This evening, I attended the immigration forum, along with my immigration group, that Professor Campbell mentioned in class earlier today. I thought that this forum was very eye opening and contained a lot of information that I think is under-represented when talking about Immigration. For example, one of the speakers named Stephen mentioned the DACA program which directly affects immigrant students. Binghamton University contains many immigrants in which DACA affects them personally as well. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals which is a policy directive that provides temporary deportation relief and work authorization, among other benefits, to qualifying immigrant youth and young adults. This directive allows students to get help from the government, which includes getting scholarships to better their education which in turn will help them get a better job and to better their lives. Essentially, this directive will allow immigrant youths to social climb and to join the middle class and not get stuck in the "immigrant poverty" lifestyle.
In the forum, there was also a brief "history lesson" about the progression of immigration in the United States starting from the 1790 naturalization act and going up to the DREAM act of 2014. The common theme through out history about immigration was this idea of being the "ideal" immigrant, meaning that you are white, are of middle class and that you can be a "good citizen" meaning that you take advantage of all that America has to offer and positively contribute to society. This idea of being a "good citizen" is so arbitrary and relative. Lisbeth shared a personal story about her mom and how in the eyes of the government she wasn't a "good citizen" because she didn't advance herself (in the sense that her english is poor and never advanced her education). However an audience member pointed out that the "good citizen" idea is a "moral euphemism for economic need", meaning that the government will only view her as a "good citizen" if she is doing something that the government needs at the time. If you were to compare Lisbeth to her mom, Lisbeth would be seen as the "good citizen" in the eyes of the government because she is furthering her education and can speak english exceptionally well and is positively contributing to society. However I think that you have to look at the given different circumstances that both Lisbeth and her mom were placed in when the immigrated to the U.S. It wouldn't be fair to call Lisbeth's mom not a good citizen because she was a single mom raising 3 daughters in a new country with no time to really learn english or to go back to school. However, Lisbeth only being 10 years old was able to go to school, learn english, get an education and even go onto earning her MPA. The two aren't comparable because of the different circumstances they were placed in.
The idea of the "good immigrant" is a prevalent theme throughout history. Your depiction of Lisbeth's story supports the notion that there is stereotypical image painted of immigrants.Those who do not meet the criteria of a "good immigrant" usually consist of immigrants who have no time to learn the new foreign language spoken around them, or for the advancement of their education. From my own experiences of being first generation (my parents both being immigrants) I can relate with Lisbeth of these depictions made. Growing up I always found it interesting that people perceived the older generation in my family as not intelligent, because they can only speak their "foreign language". While there are vast differences between me and the older generation in my family, these differences are due to a difference of circumstances. As you mentioned Rachael, me and my grandmother can't be comparable because of our different circumstances. While I was born in America and had various opportunities at my fingertips, she was in Colombia enduring rigorous hardships. While I seamlessly transitioned from grade to grade, she was busy struggling to afford to bring her eight children to America to join her. I never had to endure any of the hardships she had, barely even landing on the socioeconomic spectrum. An immigrants background and one of a native-born can not be comparable due to the stark differences in their circumstances, which influence every aspect of their lives.
ReplyDeleteA great point you bring up is the slogan of a "good citizen" being a "moral euphemism for economic need". Whatever the government considers a "good citizen" at the time period, can give insight into something the government needs at the time. Perhaps the very idea of a "good citizen" is instilling preconceived notions in peoples minds, leading to unnecessary stereotyping and cultural ignorance.
Rachel-- Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the immigration forum so I am really glad that you were able to go and share what you learned. I agree when you said that "being a 'good citizen' is so arbitrary and relative."
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand how the government would view Lisbeth's mother as not being a 'good citizen.' Her mother sacrificed her own advancement for the advancement and success of her children. She didn’t have time to learn an entirely new language because she was too busy helping her children become better citizens and provide them with as much opportunity as possible. She is helping future generations of American citizens.
The advancement of education doesn’t always have to correlate to how good of a citizen you are. There are many different types of jobs that are needed to keep America moving. For example, you don’t need as much education to become a garbage man as you do a Neurosurgeon, but both are needed.
Hi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of an "ideal immigrant" and "good citizen" are very thought provoking topics. They both result from the cultural biases and perceptions pushed onto these immigrants. From my experiences, one of the most common stereotypes about immigrants, especially immigrant students on campus, are that they only like to stick to their own people and speak their native tongues. A lot of people will be like "they're in America right now, they should learn to speak English" or " they immigrated to America so they should learn how to be American." But a lot of people do not understand how terrifying it is speaking in a tongue that is not your own to a person who has spoken that his whole life. A lot of immigrants do want to assimilate into American culture but are not sure how to preserve their own culture in the process. Being a "good citizen" is also difficult in that it is just so general. Where is the threshold for good citizenship and bad citizenship?
I agree with Shelby about the circumstances of Lisbeth's mother. She did the best she could with what she had. In my eyes, that makes her a good citizen.
