Why not Immigrant reforms?

Why is there so much hate? Why are people labeled as “aliens” if they are not from the U.S.? The growing amount of tension between “Americans” and “the others” has left an extremely bitter taste in the land of the free. Ironically, the U.S. supports democracy, and yet society is functioning in unequal ways.

One of these inequalities is the debate revolving around immigrant reforms; opposing sides of reforms state that immigration laws should be bolstered to prevent these “aliens” from taking jobs away from the “American” people. But what is defined as an “American”? A piece of paper that states you are a citizen of United States, the amount of taxes you pay, and the way you view “the others”. That is just a joke: a blasphemous piece of work.

It is understandable that illegal immigrants are draining the U.S. economy by taking away the jobs from the people as well as avoiding taxes due to their “un-certified” citizenship, but these reasons are only the “face values” of the effects that immigration. Also, it is important to also take into consideration that immigrants are not actually taking away jobs, but rather filling the jobs we don’t like; Dr. James Johnson, a professor at Kenan Flager Business School, states that immigrants take jobs known as “the 3D jobs- dirty, dangerous, and difficult-these are jobs that the natives don’t like to do”. Thus, to fully understand the contribution immigration has on the U.S. society, we must look at it in terms of how the parts of society allow for society to flow the way it does (i.e. functionalism).

Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. Society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole society. If we look beyond the “surface value” of how immigration drains the U.S. economy, we can see how immigrant reforms can actually improve the U.S. in both the short term and long term.

In the short term, immigrant reform creates an equal playing field for both the employer and employee (which seem nonexistent right now). It might seem counterintuitive to enact immigration reforms and legalize up to 8 million workers in the U.S. But the simple truth is that updating our immigration laws will generate tax revenues by requiring all workers and employers to be in the system and level the playing field for business owners, who play by the rules. In other words, if we look at this from a functionalistic perspective, the parts of society, that creates the stability of the whole society, are the relationships between the employer and employees. By giving immigrants an opportunity for citizenship, it reduces the inequality the employer places on the immigrants due to their weakness (i.e. illegal passage to the U.S.); as a result of their weakness, employers take advantage of it and pay immigrants significantly less than an average “American” worker. This leads to instability of the whole society rather than stability; the parts of society (i.e. employers who pay significantly less to workers) that functions in ways that are skewed from the parts of society that function to enable stability to the U.S. economy, explains why society is the way it is. In other words, we take into consideration that immigration leads to depletion of jobs and tax revenue, but we don’t take into consideration why that occurs. From a functionalistic perspective, it is not immigration that explicitly causes these depletions, but rather the effects of not having immigrant reforms; placing “illegal” into the word “immigrant” allows for employers exploit this opportunity and reduce wages. As a result of this functioning (i.e. reduce wages), it creates these instabilities within society as a whole.

So, the surface value of immigration seems meaningless if we look at the source of the problem, and not at the individual. In the short term, allowing immigrant reforms to pass can create opportunities for immigrants to create their own business and thus, increase the competition in the U.S. This competition comes from increasing production and consumerism that immigrant reforms create; if immigrants are allowed to fairly function in the U.S., it can enhance the economy by increasing consumption and as a result, tax revenue.

