and ideals morality can be developed from. law on the hand is unicorn across large regions, with the scope of national laws affecting the entire country. furthermore, the law is accessible by all in multiple resouces, allowing clarification and assurance while morality has no clear guidebook, or singular resource to address discrepancies in interpretation.
Under our current system of law, punishments for going against the law are clearly defined. Morality on the other hand has no clearly defined punishments besides the one assigned to oneself. this can range from self-pittance, the feeling of guilt, or nothing at all depending on the level of morality developed in an individual. depending on the security of the crime committed, the community or victims affected may not feel it is appropriate penance. the law addresses this with multiple tiers of punishment, from community service to the loss of ones life.
Since the religions that moralities are often developed from are ancient in organ, they safe not prepared or capable of addressing modern issues. one relevant example of a social issue that law is more adequately prepared to handle than morality, is the issue of illegal immigration into the united states. this issue has no clear resolution under a moral system and should be addressed under the flexible and objective system of law. Unlike morality, our legal system has a series of checks and balances that allow law to adjust to society's changing needs. This system involves the use of precedence, majority rule required in the passage of laws, and the supreme court that can overturn laws that have become outdated or adjust them to meet the peoples demands.
As the issues facing our society continue to grow and the erosion of morality continues, our reliance on the legal system to correct and address will.continue to grow. since law is clearly defined, has tiered punishment, and is flexible in responding to societal demands, it is best suited in facing today's problems.
@ arnetta
ReplyDeleteI feel your essay over used quotations. while the use of quotations is excellent in supporting an argument, I felt your use of it as a crutch prevented the development of a concise argument. furthermore, you failed to address the prompt at all until the last sentence of your essay. The prompt is suppose to be the main focus of your essay, and it appears you don't mention morality till that point, let alone develop support that it can not be regulated by law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClaiming that moral behavior cannot be legislated implies a specific definition of morality as well as of the purpose, scope and impact of law. It is unclear whether the author believes that legislation truly can not affect moral behavior or whether it should abdicate its moral authority. If the intention is that it cannot, then the question of what is moral behavior must be answered. Merriam-Webster defines moral as establishing principles of right and wrong, creating or conforming to a standard of behavior, and that which is sanctioned by conscience. Each of these definitions enumerates a function and responsibility of legislators showing that the legal system can and should use legislation to mitigate society’s problems.
ReplyDeleteBy establishing principles of right and wrong, the legal system can define extremes of behavior for both poles thus providing the essential barriers that help to guide people toward solutions. The Bill of Rights exists largely to do just that. The wide range of interpretations of these rights may cause many to point out the problem with legislation trying to establish right and wrong however it is this interpretation that strengthens the legal system. For the most part, everyone can agree on what is definitely within free speech and what clearly oversteps the boundaries of it while the debate lies in the details. That shows that the boundaries have effectively been set and can be as new issues arise in society.
Through creation of sanctions, punishments, and the presentation of awards, the legal system creates standards of behavior. Those who overstep the boundaries set by the moral principles go to jail or receive a consequence while those who defend others in great and uncommon ways are commended and awarded medals and given recognition. Once again, the problem lies more in how much or how little punishment more so than if punishment is necessary. Stronger immigration laws are necessary to protect the economy and safety but the punishments and identification of those who should be subjected to it needs to be kept within the principles established.
To ensure that the process of identifying those who should receive reprimand remains within the rights of all people, legislators and those in the legal system must make sure that their actions and the laws they create are sanctioned by conscience. Individuals have different standards for themselves but by forcing a consensus, it is ensured that more of a middle ground will likely be taken. When it is not, as is the case with the Arizona immigration law, there are methods of correcting the law so that, by majority standards, both the problem of immigration is addressed and privacy and individual rights are maintained.
The purpose of legal systems is to produce guidelines that serve as an aegis to society, protecting it from disorder, misunderstanding and those who hold themselves to minimal standards. When problems such as immigration and its effect on the economy and public safety arise, it is the duty of legislators to act to protect society within their own conscience and while creating behavioral standards through establishment of moral principles.
