Turn of Phrase

I was driving back from the gym the other day, and somehow my mind wandered to how the colloquial meanings of words change over time; in particular, I thought about the word immigrant. Perhaps it was seeing an Hispanic person drive past me in the other lane, or perhaps it was the burrito I was going to have after I returned home; nonetheless, the thought had entered my mind.
I remember being taught about immigration in grade school and learning about the (highly propagandized) belief that each and every immigrant came to the US in search of the "perfect life," aka the "American Dream," and that it was achievable by working hard and being an upstanding citizen. In particular, we were taught that everyone in the world wants to be like us, (a rather egotistical and tangential point) and that we should be accepting of those who emerged from different cultures.
Coming from a town where approximately 1/3 of students in my high school were Caucasian, with the other 2/3 reserved mostly for East Asian and Indian, with a few African Americans mixed in, I am used to diversity; I never found anyone's culture, regardless of their origins, to be that strange. I still held the innate belief that immigrants should be accepted by all, and I held it to heart.
I assume that you would expect my belief to have changed, and I suppose it has, though not without undue influence from external sources; in other words, because the word "immigration" has been so often coupled with pejorative terms of late, I have noticed that some of my opinions have become less welcoming and amiable. That being said, I still act on my geniality to its fullest extent.
To call someone an "immigrant" in America is now a sign of derogation; where it once simply described someone's status as an American citizen, it now has come to implicitly stand for "intruder," "criminal," "interloper," etc.
Why should a simple word change so drastically?
A few years ago, illegal immigration from the southernmost border of the United States became a hot topic, as it does every so often. Those crossing the border were portrayed as attempting to steal very "precious" American jobs by working for below minimum wage, along with giving birth to children in the US in order to have their kids be American citizens, somehow enabling the child's parents to be retrieved somehow later (though it's ludicrous, seeing as the child has to wait until he/she is 18 to apply for residency for his/her parents, and then the typical waiting time is 10 years). Thus, the "immigrant" was tainted; an Arizona law allowed for police to "randomly check" people who seemed "suspicious"; pundits railed against the lack of security along the border, that there should be a gigantic fence, etc.
The same applies to the word "gay"; where it once meant "happy," it is now a synonym for "bad"; what causes the change in meanings? Is it simply one's perception of a certain group as defined by some rather meaningless characteristic?

I suppose there is no final thought to this post. I guess that's how my summer has been- no sense of finality.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Remonstration of a Tragedy

As almost everyone in the United States and beyond likely knows, Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner during a public event in Tuscon, Arizona. Much has been made of this incident, as liberal and conservative pundits have placed blame on each other for the occurrence. Conservative pundits have portrayed Loughner as a liberal tool, and Liberal pundits have painted him as a man influenced by rhetoric spouted by those such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I won't blame either side for the tragedy.

I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.

I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.

So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.

Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

All Things Pertinent

Well, I was asked to give my thoughts on the Arizona immigration law, and here they are.

First of all, I want to hash out the stereotype of an illegal immigrant: An un- or undereducated brigand/interloper who may or may not bring either drugs, weapons, or both over the border, and in addition to this, "steals" jobs away from the average, everyday American.

That is likely only the case in less than 1% of all undocumented citizens.

The typical illegal immigrant is simply an impoverished person looking for ways to improve his/her life and his/her family's life, and is willing to take whatever simple job is necessary to support them. The jobs they take are typically those that the average American wouldn't take, such as farm worker, house cleaner, maid, etc. In fact, United Farm Workers, along with the support of Stephen Colbert, has started a "Take Our Jobs" campaign, where migrant workers will literally give up their jobs of picking food during a harvest to any Americans who are interested. ((www.takeourjobs.org)

Now, Arizona; home to miles and miles of sand, some cacti, and an immigration law that is reminiscent of racial profiling. Oh, wait, it basically is.

The law requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration papers on them at all times and requires police to question subjects whom they believe to be in the country illegally.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that carrying around one's immigration documents in order to prove that one is a citizen casts an undue burden on the legal immigrant. Also, there isn't exactly a criterion for discriminating between an illegal immigrant and a second-generation citizen, namely an Hispanic one. Both likely speak Spanish and both likely fit the profile for a suspected illegal immigrant. What happens when a cop suspects an American-born Hispanic person of being an illegal immigrant, and that person has no immigration documentation?

It seems that this law is the culmination of all the repressed frustration felt by Americans, especially by those recently unemployed or those who have to work under immigrants or those of different races. In a recent study I read, 60% of Caucasians support the law, while 30% of other races support it (+ or - a few percentage points). The law, xenophobic in its nature, has already been challenged by the ACLU and will eventually reach the Supreme Court, which, if holding to prior Civil Rights cases, will strike down the law.

Jon Stewart had a great bit on this. Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Law & Border<
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

P.S. VAMOS VAMOS, ARGENTINA, VAMOS VAMOS, A GANAR! Sorry US, need to go with my roots.