Even though immigrant reforms will not immediately increase the U.S. economy, it will gradually appear throughout the years. However, these short term effects also come with their long term goals. If immigrant reforms are passed, it can affect the way globalization occurs. In “U.S. Business vs. Us”, Charles Derber explains that globalization has led to corporate wilding, or the increasing greed of corporations to increase profit at the expense of another’s well-being. With the enactment of immigrant reforms, this can actually reduce the way globalization is functioning. The parts that make global capitalism occur (and thus corporate wilding) are the instability of other countries, the corruption of other governments, and the political influence corporations have. So, how do immigrant reforms come into play? By increasing the leniency of immigration into the U.S., it challenges the corruption and instability of other countries; immigrants come to the U.S. for a reason, and these reasons include unequal opportunities in their native countries due to corruption. By allowing immigrant reforms to pass, it challenges the corrupt ways that globalization is functioning within society as well as the ways the corrupt government treats the native people. If immigrant reforms are passed, it reduces the exploitation of globalization by giving immigrants an opportunity to start anew rather than stay at a job that pays less than it should be. “Pay” is the significance of immigrant reforms to challenge corporate wilding; by giving immigrants an opportunity to function in the U.S., it allows them a choice to find a job of equal opportunity. This opportunity will decrease the amount of workers (and thus production) that are exploited by corporations, and as a result, decrease the way that globalization has created a segregated economy. Not only will immigrants decrease corporate wilding, but it could also reduce globalization, which had devastating effects on the number of unemployment in the U.S.; with decreasing numbers of people in other countries to work for corporations at a lower wage, it leaves corporations with a problem: no workers mean no productions. Without production, corporations will need to form businesses back at the U.S. (where most immigrants are at), which will lead to an increase in employment.

So, overall it seems that immigrant reforms can actually have a positive effect on the U.S. economy. If politicians only look at the face value of the effects immigration brings to the economic table, and not at the deeper effects, it can bring great harm to the way society functions. In other words, by using the functionalistic perspective, a deeper meaning to how immigrant reforms can affect the U.S. economy, was brought into play; this perspective allowed us to see that society as a whole needs to be taken into consideration when describing the effects of immigration and not the individual.

History, biology and symbolism revolving around Masculinity

The image presented clearly presents masculinity based on two significant factors the advertisement portrays. The first, and the most obvious, factor is the image of an assault rifle. The second being the words presented to the viewers: “Consider your man card reissued”. Obviously, based on the text, the advertisement is specifically targeting men to buy weapons. But the important question at hand is, how does men interpret this type of advertisement (or any situation) as symbolic of masculinity?

The words presented to the viewers is, without a doubt, targeting men. “Consider your man card reissued” can have several meanings. Within this blog, I will describe how the physical entity of the gun can relate to the words presented in terms of how the gun represents masculinity through history and how the gun represents masculinity though “doing gender”.

It seems appropriate to view this advertisement in terms of Symbolic interactionism. According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Words or visuals serve as the predominant symbols to make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” Symbolic interactionism does not only rely on the words being presented, but also requires intention and interpretation. With that being said, we must understand how an individual or a community of individuals labels what aspects of society as being masculine.

According to Symbolic Interactionism, symbols of masculinity include traits of bravery, courage, and intellect, as well as physical traits of having a beard, deep voice, and muscles. However, based on Symbolic Interactionism, symbols are not limited to the personal traits of the individuals, but also includes the physical entities that enhance the masculinity of the individuals. The assault rifle presents a strong symbol to masculinity based on how society views weapons throughout history. Battles/wars are commonly known to be fought between men, and in war, the “symbolic entities” that enhances how a man should act are: knives, bombs, fists, and guns. In other words, the general term, “aggression”, plays a huge role in the symbolic labeling of masculinity. “Aggression” can branch out to several ideologies (including the physical entities I have just mentioned), but the fact that all of these “symbolic entities” all relate back to aggression, indicates that these entities are part of the concept called masculinity.

So, now that there is an understanding of how guns are portrayed as a source of masculinity due to history. I also want to note how biology plays a huge role in how masculinity is portrayed. The moment of birth, an individual’s “sex” is labeled as man or woman. This labeling is based on the genitalia the individual has. Then gender is “constructed” based on how society interprets how a man or woman should develop. Society influences how a man or woman should act based on a reward/punishment system; society approves of what are considered appropriate actions for a man/woman (i.e. boys play with action figures and as a result, have many “boy” friends), and those that are not appropriate, comes with some sort of punishment (i.e. boys play with dolls and as a result, do not have friends). But the construction of gender (or “doing gender”) all relates back to the “sex” of the individual; our first interpretation of the “gender blue-print” that a child should follow is based on their sex. So with that in mind, it would seem reasonable to state that the assault rifle not only symbolizes “aggression” (which is a symbolic form of masculinity), but also symbolizes the male genitalia. Why would the assault rifle represent the male’s genital? The gun has a similar “physical structure” as the male genital, and similar metaphorical actions (i.e. “bigger packs a harder punch”). These similarities allow for the man to relate to the gun as part of their lifestyle, and thus allow men to interpret that the gun is important representation of masculinity.

