Solitary Enfranchisement: Consistently Inconsistent

As it stands, U.S. citizens found guilty of felony offenses are restricted from voting to different degrees. For such crimes, 13 states allow voting once released from prison, 5 permit ballot casting upon the completion of parole, 18 require parole and probation before extending the franchise, and 12 may permanently ban felons from the polls. Ultimately, such policies have denied nearly one in forty adult residents from exercising their right to vote; a calculated denial of liberty that is uncharacteristic of democracy at the most basic level.

While the aforementioned statistical breakdown is alarming, two states do recognize that strict felon enfranchisement policy violates the spirit of American principle. Maine and Vermont permit all current and former prisoners to vote in both state and federal elections, and neither policy seems to have decayed the moral infrastructure of these truly sovereign state governments. In light of such exemplary policy, all states should reinstate the voting rights of felons.

One of the more fallacious perceptions regarding felon status is the idea that any person with said title must have committed a detestable act. Wrong. Felonies can be given for some of the most mundane crimes. Loitering, curfew violations, insider trading, postdating checks, and other arguably innocuous offenses are considered class A felonies in some states. Although these crimes are the culmination of poor decisions, they should not justify the restriction of a fundamental constitutional right, particularly when penalty for the offense has been paid. Ex-felons are lawfully permitted to purchase alcohol and operate heavy machinery, the combination of which can generate a far greater amount of tangible harm than ballot casting. Why, then, is voting held to such a strict standard?

Regardless of the particular circumstances surrounding a criminal act, no compelling state interest could possibly justify denying felons the franchise. Most directly, restricting this fundamental right infringes upon the U.S. Constitution. The freedom to petition, to practice religion, and to exercise unabridged speech are not withheld due to prisoner status. As such, the right to vote cannot reasonably be abridged.

America, the self-proclaimed center of the democratic world, seems to have fallen behind other nations in its failure to extend the franchise to a sizeable share of its citizens; criminals. In fact, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Kenya, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, and Zimbabwe allow the imprisoned to vote regardless of the offense. America is falling behind the rest of the world by failing to progress the voting rights of criminals. Universality and a restoration of democratic tradition is needed in all states.

Martha Stewart was convicted of four felony counts. Do you think that these crimes should prevent her from voting the rest of her life (as they are)?



Op-Ed: “Leggo My Preggo”

Abortion remains the perpetual political question and a recent Colorado ballot proposition aiming to grant unborn fetuses the full rights of the Constitution threatens to make it all the more contentious. Rights for fetuses? Individuals under 18 years of age are not even afforded all the lawful privileges of citizens. Religiously-based opposition to abortion depicts a loose relationship with reality, and as such, pregnancy termination within reasonable parameters should be universally permitted.

Pro-lifers typically argue that those without the means or intent to bring a child into the world should not engage in sexual acts. Unfortunately, the reality of the matter is that humans are susceptible to carnal desires and such self-restraint is rare at best. The overwhelming majority of middle-aged Americans have engaged in sexual relations with an individual they didn’t intend to raise a child with. For college students this is particularly true.

Challengers tend to portray abortion as the primary form of birth control used by women. There may, in fact, be a very small percentage that do just that. However, it is much cheaper (free) and more convenient (easy) to wear a condom or ingest a birth control pill than to get an abortion. Pregnancy termination is not a psychologically enjoyable nor physically comfortable experience for anybody and the price of the procedure can eclipse $1000.

Those opposed to abortion on biblical grounds would likely have to contradict deep-seated beliefs if their mother were raped and became pregnant with the offender’s child. Would staunch opponents, as they so often do, cite the Bible and force their loved one to endure a psychologically troubling pregnancy and raise the illegitimate child in the name of Christ?

For those arguing in the affirmative, the Bible also permits man to sell his daughter into slavery in Exodus 21: 7-11. Contrary to the thinking of some devout Christians, this religious text is not unconditionally applicable to the modern day. As such, anti-abortion arguments should not be biblically based.

Ultimately, decisions regarding a woman’s body should be just that, a woman’s. As such, pregnancy termination within reasonable limits should be permitted. Once the government dictates what a woman may or may not do with her body during pregnancy, the door opens for the federal regulation of a woman’s body at other times.

Don’t call me the devil just yet. Abortion after the first six months is inhumane. I say that because it has been proven that a fetus has the ability to survive independently from the mother at this point; hence, inhumane.

During the first six months, however, a fetus could not exist without the life force of the umbilical cord. As a result, this multicellular organism cannot be considered the person that Colorado believes is deserving of the protections of the Constitution. To be safe, termination within the first three months of pregnancy should be unconditionally permissible across all fifty states.

For many, this issue comes down to the point at which life begins. As a pro-choice advocate it may be surprising that I believe that life begins shortly after conception. However, my definition of life extends to the most basic cellular entity, and as such, algae, bacteria, and fungus also fit the term.

As a result, I do not think that a multicellular fetus that has only been developing for three months thinks or deserves the full protection of the Constitution.