Word count 503
Today more than ever, society looks to legislation to solve everyday issues. While some claim that a complete reliance on legal systems is best means to alleviate problems of modern society, it is clear that some problems of modern society cannot be solved through legislation. Specifically, laws cannot remedy all societal ills because morality cannot be legislated since morality is essentially relative and laws are inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteMorality in its essence is a relative term. Morals are something that varies from person to person and from culture to culture. Some may argue that there are certain universal moral truths such as not killing another person. But there are cultures in which human sacrifice is a common practice. This then begs the question, under who’s concept of morality is legislation being framed. And the answer to that question is problematic because a person or group of people will be alienated due to their alternative concept of what is moral. An example of this can be seen in Arizona as people all over America as people protest Senate Bill 1070, an anti-immigration law. While many people in Arizona such as its governor Jan Brewer, saw the legislation as necessary, many people throughout the country who were aghast. This difference in opinion is the result of differences in moral thought, which makes laws inadequate in solving all of modern society’s problems.
One must also consider the flawed nature of laws when examining this argument. It can be argued that laws and legal systems contain inherent fallacy because they are the products of humans, who are inherently flawed creatures. In the United States, this can be most easily seen in the constant reversal and repealing of laws as many have historically been deemed moral one day and immoral the next. One specific example can be seen in slavery as it was deemed perfectly legal in 1857 and then illegal less than ten years later. The flawed nature of laws can also be seen in the aforementioned Arizona legislation. The Arizona governor assures the public that the state will do their best to “safe-guard” against abuses to the law, but there no way to guarantee such a claim. This is because there is no way to account for the human element as each officer and official is able to interpret the law in his or her own way. Some may argue that this can be solved by training, but past abuses to similar legislation as well as the tendency for people to become “power-crazed” prove otherwise.
The newly enacted legislation in Arizona should act as a cautionary tale that legislation cannot and should not be the “cure-all” for all of society’s ills. Although laws may be integral to running a successful society, they are by no means the answer to all societal problems. The truth is that moral behavior cannot be legalized because of its essentially relative definition and the inherently flawed nature of laws themselves.
Word count: 491
Some people may believe that certain issues in modern society “cannot be solved” by legal mandates based on the premise that “moral behavior cannot be legislated”. Depending on one’s perspective, this can be considered true for most of the laws that govern modern society; however, it is more evident in certain laws than others. There are obvious crimes that our society as a whole deams “unlawful” such as murder and rape. On the other hand, there are issues such as illegal immigration of which the line between what is right and wrong begins to blur. Therefore, though not all solutions to the problems of modern society can be solved through the legal system, moral behavior can be legislated because the purpose of law is to protect citizens from immoral behavior.
ReplyDeleteIf it not were for the passing of certain laws and acts in the United States, certain immoral trends in societal behavior would not have changed. Take, for example, slavery in America. The need for legislation of moral behavior was evident and the response was an act that prohibited slavery throughout the country. Though many people may not have agreed with the passing of this act, it was just in its implications and intentions for moral behavior in society towards people of color.
At times, the role of government and it laws may be seemingly unjust because they attempt to solve all problems of society through the passing of laws. Despite the thought that this in itself is unjust and one-sided, it is the responsibility of government and lawmakers to protect the country in which they live by instituting laws to protect the people—even from themselves. For instance, a great number of states over the last decade have passed laws to ban smoking in public restaurants and venues. Though opposition was evident, the truth that smoking can lead to death drove leaders in these states to pass laws against smoking in certain establishments. Though this may seem like a breech of individual rights, it is actually an act of government to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.
