Building on our class simulation: given that there are a variety of arguments from different perspectives about how the U.S. should set domestic content rules for automobiles, how should we go about determining the answer to the question? How should the U.S. define the domestic content of automobiles, and why? Since we've spent two class sessions arguing from assigned points of view, we've elucidated some of the issues; now, taking the team assignments off, you have the opportunity to make your own, perhaps more thoughtful, argument.
After our final conversation and debate about the simulation, I have come to a conclusive opinion regarding domestic content rules after listening to each group’s points of argumentation. The consumer group was very convincing in conveying the complexity of domestic content laws and their negative effects on the consumer market place in the U.S. and the foreign auto manufacturers also argued similarly to the consumer group by explaining the large influence foreign auto-manufacturers have in the American auto industry. So, I have decided that domestic content regulations should be loosened considerably, in regards to environmental sustainability, consumer choice and affordability, and international trade/peaceful relations. With this, the United States should encourage foreign companies to sell cars that were made abroad with cars that were made domestically because this drives competition, which then stimulates the economy. Environmentally speaking, foreign cars are usually more energy-efficient that domestically made cars. In addition to energy efficiency, foreign manufacturers have stricter caps on their emission standards and pollution output. While I represented the United Auto Workers, I unsuccessfully connected my personal thoughts and opinions to their struggles. While, we sided with Ford’s motion to strengthen domestic content laws by 15%, we failed to recognize what that means for our employment, consumer-side activities, and environment. As a socially liberal union, our workers vote for environmentally conscious politicians, and in the simulation we did not recognize how stronger domestic content laws would ultimately, in the long run, be detrimental for domestic jobs. The foreign auto manufactures supply almost 45% of all automotive jobs in America. With the strengthening of content laws, these manufactures would not be able to absorb the cost of the tariff and they would have to leave the U.S., which leaves thousands of workers unemployed. I also would like to add that, international trade through which peaceful interactions between powerful nations occur, is a crucial to a stable, global economy and diplomatic relations between nations. While Machiavelli might disagree, trade incites cooperation between countries, which then creates natural friendships, and multi-national dependence. Therefore, war and conflict are uncommon in a global economy that encourages trade. In Wyatt's post, I found that she also argued that the "American First" policy could be a little dangerous because we do not want to alienate our allies and anger our enemies because world peace is on the line. While looking out for American economy and consuming trends is important, the eruption of a trade war between powerful countries could be devastating in comparison. Ultimately, loosening domestic content laws could open the door for consumer affordability and, on a large scale, world peace.
0 Comments
During one of our discussions this week, we talked about the racism of immigration law. Recently, Filipino immigrants have been migrating to the United States in large quantities but have faced hate crimes and racism just like any other group. For this reflection I wanted to do a little research about the historical and modern implications of the social interactions of Filipinos and Americans.
Historically speaking, the Philippines have been one of the largest immigration groups in the United States and continues to grow today. Filipino immigrants have migrated to the U.S. during Spanish colonization and American colonization, for educational exchanges during the period as an American territory, and to meet labor demands as a result of industrialization. During the late twentieth century, Filipinos became one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the United States and have recently become the third-largest Asian immigrant group in the United States. However Filipino immigrants have not faced as much racism as Mexican immigrants due to their perceived hard-working personality. Since they are not infringing upon the "American Dream" they have better relations with Americans. The Filipino immigration pattern is characterized by four significant waves of high volume migration. The first wave was during the 1830’s as a result of the Philippine retaliation to the New Spain colonization. These migrants settled in New Orleans; the busiest industrialized port in the United States after New York. The second wave was during their time as a territory of America. Since they were a territory, they were unrestricted from immigration to the U.S. by the Immigration Act of 1917 that limited other Asian immigration. This created a large influx of Filipino immigrants due to the lack of restriction of the act. During this time, educational directives were distributed throughout the country to promote the new relationship. Developing education systems abroad seemed to be the way to establish peace. To enact these directives, American teachers were sent to the Philippines and Filipino students known as pensionados were brought to the United States on educational visas. Through 1903 and 1938, approximately 14,000 government- subsidized Filipino students studied in the United States. This wave ended when the Great Depression hit in the 1920’s and affected jobs and also targeted racially charged hate crimes towards Filipinos across the