Thankfully the voters of Colorado demonstrated common sense and overwhelmingly defeated the Fetal Personhood Amendment 62. Have faith in the system.

“If you don’t agree with abortion then don’t have one.”

Eruption of Corruption?

Motorcyclist Eric Wells was killed in August while sitting at a red light. Drunk driver? Drunk police officer. Although the facts are quite clear, justice has not been served because the officer’s .19 blood alcohol level was considered inadmissible evidence due to a procedural error on the part of investigative authorities; detectives that were colleagues of and friends with the reckless cop.

Sadly, corruption in governmentally-funded agencies is not unique to this incident and internal fraud is far too widespread among civil servants, elected persons, and state-employees. This is not to say that all such officials are conniving evildoers out to deceive the general populace, because they’re not. Most officials embody responsibility and act by the code of their office with the wellbeing of their constituents in mind. The power of office seems to cause some officials to lose sight of their public commitments and take advantage of the system. What is unclear is whether these practices are increasing, decreasing, or remaining steady over time. The fact remains that when entrusted with the responsibilities of office or public service the potential for corruption, cover-ups, and otherwise condemned behavior is a looming threat. Personally, I argue that these practices remain consistent over time and are just as relevant today as they were at any other point in our nation’s modern history.

In the case of the late Eric Wells, it turns out that the officer’s BAC will not be considered because the improper authorities drew his blood. The defense claims that the breathalyzer results should also be thrown out, and the officer maintains his innocence. Am I the only one that finds it a conflict of interest that the police department for which the officer worked botched an internal investigation? How has this story not made national headlines? As of now, the officer has been indicted on reckless homicide charges. It appears that the family of the deceased will have to come to grips with the fact that justice and closure may not come for their son.

I highlight the Wells case not to portray all police officers as malicious and irresponsible criminals. That is clearly wrong. My father was a member of SWAT and I realize that these incredibly brave individuals put their lives on the line so that we can live a safer existence. The same can be said for firefighters, members of the United States Military, and individuals involved in law enforcement and public safety. Despite these facts, cases like this illustrate that corruption still exists among these ranks. When individuals grossly violate the most basic safety standards and laws a punishment is warranted, regardless of job title.

At the national level, cover-ups have taken place in the executive branch across several decades. Richard Nixon’s involvement with the Watergate Scandal is perhaps the most thoroughly documented and recognized political scandal in American history involving our Commander-in-Chief. Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment for his part in breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters.

More than twenty-five years later, President Bill Clinton was accused of partaking in adulterous acts with Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, but neither led to any official action. However, Clinton almost met a Nixon-like fate after an unbelievably public affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. All that remains from the incident, however, is a rather small stain on the Presidential Seal (I mean blue dress).

Indecency at the highest level continues to this day with John Edwards making national headlines. It is alleged that the married politician conceived a child with a campaign aide and paid her to keep the story out of the public eye.

Undeniably, these instances did not result in the demise of another human being, and as such, I do not mean to draw a direct parallel between the death and the media frenzy surrounding political corruption. My concern is with the priority our media assigns to stories. I would be willing to bet that if you are not from the Indianapolis area then you did not hear about Mr. Wells’ death and the outrageous details surrounding the handling of the murderer– yes, I said it. Conversely, I would be shocked if any readers did not hear of the scandals involving Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, or John Edwards at the time they broke.

Obviously a sex scandal or break-in involving the most powerful man in the world will attract more attention than one death at the hands of a police officer under the influence of alcohol. But in a case as dishonest and unjust as this, I cannot help but wonder if the national media heads blacked out at the time of this accident too.

Op-Ed: In Memory

The September 2010 suicide of Tyler Clementi, a college freshman whose homosexual encounters were secretly live-streamed by his tormentors, once again thrust bullying into the national spotlight. Despite the arraignment of the culprits on chargers of cyber-voyeurism, however, Americans still tend to view bullying as something that occurs amongst children between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. on school grounds. Wrong. Bullying is a crime that targets homosexual and heterosexual males and females of all ages, and takes place on campus, off campus, and through the internet. We must refocus the perception of bullying from elementary squabble to a seriously pervasive crime that requires immediate legislative action.

Since Phoebe Prince was driven to suicide by classmates, the Massachusetts State Legislature enacted laws requiring teachers to report all observed harassment among students to the principal; a failure in the school’s reporting mechanism was a primary factor in Prince’s suicide. Without doubt, the implementation of this law identifies bullying as an issue of political significance. However, resulting legislation has failed to adequately address the root cause of many teen suicides, and instead, only dictates the repercussions for parties found guilty of violating interpersonal conduct standards on taxpayer funded property.

As it turns out, the students that compelled Phoebe to take her own life harassed her beyond school walls and even posted derogatory comments on her Facebook memorial page. This fact reveals yet another fold of torment among youth and an issue in much need of attention– cyberbullying. In this media driven age, social networking sites have emerged as enablers of peer maltreatment and federal, state, and local legislation is critical if we hope to prevent the deaths of countless teens like Prince.