Although certain laws in modern society seem to blur the line between what is right and wrong, they need to be evaluated on the grounds of original intent and altruism before assuming the belief that moral behavior cannot be legislated. Recently, the issue of illegal immigration in America has stirred much controversy amongst the American people. Though people all over the country have rallied to protest laws on the grounds that innocent illegal immigrants will be unjustly categorized into this pool of the convicted, it is salient to consider the reasons for which this bill has been passed. Its original intent was altruistic, considering the fact that people have been put in danger because of violence directly related to illegal immigration. Therefore, since certain immoral behaviors along the border of certain states such as Arizona have occurred, the government has responded in thoughtful retaliation in order to justly protect its citizens.
While people may not completely agree with certain acts of the government and lawmakers to pass laws that seem unjust, it is important to realize that because moral behavior can be legislated, the responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens through legislation.
Word Count: 545
@ James
ReplyDeleteI liked how you attacked Brewer's argument. You brought to light some flaws in his logic including his defense of the law due to border violence and drug sales. It might have also helped if you highlighted more how his argument in itself was racial profiling since he is basically blaming immigrants for drug problems when in many cases that is not true. Good job!
@ Paul
ReplyDeleteI thought you had an excellent essay. Your argument was concise and to the point with an observable conclusion. Although illegal immigration has provided many opportunities for criminals who would take advantage of the chance to spread their activities into the US, it is a sad fact that many Americans generalize all illegal immigrants has being criminals, or even involved in the drug cartels. Good job.
@ Kris Dewberry
ReplyDeleteI like how you attacked the argument. But I thought you should have addressed the criticisms to your argument more. You fail to address the argument that relgion, for example, informs how people create laws and laws can thereby be seen as biased. Good essay though.
Modern society, or any society of the past, cannot be regulate moral behavior by laws or enforced through the legal system. Much like other aspects of human nature, what one sees as being moral is highly variable, personal, and above all usually a private affair. To subject others to what one groups deems to be moral can imposing and a step backwards in building a more just and peaceful society.
ReplyDeleteDiversity has been a valuable asset in the developing of the United States as a country, and into the economic and cultural superpower that is today. The exchange of ideas from different perspectives has allowed more thorough evaluation of one’s ideas and perspectives of the world. As much as diversity is an asset, it can also lead to the development of many points of contention based solely on the fact that not all groups will not agree on a single, unified thing. In regard to moral behavior and laws that aim to enforce certain preconceived notions of what moral behavior is, is there really a way to appease everyone’s concept of moral behavior? The answer is a resounding no! Some aspects of regulating moral behavior can be universal, such as laws aimed at preventing murder or stealing. The social sanctions imposed on those who break these laws can be seen as a positive step by society in promoting appropriate moral behavior. Where one needs to draw the line is in regard to issues that don’t fall into the simple dichotomy of right and wrong, such as issues relating to abortion or gay marriage.Laws cannot resolve these issues lose their efficacy because not everyone will agree on them and views regarding them are high subjective.
Ones personal view of what is right and wrong is influenced by several factors, including ones religious convictions and upbringings. The congressmen that legislate laws into action are no exception; their personal biases will seep into their decision-making process. Suppose that congress were dominated vegetarians that view the eating of animals as inhuman and amoral. If this congress enacted laws that banned the use and consumption of animal products would this truly be an effective way of promoting moral behavior? The answer is again a resounding no. What one-person views as being moral may not agree with what another person sees as moral. Such a law would impose on another’s personal liberties based on what one group sees to be an issue worth solving.
Laws reflect the nature of the people that develop them, whether it is to protect the makers’ self-interest or those of their constituents the problem of violating the liberties and beliefs will always be a problem. Some issues and societal problems cannot be solved by legislation and laws alone, they require the consensus and agreement of all.
Leah: I agree with your argument and I enjoyed the way that you presented it from a non-biased angle. That was very effective! Be careful of using Merriam-Webster as a source without providing a citation. Great argument!
ReplyDeleteJosefina: I liked the fact that you presented your argument with hard issues like abortion and same-sex marriage that exist in our society. This was definitely a strength in your argument!