Rachel, you did an excellent job at summarizing the Immigration forum, your account of the forum is written exceptionally well. It is interesting to note that for an American citizen to be a “good citizen”, they must participate politically. We have had this conversation many times in our class discussions. However, the reason that is interesting is because an immigrant oftentimes cannot vote because they do not have citizenship, is this something that you think makes a citizen “good”? I do agree with you in that the idea of being a “good citizen” is so arbitrary and relative, because it is forever evolving and different to each person’s opinion and perception. I very much agree with Shelby’s point about the circumstances of Lisbeth’s mother, she did the outright best that she could with the resources she had available and that absolutely makes her a great citizen. I also agree with Shelby’s point that the advancement of education does not always have to correlate to how good of a citizen you are, I in fact don’t think they correlate at all. Whether you want to further you education or not does not affect whether you are a good citizen or not, because people place themselves in different circumstances which require and don’t require different things. It would be an intriguing project to interview immigrants at all different walks of life and see what they believe “a good citizen” is in their eyes, I think this would point out how immigrants of different ages have different ideas of what a good citizen is based on the resources they have available.
ReplyDeleteRachel,
ReplyDeleteFor someone who also attended the Immigration forum I think you brought up some excellent points. It is important for a community to build a welcoming atmosphere to eliminate the fear immigrants have when entering an unfamiliar area. Lisbeth Pereyra as you mentioned spoke about her experience first hand as an immigrant from the Dominican Republic and said how her family was intimidated by the government and formalized assistance. Thus the fact that programs such as DACA and the DREAM act exist prove that citizens are making an effort to help incoming immigrants; which is in a sense comforting. On another note, I definitely agree with your stance on what constitutes a “good citizen.” I believe it is unfair to avoid taking into account one’s circumstances when deciding whether or not they are in fact a “good citizen.” After learning Lisbeth’s mother’s circumstances I certainly believe she was a great citizen. She put her effort towards her children’s advancement and just because she herself didn’t have the time to do the same shouldn’t make her a “bad citizen.” In my opinion the definition of a “good citizen” and a “bad citizen” should be adjusted to be more situational based and tolerant.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Lisbeth and her mother were in different circumstances, therefore making it impossible to call one a good citizen and one a bad citizen. In both DACA and the DREAM Act, good moral character is defined in a broad sense, but both focus on improvement rather than surviving and staying in the same educational place. Sustainability is just as noble and important as mobility, and to say otherwise is to ignore the minimum wage workers that have gradually learned English and work several jobs to support their families. Supporting a family does not necessarily require people to go to medical school or law school. Another factor is the scholastic ability of people. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or lawyer. Making the most of one’s situation in a time of hardship is what being a good citizen is about, and the fact that DACA and the DREAM act place an emphasis on excelling rather than surviving is unfair to those who are doing the best they can.
As far as economic need is concerned, I do not feel that the needs of the government should come before the needs of the people if the people are fulfilling their requirements. It is selfish for the government to care about money over people, but such is the way of the government. The government is supposed to work and serve the people, not the other way around.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that DACA provides important relief to immigrant youth within the United States that allows them greater access to opportunities offered, I am hesitant to presume that they would get stuck in the “immigrant poverty lifestyle” of which you mentioned. While many immigrants certainly face trials and tribulations in their initial experiences integrating into U.S. culture, I think that it is an unfair stigmatism to presume that all immigrants live in and are more prone to poverty solely based on the fact that they are immigrants. The legislation does more to provide a mean to protect immigrant youth from being deported and helps allow them greater opportunity to work and gain an education and an easier path to citizenship, an indirect consequence of which could be greater financial stability.
In regards to the “good moral character” that was heavily emphasized during the panel, I believe that, though of course it seems natural to want to bring in only people of good morals, this term is outdated and puts too much power in the hands of judiciary members to decide who may or may not stay in our country. Good moral character cannot be explicitly defined, and this leaves it up for interpretation of whatever judicial figure may be overseeing any particular case. Though at first glance the idea of assessing morals seems valuable in evaluating a person’s character before granting citizenship, due to an inability to remain consistent across all cases, I believe that this criteria does not serve a beneficial purpose in the citizenship process.
Hi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post regarding the immigration forum. Immigration is one of the most highly politicized issue areas in our country. You can take a group of people and ask them who they think should be allowed to immigrate and granted citizenship, and each person will give you different ideas onto the standard which immigrants should be held to. While many of us don't like it, as our country continues to fill up and especially during rough economic times, this standard will continue to rise as more people become hostile to more immigrants. Honestly, if you listen to people it sounds like immigration is someone applying for a job. There is a deep sense of competition and unfortunately for people who don't fit the "ideal immigrant" persona, they will face more challenges. As a nation of immigrants we should be accepting to many of these people, but as a nation of people concerned with their daily lives we are sometimes overly cautious.