Of late, lawmaking bodies have been commended for their response to the recent media frenzy surrounding harassment-induced teen suicides. This praise is unwarranted, however, because the majority of legislation fails to establish a plan that works toward tangible goals and an identifiable solution. The fact remains that the most potentially game-changing bills have failed to progress beyond congressional introduction and die, like so many teens, in the committee chambers to which they are assigned.

Although 45 states now have anti-bullying laws on record, such standards only hold schools responsible for actions that take place on federally funded property and few political bodies have addressed bullying off of school grounds or in artificial realms. To date, only 10 states have approved statutes to combat cyberbullying, and even those in place have had little impact to deter harassment (see Tyler Clementi, Phoebe Prince). Undeniably, these facts point to the need for an improved system that aims to prevent bullying before it takes place.

Do I have the answer? No, if I did then political players in Washington would learn to run at the sight of me. It is clear, however, that current laws are ineffective and every day a potentially transformational bill stalls in Congress is a day that fourteen teens end their lives and countless others craft plans to be carried out at a later date.

Suicide is, in fact, the fifth leading cause of death among 5 to 14 year-olds. More than 1.3% of all U.S. deaths in 2005 were self-inflicted, a statistic that affirms such fatalities as a pandemic in the eyes of the World Health Organization. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) even noted a single year increase in domestic suicides among teenagers of 8% in its 2007 report, a significant portion of which were likely caused by bullying. Why is it, then, with this shocking evidence that peer harassment is not a national issue of substantial proportion in the United States?

You can help prevent teen suicides by writing your senator and upholding this issue as one of the utmost importance before the national spotlight fades and another death is required to revive it. Avoid the complacency exhibited by your political representatives and act; this is a pandemic in the true sense of the word.

If Glenn Beck Weren’t White: Dispelling Rumors about Arabs, Muslims, and Jihadists

Unbeknownst to a great deal of Americans, Arabs and Muslims are NOT the same thing and believing such reveals the unrefined global knowledge of the typical U.S. citizen. There is a very basic difference that exists between Arab people and those that subscribe to Islamic principles (Muslims). Arabs are defined as those, “originally from the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding territories who speak Arabic and inhabit much of the Middle East and northern Africa,” regardless of faith. These people are typically descendants or current residents of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Mauritius, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, or Yemen. Conversely, citizens who identify with Islam live a life, “articulated by the Qur’an,” and are popularly known as Muslims. While 90% of Arabs consider themselves Muslim, only 15% of Muslims are of Arab descent. Such statistics disprove the synonymous connotation some Americans apply to the terms and reveal that more than three-quarters of the global Islamic population is made up of Anglos, Africans, Asians, and other ethnicities. This data serves to illustrate that there is an extremely basic difference that separates Muslims from Arabs, rendering the blurred line cultivated by American media culturally uninformed and unconditionally irresponsible. To put this in relative terms for most U.S. citizens, this act is as blatantly wrong as positing that all subscribers to the Christian faith are Americans and vice versa; clearly this is not true. It is quite rare to hear a clarified distinction between these two terms in popular media, and instead, television and radio outlets tend to characterize people from this region of the world as Muslims more often than as Arabs. This ignorance ultimately yields a society incapable of respectfully addressing different cultures, an especially dangerous situation in today’s unstable global circumstances.

Personally, I would be disgusted if this racially and religiously negligent media coverage led any Americans to believe that Muslims deserve different treatment than other races; however, this is exactly what has happened. A 2004 poll released by Cornell University, “found [that] 44 percent [of U.S. citizens] favored restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans.” It seems clear that this land, once considered a place of religious and ethnic freedom, has become far less accepting of Muslims and, because of false attribution, Arabs since the attacks of September 11th. Undoubtedly, this day’s tragic events resulted in the mindless loss of more than 3,000 American citizens. However, feelings of sadness and vengeance toward 9/11 conspirators do not render the characterization of all Muslims as suicide bombers, hijackers, or strategists of mass terror as justified on any level. The American government has already witnessed the adverse effects that public scorn toward a particular race can have with the Japanese Internment Camps of the 1940s. If this nation hopes to escape a past riddled with race-relations issues such as this, then we must aim to understand Islam and its followers instead of ignorantly labeling Muslims as unconditional enemies of the State.

Opponents of my post will likely posit that they are not targeting Muslims en masse, as other Americans undoubtedly are, and instead they are condemning the acts of fundamentalist Muslims. Fundamentalism, “refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles,” and is not unique to Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims may also be referred to as jihadists, and this term seems to have become synonymous with terrorism in the minds of far too many U.S. citizens. The Arabic word jihad simply means to struggle or to struggle in the ways of Allah, and most level-headed readers will now realize that jihad is not evocative of mass destruction and swelling death tolls. In fact, jihad is closely related to the Christian term devout, something often seen by these Americans as positive. The fact is, fundamentalist movements exist in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions worldwide. For example, fundamentalist Christians include members of the KKK, Aryan Nations, and Skinheads. Throughout history, these groups have carried out massive acts of violence that resulted in the deaths of thousands of African Americans, Jews, and other non-whites in the name of religion. However, these acts did not cause the American populace to believe that Christians should be discriminated against or that their civil rights should be restricted in any way. Why, then, does the same line of reasoning hold true for Muslims in America?