In a society, there lies a plethora of cultural differences, views and opinions, norms of different races and ethnicities, and morals. In some cultures, it is rude and discourteous for a child to look an adult in the eye and some ethnicities deem women’s behavior un-lady-like if they speak in a loud manner. Some people are ignorant to the differences that lie among us in the United States, while others may not fully understand the surrounding differences, but choose to contentedly accept the fact that there are differences. It is also important to realize that everyone does not hold the same moral standard and that some people’s morals will and do differ from the rest of society. With that being said, the governing body that creates our laws and sets the standard on what is right and wrong for society to and which behaviors constitute punishment may have different moral beliefs than the people that are directly affected from the law. The question is, is that acceptable? Is it reasonable and functioning for societies problems to be solved by laws that are constructed by a group of people whose moral standards will differ from some of the people in society that have to abide by these laws? Some problems of society cannot be solved by laws due to the moral beliefs that form the decisions for these laws because some moral beliefs are based on prejudice and ignorance, conflict of societies morals, and
ReplyDeleteMorals are a system of conduct that distinguishes between what is right and wrong. In actuality, morals are what one considers or believes to be right and wrong there is no tangible evidence or a criterion that defines what actions are right and wrong. All we have are laws, which are constructed by one’s morals. For example, there are laws that will sentence a man to 40 years in prison if caught with possession of a certain amount of cocaine, while a sex offender will be sentenced less time in prison; why is it that the man who was convicted for drug possession receives a longer sentence over the man who sexually offended a child? There is a possibility that if our legislative body consisted of different people with different morals, the sex offender will get more prison time. Some will argue that all of the drug laws target black men in response to hatred towards black people. Some of these laws could as well be based on prejudice; if one thinks that black people tend to be the basis of crime and are not knowledgeable of the African American race from different perspectives and historical contexts than one may honestly think African Americans or blacks are dangerous and morally believe that a drug possession conviction, consisting a majority of black men, deserve a harsher sentence than other crimes. The point is not about certain laws that may intentionally target black men and punish them harsher; it is about the prejudice that may lie behind one’s morals. It is also about the different moral standards that each person has. Laws are based partly on one’s morals and no one group of people should be the basis of societies problem solving.
The question is not whether or not moral behavior can be the guidance behind the creation of our society’s law, rather should moral behavior be the factor that determines our laws. Even though some may think that our justice system is working sufficiently, there will always be one person who has different morals and may think or culturally believe that something is right, while the law defines it as wrong. Who are we to judge?
word count: 608
ReplyDelete@ Michael Dickinson
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument. I specifically liked how you included the fact that " It can be argued that laws and legal systems contain inherent fallacy because they are the products of humans, who are inherently flawed creatures." I thought that was a very good point to bring up because some people think just because you are a member of the legislative group what you say is correct. I also thought your example of slavery was necessary and proved your point validly. good job!
The issues of modern society and the complex problems that it is plagued by cannot be solved be merely imposing law s or by the regulation of our legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated because morals are not universal and complex problems can be solved by simple laws.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, morals are the choice between right and wrong. In line with the idea of right and wrong, some argue that laws are morals put into legislation. Laws define what actions can be deemed as wrong or immoral, and are therefore, punishable. For example, one can argue that something as basic as the speed limit is defined by morals. We know that it is right to follow the speed limit that is posted on each throughway in order to ensure the safety of ourselves and others. If this is not followed, then we may be subject to a ticket, or punishment. However, most problems of modern society, such as abortion or immigration, are not so simple and clear cut as the speed limit. On these complex issues we find that laws do not easily solve society’s problems.