So, with all that has been said about how Symbolic Interactionism relates the advertisement to masculinity, I want to ask the question: with the growing number of females participating in these so-called, "man-wars", can the advertisement only be targeting men?

Conflict Theory and Gender Inequality

In mind the Gap: Gender Pay inequality in America (http://youtu.be/mrXKx03QxL0v),  BBC enlightens viewers that even though the Equal Pay Act was passed, gender inequality still exist in the workplace. Furthermore, Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the NWLC states that, inequality still exist due to discrimination and the concentration of low-pay jobs. It is absolutely true that discrimination plays a huge role in gender inequality; but understanding how discrimination came to exist is necessary to explain the persistence of inequality, not just in the work place, but within the functions of society. This inequality can be explained in many ways, but my view is going to be concentrated specifically on the conflict theory. For a better understanding of the Conflict Theory, please watch the given light video:

According to Conflict Theory, society is defined by the struggle for dominance between social groups that compete for resources. In relationship to gender, Conflict theory explains that gender inequality came to exist because the men are trying to maintain power and privilege at the cost of the women’s benefit. What do I mean by this? If we take a quick tour of the history of the United States, it is quite obvious that men are continually seen to be the dominant group in society; in a hunter-gather system, being a hunter (i.e. man) indicated the abilities and powers of the male relative to the gatherer (i.e. woman). This allowed for the man to be known as the significant “breadwinner” in the family, as he was able to provide meat onto the table (which was seen as being dominant).

If we travel to the early 20^th century, gender inequality continues to exist, but in a different form. The hunter-gather systems have been replaced by a household system, in which the same ideology of Conflict Theory can be applied. Women can be seen as the submissive (proletariat), while the men can be seen as the dominant (bourgeois). This is due to the static ideology that the women are dependent on men for wages (since men are the breadwinners that provide money for the women).  So, what does all this history tell us about the continuing gender discrimination in the work place (in terms of wages)? As I’ve stated before, men, who have constantly been in power in the past, are continuing to maintain the power that they had. The struggle between the men (trying to maintain power) and the women (trying to gain power) is exactly the cause of the inequality in the workplace. In terms of Conflict Theory, the man is defined as the “thesis”, while the woman is defined as the “antithesis”; the thesis and antithesis are in opposition to one another, and thus struggle pursues. But, eventually the compromise is reached between the two groups, which allows for another “thesis” and “antithesis” to appear.

Take an example to clarify this situation. Before the 1800s, women were not allowed to work for wages; women were in-home housewives that had the duty to take care of the children and prepare a meal for the man, when he came home from work. In this case, the gradual conflict between the “thesis” (working men” and the “antithesis” (housewives) lead to compromises, such as the Women Suffrage Movement that allowed the woman to finally work for her own wages (and vote) in the mid-1800s. However, now that a compromise has been found (i.e. the woman begins to work for her own wages), a new conflict appears: gender inequality in the work place. Gender inequality exists in the workplace due to the ongoing conflict between the man, who wants to express his control, and the woman, who wants to express her equality. In the 21^st century, where the women have found a compromise with the men to obtain her own wages, Conflict theory states that there is a new struggle. This struggle is the difference in wages between men and women, which eventually will also reach a compromise. Such is evident in the case where women are making 90 cent for every dollar a man makes (described in BBC news). So, of course gender inequality persist in society today (not just the workplace); Conflict Theory tells us that there is always a battle between “good-and-evil”, “men-and-women”, and that a compromise will eventually be found. But in the end, another conflict will occur.