Glenn Beck is a prominent voice in the political talk sphere and his commentary on Muslims in America is most accurately identified as bipolar. From an ethical perspective, Beck is politically correct in stating that he doesn’t believe that, “all Arabs and Muslims are anti-American.” Nevertheless, any positive feelings that global citizens held for Beck disappear when he goes on to say, “We should embrace the good Muslims and eliminate the bad ones. The Muslim community can prevent [placement into internment camps] if they act now,” just one sentence later. This statement is astoundingly bigoted and even if some political body were to take such statements seriously, how is it determined which Muslims are good and which Muslims are bad? It seems that Beck would argue that good Muslims are those that shun the true nature of their faith and do not deviate far from the “typical” American citizen in religious practice. With that logic, we should embrace the “good” Christians and eliminate the “bad” Christians from the shores of the United States as well. Perhaps Beck would support the abolishment of all religious sects that diverge from the practices of traditional Christianity (Note: there are a lot). The United States prides itself as a land of both religious and ethnic diversity that allows for all people to practice their faith unconditionally. Beck’s powerful influence over devoted listeners makes comments regarding Muslims all the more dangerous. The social consequences of this spreading racism cannot be overstated, especially when coupled with the growing American Militia Movement. Despite Beck’s radical prejudice against Muslims, “I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others,” and I suggest that anybody aiming to lead a life of respect and compassion for fellow human beings do the same.

And for those claiming that President Obama is a Muslim. So what if he is? None of us can be sure of his religious affiliation but it is obvious that he doesn’t outwardly practice Islam. However, what would be the issue if he were to publicly announce his Islamic faith? JFK was just as feared when he became the first Catholic U.S. President and clearly his religious beliefs didn’t trigger an irreversible collapse of the union.

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/muslim-pilgrims-in-mecca-for-hajj.jpg

Immigration Nation: Ethnic Undertone

Staunch traditionalist banter litters the public discourse by maliciously portraying illegal immigrants as freeloading beaners, effectively leading the American public to adopt an “us versus them” mentality. This social complex desecrates the moral standing of a once proud nation and promotes an ethnically intolerant subculture. Groups opposing the presence of undocumented aliens often utilize racially charged language and promote unfounded viewpoints on immigration to drive their prejudiced agenda. Such statements serve to morally debase, and ultimately, physically expel these people from our borders in an effort to restore a predominantly Anglo society. This tribalistic approach to addressing the matter of illegal immigration is masked by claims that undocumented aliens diminish critical social assets, contribute to the dilution of domestic values, and rob naturally born citizens of employment. All such beliefs are synthetically manufactured and can be invalidated through the application of universally accepted social norms and demonstrable fact. This fabrication process reveals that the true motivation for targeted opposition is cultivated by the tradition of division that exists in America. Despite concerns that the aggrandizement of illegal immigration has depleted welfare reserves and other governmental resources, contributed to a disappearance of the American identity, or pilfered jobs from otherwise enterprising citizens, the increasingly common designation of illegal immigration as an issue of the foremost importance has harbored an unreasonably narrow-minded political outlook and yielded a society of xenophobes.

In order to intelligently explore the inaccuracy of oppositional claims, a cognitive understanding of the history of immigration in America and a clear conception of what makes the political relationship between Mexico and the United States so fascinating is necessary. Throughout history, the U.S. has widely been perceived as land of immigrants that welcomed the “tired, poor, huddled masses” seeking political refuge and the prospects of a life based on equality and freedom. In actuality, this reputation was upheld until the executive branch determined that this land of ethnic multiplicity was becoming far too diverse, leading to the passage of the National Origins Quota Act of 1924. This bill dictated that the Immigration Department was only permitted to grant visas to “2% of the number of immigrants from that specific country already residing in the United States” (U.S. Code, 1924). Prior to the 1920s, Anglos hailing from European nations dominated immigration; as a result, legislation effectively prevented otherwise qualified applicants with Latin American origins from attaining U.S. citizenship. Despite significant progress in race relations and international affairs since this legislation, the United States is currently experiencing a massive civilian uprising against undocumented migrants hailing from Mexico. The permeable border and affable political relations that exist between these North American allies was initially recognized with the signing of the Bracero Program in 1942. This measure allowed for Mexican citizens to cross the border and work in the agricultural sector while the majority of the American labor force was entrenched in the war abroad, as a result, popularizing the notion of Hispanic immigrants as fieldworkers in the minds of U.S. citizens. Despite modest policy along the southern border and a publicly cordial diplomatic policy with the Mexican government, the United States maintains strict immigration standards and exacting policies on all foreigners seeking refuge. Such meticulous governmental decrees render it particularly surprising that an estimated twelve million illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly from Hispanic nations, are living and working within our borders today. Public opponents of illegal immigration generally claim that their opposition is based solely on the maintenance of political resources, the perception of an existing national identity, and the U.S. job market. However, a deeper analysis of the American reaction to migration trends reveals racially intolerant and ethnically bigoted citizens that promote malevolent falsehoods as undeniable fact. As a descendent of foreign immigrants and as a lifelong constituent in the nation’s foremost hotbed of illegal immigration, I will provide a critical analysis of the ulterior meanings of public animosity toward Hispanic aliens.