The argument that laws are morally defined also fails to recognize that the morals of one or a few may not be the same as the morals of others. Morals vary across cultures, religions and ethnicities. Further, what is considered to be fair or just for some, may be the exact opposite for others. The newly passed Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, which has led to protests, demonstrations, and ongoing debate of millions across the country, is an example of this problem. Many have cited that this law, which requires that police stop anyone that may be an undocumented immigrant, will inevitably lead to racial targeting of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Hispanics in general. Arizona’s Governer Jan Brewer, claims that she believes that this law addresses what’s best for Arizona and all of its citizens. However, the population of Mexican-American and Hispanics that are now at a much greater risk of being wrongfully targeted, although they are legally here, will most certainly not benefit from this law. Further, we must also consider whether or not a law has been enacted to promote the greater good of citizens or to benefit the minority of politicians and legislators that posses the power to do so.
Although the legal system may attempt to legislate morality, we cannot do so because that would entail determining or defining a universal morality. As morals are subjective and based in personal beliefs, a universal morality cannot be defined.
Word Count: 427
@ Yael
ReplyDeleteI liked that you said that whether or not this argument is true depends on the situation/context. I liked that you used many different examples to show this and I thought that your perspective on the Arizona law was insightful. However, I think that you could have used less words to get the same point across.
@ Michael Dickinson
ReplyDeleteI liked your perspective on the flawed nature of laws and lawmakers and the examples that you used to demonstrate this. I thought ti was an important point that many other did not touch upon.
Many of the issues that effect society pull at the heart strings and cause an individual reference their own personal values and moral standing. While a society must impose legislation to allow for the organized functioning of a society, moral behaviors cannot be solved by the legal system. Many of the imposed laws are clearly defined yet are amended as different situations arise. No particular issue in society has or fits into one uniform category. For instance in the article discussing the SB1070 the author describes how the new law will supposedly help the current issue with illegal immigration in Arizona. Yes, the point is valid that the increased amount of illegal immigrants has become an ever growing problem in states like Arizona, however what is the harm that many of these individuals are causing? Many of those illegal immigrants sneaking into the US are only doing so, with the aspiration of a better life and greater opportunity.
ReplyDeleteWhile Governor Jan Brewer appears to have sincere intentions in her effort to support the ideals and concerns of the Arizonians, nonetheless it is very hard to condone the fact that in a nut shell, racial profiling has become a legal act. Credit must be given to her attempt to ensure that police officers are properly trained to follow proper protocol. Even with this training many Hispanic citizens will become vulnerable to being subjected to harassment by government officials. The truth remains that some illegal immigrants are not here to simply advance their economic or education status but to add to the ever growing crime rate. In the same sense, others who escape to America are here to leave an impoverished lifestyle behind.
If one was to examine the impact that these individuals have on society, first issue that comes to mind is their influence on employment. Many of these illegal immigrants are hired to jobs that many Americans feel that the job is beneath them and refuse to partake is back breaking labor. These jobs consist of being a landscaper, janitor, food service worker, etc. In addition to the nature of the work, many of these jobs are often minimum wage or below. With countless Americans protesting and lobbying for harsher legislation to control the issue of illegal immigration, these same Americans are not as adamant about enforcing penalties or harsher legislation for those companies that send thousands of jobs overseas, due to cheaper production and labor costs. The irony of the situation is baffling.
Ideally, individuals would like for modern day problems to be easily solved by simply passing legislation and everyone be content. Even in developing and passing legislation, one’s personal moral standing and values impact every vote or argument that one presents. This society has always tried to place emphasis on the fact that the church and state are two separate entities and should not overshadow one another, nonetheless they have been know to have some influence despite these efforts. Numerous individuals attain their moral standing from their religious beliefs, which ultimately effects how they view issues and vote on legislation. In the end moral behaviors cannot be governed strictly by legislation because one’s moral behaviors define an individual, there is no uniformity and morals are subject to personal interpretation.
*Word count 542
@ Jessie I very much agree with your argument. I really enjoyed reading your essay and the points you make about the value of diversity and how laws are not just developed on the basis of need to make change in society for the better but mirrors the beliefs and protects those who push for new legislation.