country because of economic depression and foreigners "infringing on the American Dream". However, surprisingly, there was a peak in immigration during the late 1920’s due to the agricultural production transition from small, rural practices to large-scale enterprises with regional specializations due to the developments in transportation, infrastructure, and food-preserving technology. This rapid industrialization created a large demand for labor which was then filled by immigrants and those looking to achieve the American Dream. By 1930, after industrialization created the large labor market, the number reached 45,300. Another factor that caused a lull or dip in immigration was the enactment of the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, which then restricted immigration to 50 people a year. The restriction was enacted due to the loss of the Philippines as a U.S. territory. The third wave of immigration followed the events of World War II. Filipinos who had served in World War II on behalf of the Allies were permitted to become U.S. citizens. 10,000 Filipino veterans capitalized on that opportunity. In addition to the veteran immigrants, the Filipina War brides were permitted to immigrate to the United States due to War Brides and Fiancée Act. These policies allowed for an additional 16,000 Filipino immigrants, which included women and children. The fourth and present wave of immigration began in 1965 with passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 into law. This law ended national quotas and administered an unrestricted number of temporary and permanent visas for family reunification. By the 1980’s the Philippines became the leading basis of legal immigration to the United States from Asia. From 1966 to 1991, 35,000 Filipino nurses immigrated to the United States for economic gain. This also shows most Filipino immigrants are highly educated with families which will then stimulate economic growth and educational capital. However, significant numbers Filipino immigrants did not arrive in D.C. until 1965. With the change in immigration laws (Nationality Act of 1965), the highly educated immigrants moved to D.C. for economic and opportunity incentives. This movement of immigrants consisted predominantly of doctors, nurses, attorneys, government and Embassy officials, and business men/women. So to answer the question of "is immigration policy racist", I would say yes, when the American Dream could be compromised due to economic depression and a high influx of immigrants, immigration will be restricted. Since apparently, Americans come first, their American Dream is the only dream that should be protected. Today in class we discussed liminality as an effect of double consciousness and I was eager to write about liminal legality for Mexican immigrants and how that creates a quadruple consciousness due to their ambiguous immigrant status coupled with Mexican consciousness in white America.
Legal statuses create a class of immigrants with rights and privileges distinct from those holding temporary work visas, educational permits, etc. This creates an oppressed group, undocumented or those with liminal legality, who must cope with a new identity assigned to them known as "an illegal alien". The “in-between” status or liminal legality of documented or undocumented could severely impact the immigrant’s of social networks and family, religion, and social expression which then creates a totally new status and new identity for a group that is already oppressed based on race. The “in between” uncertain status (not fully documented or undocumented) has greatly affected many aspects of the immigrants’ lives and restricts their livelihood. For example, some areas that are greatly affected include, the job market, housing, family relations, religion, transnational activities, and social expressions. So, a specific binary status assigned to immigrants can either inhibit or improve their chance of social success which then creates a new identity they could internalize and attempt to fill. In major receiving countries, modern immigration law creates an excluded, marginalized population and ensures its systematic subjugation by blending the lines of legality and illegality to color gray areas of uncertainty, which then has the potential to negatively affect personal identity. This blended identity then makes it much more difficult to identify with something society doesn't even recognize. Similarly, the experiences of Central American immigrants and the blurring of the black-and-white boundaries between legal and ‘illegal’ statuses allows for examination of what living in this gray area is like for immigrants, in the social context. While, upfront, examining the short-term affects may not be as severe, however, extended periods of liminal legality will change citizenship because of fragmented relations with the government and its eventual transformation of the institution of citizenship through migration. Due to gradual restrictive policies that categorize and keep immigrants on the margins of society for large and sometimes indefinite periods of time, the effects will lie within assimilation and on citizenship (legal and other forms). Also, lack of citizenship is the most important obstacle for Latino political involvement and movement to power. Thus, obstructed paths to attain legal citizenship might have broader and deeper effects on other forms of identity. W. E. B. Du Bois introduces the notion of the "double consciousness" as part of his discussion of the experience of freed slaves and their descendants in the United States. How specific in applicability is this concept? Do other groups experience the same, or at least a similar, sort of of "double consciousness," either in the United States or elsewhere? Is Du Bois' concept helpful for an understanding of other societies and other experiences, beyond the United States?