The presence of illegal immigrants in America does not irreversibly deplete welfare services as opponents claim, in turn, uncovering the obscure thinking of oppositional groups. As it stands, five percent of all U.S. citizens receive federal aid, while only one percent of households headed by illegal immigrants receive monetary compensation from the welfare system (Rahman, 2008). Opponents find it absurd that undocumented workers could possibly receive money from a system which they had no part in fortifying by way of federal or state taxes. However, these fears are unfounded given that illegal immigrants cannot receive federal assistance under any circumstance. Rather, households headed by aliens are eligible for governmental funding if it is determined that a U.S. citizen resides within the home and demonstrates need. Aid is only dispersed at an amount deemed reasonable for the eligible citizen and, thus, cannot be considered a reward to immigrants for having children within our borders as opponents fervently argue. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sheds light on this political question:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Congress, 1868).

As stipulated by this governing document, households in which illegal immigrants reside are entitled to receive governmental assistance only in the event that it is verified that the children of illegal immigrants were born in America. It would be unconscionable to think that any American citizen with moral integrity would call for a law denying fellow citizens, especially young children, the monetary support they are legally guaranteed. It is through no fault of these young Americans that they are in a position of need, and to let parsimonious interests interfere with helping those who cannot fend for themselves would be a grave violation of global human rights standards. Furthermore, it must be noted that legal immigrants are not eligible for welfare support until they have paid into the system for ten consecutive years, rendering similar contempt toward these people unjustified. The invalidation of oppositional claims regarding welfare reveals that there must be a deeper significance for such contempt that is not politically motivated, as the public is duped into believing.

Oppositional groups citing the dwindling of educational resources and other public services as justification for their intolerant treatment of immigrants only do so to conceal the more racially charged motives that fuel their hostility. These challenging parties maintain that it is unreasonable for illegal immigrants and their offspring [often U.S. citizens] to have access to hospitals and educational facilities for which they do not financially support. However, denying children medical attention is a clear violation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and calls into question the moral fiber of citizens who value money over the health of fellow humans (United Nations, 1948). These claims, like those regarding welfare, are rendered null by such widely accepted legislation and serve the purpose of disguising the ethnic bigotry that perpetuates a deep-seated hatred of immigrants. Like it or not, the children of undocumented aliens will likely remain within U.S. borders throughout their lifetime, and denying them an education will only cultivate an uneducated and less dynamic American workforce that will harm our economy. In fact, if oppositional concerns are primarily based on economic interests and the lack of federal and state income taxes paid by immigrants, then challengers should welcome the federal reprieve of all migrant workers. Granting amnesty to aliens will require them to pay taxes and the costs of immigration processing that have gone remiss as non-citizens. If opposing parties believe that deporting these undocumented aliens is best, then they must be willing to seriously contradict their convictions about the economic wellbeing of our nation. The tracking efforts and expulsion of some twelve million immigrants would cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and incontrovertibly exceed the annual costs incurred by those living in the U.S. unlawfully. The inconsistency of this argument sheds light onto the fact that ulterior motives are the driving force behind this debate. In addition, opponents of illicit immigration falsely subscribe to the belief that anchor babies are tools used by illegal immigrant couples in order to gain citizenship and secure access to the full range of public resources afforded to documented citizens. This is an immense misconception given that, “a U.S. citizen cannot file for a visa on behalf of its parents until age twenty-one, and [can] only [do so] if [the citizen] earns 125% of the American poverty threshold” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2010). Without doubt, one would have to credit illegal immigrants with incredible foresight and patience in order to justify such outlandish claims. In effect, the contradictory nature of these assertions conceals the true desire of challengers to cleanse the Hispanic stain on the ethnic fabric of America.