ReplyDelete@ Paul
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out the sociological concerns with creating laws. They are based on perspective and no necessarily what is inherently the best and most moral plan of action. I do feel that morality still can be a guide to defining laws, however, its hard to truly know whether morality is the deciding factor because times change and what is considered moral in one era is considered immoral in another era (ie segregation).
@Dewberry
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your point, that the law can handle the issues of modern society, I feel you didn't develop it fully. You only briefly mentioned that most religions are ancient and not equipped to handle current issues without sufficient support. You also presented law as being concrete and universally understood througout most of your essay which fails to address the major issue of interpretation. You correctly mention the supreme court and its ability to interpret and re-establigh the scope of some laws but the omittace of a counterargument to the vast interpretation of law like the Freedom of speech weakens your argument
While the legal system inherently creates a set of laws and standards to regulate the behavior of society, moral behavior is more strongly influenced by one’s own personal values and beliefs. As such, the moral beliefs of individuals at times may contrast or conflict with legislation. Many issues of modern society are impacted by moral differences and diverse views about what measures legislation should take to address such issues. As the law may assert particular practices and rules, individuals may hold their own ethical codes above the law and its restrictions. Therefore, in exploring the controversial nature of topics such as abortion, immigration, and racism, the moral implications and differences in actions and beliefs demonstrate that moral behavior cannot be legislated nor can many of modern society’s problems simply be solved by the law.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, in regards to the issue of abortion, while it was established by law that states cannot ban abortions, such clinics are not available in every state. More importantly, where someone stands regarding this issue depends on whether one is “ pro-choice” or “pro-life”. Some people believe that abortion is a women’s rights issue and do not agree that states reserve the right to withhold such practices or can limit the number of practicing clinics. While others do not agree with even having the option available, and believe that abortions should in fact be banned all together. Because such differences in opinion exist, much of the conflict regarding the issue of abortion is based on morals and beliefs. As such the result has been that many have lashed out and openly protested on both sides, although the law has taken sides leaning toward “pro-choice.” Many take their moral status on abortion to have higher regard than what the law has mandated, therefore abortion laws do not necessarily guide the behavior of individuals nor does everyone agree with them.
Secondly, immigration is another topic that demonstrates differences between law and society’s views. Immigration law and reform are current issues that have received both opposition and support. Some support tighter broader security and punishment for undocumented workers. While others support immigration reform that grants undocumented workers already in the U.S amnesty and equal rights. Such individuals view immigration law as a human rights issue. The occurrences in Arizona demonstrate the differing views on immigration law and the conflict that surrounds the topic. Many are outraged because of the implications the law may have, such as support of racial profiling and discrimination, while others support the strict nature of the law. Protests and debates on both sides have fueled the debate despite the passing of the law in Arizona.
Lastly, the issue of racism involves a similar conflict as the two previous issues. Although the law supports that all men were created equal and that racial discrimination and injustice is punishable by the law, racial tensions and hostility still exist. There are still individuals who have racial prejudice and believe that not all people should be treated equally because of the color of their skin. Hate crimes continue to happen because there are individuals who act based on those beliefs, despite the law indicating equality. Overall, while the law may place standards and regulations in society, many of the current issues involve moral differences. Therefore, as such, individuals will often hold their personal standards above the law.
Word count: 558
@Jesse: Nice essay. I agree that morals are highly subjective, individual and personal, but you also pointed out some 'objective' truths enforced through social mores such as stealing and murder... where's the line between subjective morals and objective truth?
ReplyDeleteMany argue that problems of modern society can be solved by laws and the legal system if moral behavior can be legislated, however the legislation of moral behavior will not solve the problems of modern society. People assume that laws will control and solve all problems in modern society, but in reality laws create more problems than the ones they solve. I will argue how the legal system is not the key to solve problems of modern society, instead respecting and understanding the different perspectives’ of others is the key to solve problems or rather reach equilibrium among the inhabitant of our planet.