So, double consciousness is defined by W. E. B. Du Bois to describe an individual whose identity is divided into several facets. As a theoretical tool, “double consciousness” reveals the social divisions in society and allows for an attempt at understanding those divisions. Du Bois’ focus on the specificity of black experience allows for challenging injustice in national and world systems. The applicability can be applied to several different races, ethnicities, and groups throughout America today. He describes double consciousness as a “ peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. Basically, black American's identity is divided into how society views them and how they view themselves therefore giving them a lack of unified identity. Basically, to generalize the term, black Americans can internalize societal stereotypes which then creates an idea of who they should be and who they are. This can be applied to any race or ethnicity on the receiving end of a negative stereotype. The stereotype must be negative because the context in which the term was coined. Slavery and the oppression of the black American defined double consciousness as a negative split existence. For example, Muslims are characterizes as 'terrorists' which could then inhibit the cultivation of their roots and culture. Lastly, I believe, his concept is helpful in understanding diverse societies within the United States rather than abroad because it helps explain racial, ethnic, and other boundaries within American communities, neighborhoods, and groups. It explains why different groups are clustered together or are dispersed across an area. While this week kind of sucked with Kavanaugh's confirmation into the Supreme Court, nobody seemed to be talking about Nadia Murad, an ISIS sex slave survivor and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2014, Nadia Murad was one of thousands of Yazidis, and ethnic minority in northern Iraq, who were captured by ISIS and forced into sexual slavery. After three months as a sex slave, she escaped and was named the U.N.'s first Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking. Along with Dr. Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who treats victims of rape, they were named co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. They were named ambassadors of peace because of their perpetual journey to eliminate the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Murad was honored for her refusal "to remain silent and ashamed of the abuses to which they have been subjected," the committee said.
I know in past reflections I have talked about the international implications of Kavanaugh's confirmation because they are so important and relevant to World Politics. This woman is why. Since Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, survivors of sexual violence will not get the justice and due process they deserve, domestically or internationally. Sexual violence is going to continue to be used as a weapon of war and the objectification and weaponization of women and children will continue to proliferate in states of terror. Since constructivism was our topic of the week, here's how it applies to this issue. Constructivism is how we build a messy but somehow cohesive society as humans. Our society is developed through the tumultuous relationships we build with each other. Through discussion, religion, and relationships, we, as a whole, build identities which then, create an overarching societal identity. For decades the United States has created an identity of inclusion and that of moral standing. In recent years, our identity has shifted into a divided battleground of competing ideologies that has broken the women in our country. Along with Nadia Murad, there are hundreds of thousands of survivors of sexual violence that have created an identity of compassion that could shift the paradigm of world politics itself. With the new Supreme Court justice, this identity needs to encompass our society now more than ever. Source "Instead of convincing arguments -- arguments which, if a first truth is admitted, will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds, generally and technically, that is, by calculation -- we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences." (John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167)
Do you agree? Will such a move, from convincing to persuading, help to address the general problem that Shotter diagnoses, in which not everyone is able to participate fully in the shaping of our social lives together? And where does this leave scientific facts? Generally, I agree with Shotter’s argument on the basis of persuasiveness comes from our identity and morality, the core of our existence, not logic. To start with, Shotter reasons that persuasion is significantly more fundamental than convincing your opponents of your particular viewpoints. So the means by which your argument is presented and formulated. Basically, your persuasion’s significance lives in daily acceptance and validation that humans accomplish through societal relations and interactions whereas logic-based convincing using “rational minds” and realistic arguments will ultimately sway those you are convincing. Thusly, within Shotter’s emphasis on humanity’s reliance on societal interactions and (the importance of) relationships, he describes that human identity is a function of human relationships and interactions, which then, in turn, tends to lead to focal connections within societal relationships when humans try to persuade, rather than convince one another. Later in the reading, Shotter mentions that humans realize that the decisiveness of our nature comes from societal relationships rather than logical aspects of our minds. Environment ultimately changes our views and nature. Within our social outlets, our minds are constalty persuaded based on our experiences as well. Therefore, our persuasiveness includes appealing to their morality, personal experiences, and humanity in order to change someone’s opinions and beliefs. An important concept we must recognize in order to fully hone the ability of persuasion is cultivating the understanding of the