While oppositional groups argue that the presence of illegal immigrants contributes to the disappearance of the American identity, this position illuminates the truly racist nature of their claims by way of contradiction. In theory, granting amnesty to these aliens will have a positive effect on our cultural identity because, “Americans have defined themselves not by racial, religious, [or] ethnic identity, but by their common values and belief in individual freedom” (Wilkinson, 2010). Few scholars could effectively argue that hard work and the establishment of a better life for one’s families are not integral components of the lives of both U.S. citizens and immigrants alike. It is undeniable that migrants from all nations, especially those from Mexico and other Latin American countries, come to America seeking escape from existential economic threat and freedom from ethnic or religious persecution. In fact, such a struggle mirrors the migration of the Anglo-Americans throughout the 1800s and uncovers the obvious reality that there is no American ethnicity. There are no American-blooded citizens except Native Americans, in which case, the white settlers that stole this national identity also murdered your ancestors without shame. As the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “Remember, remember always that all of us, you and I especially, are descended from immigrants,” in turn, promoting the equality that is expected of a nation strengthened by settlers (Roosevelt, 1938). The simple fact that some citizens’ ancestors came from a nation of Anglos and spoke English makes them no better than the tan-skinned, Spanish-speaking immigrants that currently seek refuge in the United States. The conservative banter that floods national airwaves causes some citizens to view illegal immigration through a Mexico against America lens instead of realizing that there are also English-speaking immigrants from Anglo nations as well. In effect, these revelations render widespread judgment toward immigrant groups unjustified and the embodiment of an “us versus them” attitude. As evidenced by the contradictory nature of oppositional claims, permitting illegal aliens to become fully recognized citizens will reinforce the American identity to a considerable degree. In turn, it becomes clear that immigrant opposition based on the dilution of the native spirit is a false front for the racial bigotry that incites some Americans to seek the elimination of these physically and linguistically unique people.

Challengers falsely contend that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, a claim that is predicated on the positive relationship that exists between the declining economy and mounting opposition toward Hispanic immigrants. In reality, officials endorsing these views do not literally mean that Hispanics are stealing their personal livelihoods. Instead, these citizens posit that Mexican immigrants are taking jobs away from their American brethren in industries that typically require manual labor. This distinction is significant if one hopes to fully comprehend the “us versus them” mentality assumed by those opposed to the presence of illegal immigrants in America. The fact remains that undocumented aliens generally work in agriculture, construction, and cleaning sectors, often performing undesirable tasks at a pay rate that the clear majority of Americans would not consent to. Nonetheless, citizens continue to promote fictitious claims that Mexican natives are stealing jobs from Americans, while refusing to acknowledge the appalling workplace conditions employees are subjected to. In any case, common business sense would hypothesize that if foreign workers are taking employment opportunities from U.S. citizens, perhaps it is based on the reality that they perform the job in a superior manner and at a cheaper rate. For those citizens that oppose such facts, the United Farm Workers Association has invited you to take their agricultural work. Under the direction of Arturo Rodriguez, http://takeourjobs.org has provided Americans with immediate job training and placement under typical working conditions. Given the elevated national unemployment rate and persistent claims that illegal immigrants should be deported because they are taking jobs away from hard-working Americans, one would expect a substantial amount of applicants. 1,000? 5,000? 10,000? Despite conventional wisdom pointing toward a total well within this range, only sixteen citizens have filled out the application and came to work under the direction of the UFW. The lack of citizens willing to accept an unconditional job offer in this struggling economy highlights the American elitism that falsely portrays undocumented aliens as stealing jobs. This Anglo ostentation leads to a blemished public view of immigrants, legal and illegal, and casts a shadow of racial discrimination over a once open-minded nation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that immigrants do not take jobs from Americans, but rather, that immigrants service crucial sectors and provide for domestic and international food supplies, major U.S. construction developments, and critical sanitation services. The general public must investigate these habitually perpetuated fictitious claims and recognize that such deep-seated racial bigotry holds significant consequences for the future of our nation.

Driving out the twelve million illegal immigrants living within our borders has no logical utility, as errant supporting “facts” are really a false front that masks the fear and racism embodied by xenophobic Americans. The Civil Defense Corp that has banded together to protect the border is an outrage to any citizen concerned with racial impartiality and their actions should no longer be tolerated. Minutemen arm themselves and patrol the border with the intent of deterring illegal immigration by detaining, and in some cases, firing shots at any dark-skinned figure seen near the border. Essentially, members of this group assert that because governmental officials and political bodies will not respond to requests for a strengthened border, they are taking the law into their own hands and acting as border patrol agents. Aside from the moral arguments against this indubitably radical behavior, it is quite menacing to harbor an armed militia that roams border cities and jeopardizes the safety of suspected unlawful immigrants and native citizens of Hispanic decent alike. It has never been legally acceptable for citizens to step into a position of political significance that holds lives in the balance when they think the government is not acting as it should, so why is it allowed in regard to illegal immigration? Citizens are not permitted to impersonate police officers because they feel they are not adequately addressing an issue of public concern. Similarly, citizens cannot raid a suspected drug dealer’s house with tear gas, a shotgun, and explosives because they believe the SWAT team has failed to act sufficiently. Although these examples may seem outrageous, they serve to illustrate that these astoundingly bigoted minutemen embody the racist viewpoints that lie at the heart of this debate. It is amazing to this student of political science that activities bearing such a striking resemblance to the southern lynch mobs of the 1950s, albeit with a less substantial death toll, are not illegal on some very basic level. Nonetheless, it is clear that the intense tribalistic mentality assumed by this oppositional party shines through any ulterior motives they claim to be servicing.