ReplyDeleteTo legalize moral behavior is not the key to solve the problems of modern society because moral behavior cannot be established by laws due to its ambiguity. Morals are established by people and the definition of morals is different for every person, this is due to multiple factors such as personal experiences and culture. The legislation of morals will impose certain morals upon people forcing them to fit certain standards.
People assume that laws are the only way to maintain control among humans, but in many cases this laws will only benefit the dominant group. The legislation of morals will create more conflicts among humans due to their ambiguity. Since morals cannot be define and there is not a way to prove which morals should be follow, this leads to conflicts among humans about who is “right” and “wrong” about the definition of morals. This even leads to a bigger problem, which is the definition of truth, the definition of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Many people are ignorant and try to impose their definition of truth upon others just because the dominant group agrees to their truth, their truth about the established definitions of “right” and “wrong”. Morals are set by the definition of what is “right” and “wrong” which is why the legislation of morals cannot solve the problems of modern society. In our society we question everything and a huge question is the definition of truth. What is true? Who is right? What is “right” and what is “wrong”? Who says that there is only on truth, in my opinion every human has a definition for right and wrong, every humans has a definition for truth. And the definition of truth defines morals, which is the main reason why moral behavior cannot be legislated since morals cannot be set.
The only way we can reach equilibrium among humans is to respects other peoples’ points of view, thoughts and ideas even if they do not fit the dominant group’s standards. As human beings we are allow to express our ideas, to express our opinions about life and we should not be restricted to the standards created by a dominant group. Laws are forces that try to keep control by following the standards of the dominant group.
The issues of modern society remain held together by areas of culture and moral behavior. It has been argued that many problems of society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated. Problems may not be solved; however, many societal issues can be guided by laws and the legal system.
ReplyDeleteDespite many beliefs, Arizona’s immigration law is an example of moral issues being guided by the legal system. The Law links culture and moral behaviors with government. The Law, in a way, attacks immigrant workers and their culture by increasing their perceived stereotype. In many ways, the Law has immense consequences on both the American and immigrant cultures. By requiring police to stop people of “reasonable suspicion” for being an undocumented immigrant, it leaves room for much discretion and subjectivity in a system of law that is very objective. It doesn’t necessarily enforce a productive law, but rather, enforces the common perceptions of an illegal immigrant. Should the law be able to rely on the generalized ideas of appearance and association to define a criminal? Whether right or wrong, Arizona’s immigration Law represents the government using its power to highlight the beliefs and stereotype of people from Mexico; the Law reflects beliefs that are enforced by the government.
Furthermore, many argue that the legal system cannot avoid stereotyping; however it is certain that it has caused much turmoil in our nation’s workforce. Ideas within the workforce are rooted to ideas of our nation and Laws such as the Arizona’s Immigration Law. Having ideas suggesting a new passport system to prevent undocumented workers, the Arizona Law would reflect the nation’s exercise of power, as well as, its fears of corruption by acting as a monitoring system. The bill requires punitive measures that would promote self-incrimination which completely violates the 5th Amendment. These measures would provoke ideas of both American and immigrant culture; an immigrant’s image essentially becomes tarnished. The idea of a “guest worker” program would, once again, represent the abuse of power because workers would have almost no rights when working at their employer’s mercy.
Even in the workforce, issues can only be guided because every individual has specific morals based on their culture and lifestyle.
It is clear that laws are needed, but issues arrive when they begin to provoke the pride of a culture. We should not be defining our own nation by incriminating immigrants based on our perceived values of society. Therefore, laws and the legal system alone cannot solve, but only guide, the problems within society because many issues are linked to the moral behaviors and values are deeply rooted to cultural beliefs.
Word Count: 444
@ Susana, I really enjoyed the way you address the ideas of what is "good" or "bad" because everything,in some way is a constructed label or belief. Perhaps we ignore, or don't want to believe this because people get so caught up in wanting the facts, when in reality nothing is a fact it's all a prefabricated belief system anyway!!
ReplyDelete