complexities of our minds. We must consider the muddy areas of our arguments and address them in the begging. Our chaotic nature will take over if we do not tackle these complexities. This week has been rather traumatizing for me for multiple reasons. First, the Kavanaugh hearing. I am upset. I'm going to rant really fast and then I'll explain why this relates to world politics. First, my heart is with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her family. The United States is supposed to champion human and civil rights. Women's rights, I am sure, falls under these categories. But we are still waiting the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh. I am most concerned with the morality (or lack thereof) that plagues the American people and who we elected to put in power. How can we nominate and confirm someone who is said to be a leader in women empowerment and women's rights but is actually the exact opposite? SO Machiavelli, am I right! Appear to be virtuous but lack all of the moral standings NECESSARY to sit on the highest court in the land, classic Machiavelli; Trump definitely took this page out of The Prince. But, more importantly, what message does this send to developing, ally countries with beginnings of human rights activism and programs? I used to think of America as a leader in human and civil rights, but now, after this hearing and seeing how our elected politicians are behaving, I am rightfully and deeply afraid for the women and minority populations of this country. As a global hegemony, other countries look to us for inspiration and proper governmental affairs. What example are we setting? This is not ok. Soon, our allies will begin to withdraw from international peacekeeping groups, human rights organizations, and civil rights groups. With this confirmation, our entire international network of civility and practicing humanity will crumble.
But, even more importantly, what message does this send survivors of sexual assault and abuse? What are we telling the people of our country that have suffered so so so deeply for something that wasn't even their fault? How can we expect abusers to act differently when there is one in power? I cannot even begin to explain how afraid I am of the turn of events our politics have taken. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Where is the justice system when we elect a corrupt power holder? How do we ensure domestic tranquility when civil unrest has erupted across the nation regarding something that shouldn't be happening in the first place? We the People is now We the People in Power. Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
Locke's notion of toleration centers on governmental (magistrates) religious toleration and separation from church and state. The Flat Earth Society's theory is obvious: the Earth is flat. What do they base their theory on? I honestly couldn't tell you trying to navigate their website but I have concluded that they believe the earth is flat because when we walk on land its flat. It makes sense if we were living before modern technology that can take satellite pictures from space. Anyways, Locke also supports religious freedom as long as said religions do not encourage power of another leader, take away power from the magistrate, or encourage atheism. Therefore, I believe his toleration could be extended to the Flat Earth Society. Locke argues that civil unrest results from conflicts caused by the government’s effort to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their existence. If we apply Locke's theory to groups and organizations in general, aka factions, then we must apply toleration as well. Imagine the Flat Earth Society is a religion, I believe this theory can apply to all groups regardless of religious affiliation, it only relies on group philosophy. For example, if the government were to control the social justice movements (i.e. equal rights, civil rights, etc.), a loud and very large public opposition coupled with civil disobedience would plague the government. Obviously, social rights groups are not the same as religious groups, but I believe the same theory still applies.Their general makeup is still the same, they are a group of individuals gathering to support something they believe passionately in. Additionally, Locke’s theory was made for his time, which was the beginning of civil unrest and differing opinions. When applying his theory of toleration to current time we must consider the extenuating situations. Also, according to Locke, civil unrest will erupt if we try to prevent their existence and proliferation. Basically, "Flat Earthers" should not be allowed to teach in universities because their platform is not based on scientific research. But if we try to prevent them from practicing their inaccuracies, civil unrest will erupt and we would also be infringing on their unalienable rights (to put it into today's context). In conclusion, toleration is necessary, inclusion is not. This week marks a month of classes (give or take a few days)!! WOO! I have joined the Her Campus online magazine and my first article got published. This week I wrote about Stacey Abrams and her 'unlikely rise' to power in Georgia. I would like to relate this to Machiavelli's very famous quote "it is better to be feared than loved". While I agree that a healthy fear should be instilled in the governed, Stacey Abrams is nothing but loved. Her opponents obviously fear her ideas of government support programs and marijuana decriminalization but her supporters love her. If elected, Abrams would be the first African American, female Governor in the history of the United States. Having a black woman in power could change the lives of African Americans and women alike across the state. Not only would this monumental election prove being loved is also a way to govern, historically oppressed populations would be empowered everywhere. Since Georgia has a long-standing history of oppression against the black community across the state, having Abrams as Governor could empower and give legitimacy to the Black Lives Matter movement and end police brutality and crimes against black residents indefinitely.