In addition to the fanatical beliefs and dogmatic actions of these so-called sheriffs, skin color must also be evaluated when it comes to the opponents of illegal immigration and their call for widespread deportation. I assert that far fewer people would be concerned with illegal immigration if those crossing the border were fair-skinned doctors, professors, and teachers that spoke perfect English. This debate is not as much an issue with principle as it is of inherent fear of the Mexican people and a culture that Americans typically do not understand. Granting amnesty to the twelve million illegal workers that currently reside in the United States has been mulled over by several political bodies, much to the aversion of hostile opponents. The most stalwart resistance groups assert that if the government was to reward these lawbreakers with amnesty, or if it maintains the status quo by not punishing illegal immigrants, a criminal culture would be cultivated as a result. This circular logic is astounding on many levels, but is of particular interest in its holding that the non-punishment of lawbreakers will promote an unscrupulous society of felons. The majority of these immigrants are hardworking people who are only guilty of daring to dream of a better life for themselves and their children. Opponents of amnesty break laws on a daily basis that include, but are not limited to, speeding, jaywalking, illegally downloading music, drinking underage, talking on cell phones while driving, failing to report all income on tax forms, and failing to pay child support. The lacking punishment of these offenders has not fundamentally turned all such “criminals” into vindictive convicts, so why would the same theory hold true for Hispanic immigrants? This fundamentally inconsistent line of reasoning points to the conclusion that opponents of illegal immigration do not, in reality, have immense concern for the issues they vocalize most fervently. Instead, they fear the presence of a race that look and sound dissimilar from what they believe to be the proper American. Indeed, there is little substantive action that can dispel the inherent racism and xenophobia that personifies American elitists and time will determine whether we have truly outgrown our past vices and if now we shall overcome the racial discrimination that haunts us.

Form I-864 P, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (2010). Print.

“14th Amendment.” The U.S. Constitution Online. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14>.

National Origins Quota Act of 1924, XLII United States Code § 185 (LexisNexis 2010). Print.

Rahman, Mizanur. “Fact or Fiction?” Illegal Immigrants on Welfare. 25 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/01/post_80.html>.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Immigrants.” Daughters of the American Revolution. Washington D.C. 21 Apr. 1938. Speech.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.

Wilkinson, Will. “The American People and the Politics of American Identity.” Will Wilkinson Blog. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2010/09/01/the-american-people-and-the-politics-of-american-identity/>.

Searching for Cell Reception

This video clip speaks the truth!

Undoubtedly, this scene from the politically dynamic animated series, Family Guy, greatly exaggerates the speed with which stem cells can heal the human body. However, the sketch accurately depicts the biological utility of these medical phenomena, in turn, prompting viewers to take an interest in regenerative medicine and its positive impact on critically damaged organs and debilitating diseases. Essentially, this medical practice consists of harvesting stem cells from one of three primary sources and injecting them into the affected organs or tissues. The importance of funding stem cell research cannot be overstated, as this technology has the potential to solve a number of medicine’s leading questions and spare the lives of millions of citizens in need. Scientific testing has illustrated that these biological cells can minimize the ill-effects of a wide variety of congenital defects and even has the potential to cure life-threatening diseases. Stem cells have shown the potential to minimize the adverse effects of Alzheimer ’s disease, heart disease, ALS, and Parkinson’s disease. Moreover, these biological wonders have also shown utility in limiting the permanent damage of spinal cord injuries, organ breakdown, assorted cancers, and diabetes. It is quite likely that someone you know is plagued by one of the aforementioned medical conditions, and you understand the feeling of helplessness that overcomes one as they watch a loved one succumb to these lethal disorders. With such a demonstrably safe and successful track record, it is natural for one to question its lacking presence in mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, the most ardent challengers of regenerative medicine argue that the process of extracting these biological units is immoral and unethical for a variety of reasons. As previously mentioned, there are three common stem cell removal points in the human body, the most ample and effective of which exist in embryos. Other sources include somatic cells in adults and umbilical cord blood, both of which yield less medically constructive cells in less substantial amounts. It is clear that the majority of research opponents are wrapped in a religious blanket of contradiction and fear. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to change human life as we know it. As President Obama asserts, the time for action is now. We may never have a better opportunity to invest in this sector and create much needed jobs, while simultaneous working toward a future in which catastrophic ailments no longer plague humans. Although stem cell development is outwardly opposed by the majority of conservative, religious, and pro-life groups, amplified funding and research efforts are necessary to realize the true power of regenerative medicine and make the most of this burgeoning medical discovery.

Despite fervent hostility from opponents that claim regenerative medicine is morally unconscionable, funding such efforts is critical to the perpetuation of human life. Stem cell research is of particular interest to pollsters and analysts, as its approval rating very closely mirrors public opinion on abortion. The essential contention in both cases focuses on the point at which life is perceived to begin. Although it is extremely clear to the scientific community that life does not begin at conception, I will not attempt to address such a vastly controversial question (especially in a short post). As a recurring contention on this blog site, faith-based opinions that do not maintain any level of demonstrable fact cannot be grounds for justifying a political position or a ruling on an issue of political significance. Unfortunately, this very thinking led President George W. Bush to veto a bill in 2007 that would have allocated federal funding for stem cell research, as a result, slowing the progress of studies for more than two years. The fact is, opponents fear that the extraction of embryonic stem cells will lead to the widespread prevalence of creating “life” for the sole purpose of destroying it and harvesting its components. I am not calling for a black market in which women selling their fertilized eggs for monetary compensation. Instead, I propose increasing the federal funding provided to  government-sanctioned research facilities. The extraction process is basic and typically consists of embryonic cell harvesting, ultimately leading to the death of the embryo. Opponents will argue that this, according to their views, is murder and should lead to the arrest of these researchers. However, the largest suppliers of fetuses to research laboratories are abortion clinics. Whether opponents of stem cell research like it or not (and they don’t) women will continue to get abortions, barring an unforeseen and politically irresponsible reversal of the current status quo. If such embryos were not used for stem cell research then they would simply be disposed of. Clearly, if abortion clinics permit consenting women to terminate their pregnancies, then the values of oppositional parties and the religious right have already been violated. Shouldn’t we, as a progressive society, reap the benefits that otherwise wasted embryos would provide? Without doubt, religious people have ailing relatives that would benefit from stem cell therapy. Embryonic stem cells are properly classified as a “miracle substance” by researchers, primarily due to their ability to stay healthy for two to three years and multiply at a more rapid rate than cord cells or adult cells. Although significantly less effective, cord cell harvesting generally goes unchallenged by moral responsibility groups, as extraction takes place after birth and yields an untainted child. After the umbilical cord is cut, blood from within that cord can be obtained and utilized in a variety of research efforts. Similarly, stem cells can be extracted from somatic cells within human beings that do not have to do with sexual reproduction in any way. However, these biological entities are far less healthy than embryonic or cord cells and fail to survive for extended periods in lab settings. Moreover, key studies have shown that older stem cells derived from adult humans can, in rare cases, mutate and corrupt other cells to develop cancer. Thankfully, such findings have been rendered null by the 2007 discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These cells are derived by “forcing the expression of specific genes” within adult somatic cells. iPSCs are superior to standard adult cells in terms of longevity and health, but still do not display the prowess of those derived from the embryo. Similar promise is now demonstrated by the amniotic stem cells extracted from the fluid surrounding the developing fetus. Doctors can harvest this fluid in a procedure that leaves a perfectly healthy mother and child. An increasing rate of parents-to-be consent to storing their unborn child’s amniotic fluid in cryogenic facilities in the case that the child develops a condition that stem cells could effectively combat. Due to these recent stem cell discoveries, researchers and legislators have to walk the morality tightrope far less often than in the past. However, manipulating human life, playing God, and the potential for stem cell research to give way to cloning are ethical concerns that leave no definitive answers as to what the future will hold. Although morality and safety remain concerns among conservative Americans, the need for additional funding and allocation of other pertinent resources to stem cell laboratories is justified by the substantial advances achieved in the last five years.

The potential to expand the parameters of human existence and eliminate a number of painful, debilitating, and deathly diseases should be enough promise for more substantial funding than is currently being provided to researchers from the federal government and private donors. Most immediately, stem cells could impact medicine on a practical level by eliminating the organ transplant lists that are common with defective and disease-plagued organs. Every day, seventeen Americans and countless global citizens lose their lives while awaiting functional liver, heart, kidney, and lung transplants. Dr. Anthony Atala, director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine has artificially created twenty fully functioning human organs and tissues through stem cell and gene manipulation techniques. Atala posits that an adult organ takes upwards of six weeks to fully form and believes they can be transplanted into the ailing body with minimal risk of rejection by the immune system. If this science continues to develop and expand with the aid of federally allocated resources, regenerative medicine may one day replace the list of patients awaiting donations with organs developed from the patient’s own cells. Atala’s optimism and Frankenstien-esque passion for developing body parts is contagious, and he provides an optimistic outlook of the future while affirming the potential eradication of transplant waiting lists:

“We have shown that regenerative medicine techniques can be used to generate functional bladders that are durable. This suggests that regenerative medicine may one day be a solution to the shortage of donor organs in this country for those needing transplants. A bank with 100,000 specimens of the amniotic stem cells theoretically could supply 99 per cent of the US population with perfect genetic matches for transplants.”

Atala’s optimism is not based on a solely theoretic science isolated from practical use, as he currently works in cooperation with the federally funded Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM). This relationship aims to establish an operational regenerative medicine program for wounded soldiers, the first of what may be a series of government sponsored stem cell programs to follow. The need for federal assistance is clear and we must recognize that, “we don’t require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th century telescopes, and we don’t require our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best stem cell lines available” (Tom Harkin).