Machiavelli's transcendent political perspectives can be applied to politics today to a certain extent. When applying his method of correct politics, we must consider his context. The Prince was written about autocratic regimes, not republic politics. Therefore, some his viewpoints are irrelevant in today's political atmosphere. Additionally, his idea regarding the use of cruelty to further political gain and keep the public at bay cannot be applied to government in the United States. Why? Because we live in a 'democracy' so the people in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches work for us. Furthermore, enacting cruelty on the people that voted them into office would not only destroy their political career but wreak havoc onto American society. It is hard, in a democracy, to insight fear because the public can easily revolt and bring down those in power. However, now we must look into Trump's administration. Democrats and Republicans alike are afraid of his every move, including those high in his senior administration officials. I wrote about the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times two weeks ago, but this op-ed shows how Trump's every move could be potentially dangerous for Americans and the world itself. This also disproved Machiavelli's theory of "it is better to be feared than loved". The whole world fears his childish and rash actions and his administration has a disapproval rate comparable to Nixon after the Watergate scandal. I suppose it depends where in the world you apply Machiavelli's theory. In a republic, it doesn't apply, but in a dictatorship, for example where he was living, it does. In a dictatorship or monarchy, those in power do not have to please their people (to a certain extent) because they were not elected to be there. They do not have to appeal to the people because they assume power through sheer militaristic force or nepotism. This brings us full circle to Abram's campaign. She is loved because she is different and will change American lives for the good of the republic. She doesn't have to be feared to make a difference, she just has to relate to a broad audience and appeal to their emotions. And finally, her election would be monumental because of her unparalleled dedication to improving the lives of Georgians. My reflection this week is going to focus on another class I'm taking called Immigrant America. I chose to I think the content I learn is extremely applicable to World Politics and foreign affairs.
This week my class read a few scholarly pieces about how immigrants decide to settle and how they adjust to "American Life". To start with, the Microeconomic Theory of migration states that individuals migrate due to a careful cost/benefit calculation that leads them to believe that will have a positive net return in the country they plan to migrate to. In other words, the economic benefits (industry pull) outweigh the risk of migrating. Now based on this theory, migration happens until expected earnings have been internationally equalized, therefore there will be no need for the movement of human capital. To relate this reflection to world politics, this theory begs the question, how can different countries control this type of immigration? Government will then have to involve themselves in economics. To control immigration, the government will have to implement policies that affect expected earnings. But how do we balance the supply and demand of human capital when it is fluctuating, constantly, around the world? Additionally, our class looked at D.C.'s immigrant population, specifically how immigrants integrate throughout the city based on a host of factors. Immigration is characterized by industry and chain/networking migrations. Industry tends to be one of the main pull factors, based on the microeconomic and macroeconomic theories, because individuals leave their homes to pursue economic opportunity due to lack of human capital and high demand for cheap labor. Since industry pulls migrants to a particular area, networking and chain migration pulls migrants to a specific neighborhood. The large co-ethnic populations can create large ethnic enclaves that closely mirror their home country. For example: places like Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Havana etc. are considered a home away from home for immigrants but for locals, these places are known as a good place for food and shopping. Native born populations can help support these ethnic enclaves through the flow of money. Shopping and food-hunting in these enclaves helps support ethnic culture and local business as well. Additionally, we looked at where immigrant settle at the local level as a result of industry and chain migration. The local level is defined as a neighborhood in an urban center. Immigrants tend to settle in urban centers because industry is clustered in large cities. There are obviously ethnic enclaves which I already touched on but then we move into de facto segregation. This is residential segregation by choice. Immigrants tend to live somewhere with familiarity so they don't immigrant and cluster in foreign-born neighborhoods. However, when immigrants settle in predominantly native-born suburbs or neighborhoods, place stratification occurs. This is when the native-born people move out of the suburbs due to high immigrant residential populations. This brings us back full circle to de facto segregation. Immigration is a very complex issue that entails the movement of individuals and families based on different influencing factors which almost always lead to personal belief in a positive net return. Whether that net return entails freedom from persecution, tyrannical government, and low economic status, immigration will happen nonetheless. Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/metropolitan-washington-a-new-immigrant-gateway-2/ |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |