For Discussion: America: Home of the Free, Land of the Brazen?

Genocide, forced sterilization, human medical experiments, repression of free speech, repression of freedom of religion, repression of the press, racism, forced labor, invasion of neutrals, imperialism, concentration camps, military atrocities...a list evils from the Nazi regime? In fact, the United States has been guilty of or accused of being guilty of all of the aforementioned acts. So how can we pledge allegiance to a flag that represents such a poor record in the world? Isn't that much like saying our bedtime prayers to Darth Vader?

Is the United States no better than any other country? Is the United States actually a force for great evil in the world? If so, how can we change from our wicked ways?

--Cicerone

For Discussion: A Jury of Your Peers

Most Americans dread the appearance of a jury summons in their mailbox. Many will do all they can to avoid serving on a jury. A large number refuse to show up. Can a jury of unwilling participants, randomly selected and not clever enough to escape jury duty ever really render an impartial and fair verdict?

Considering the movie 12 Angry Men and your own experience, is the jury system fair? What would make it more fair? Would you rather have a judge (a bench trial) or a jury (a jury trial) decide a case that you were involved in?

--Cicerone

Obama: Wright or Wrong?

A More Perfect Union Speech

Trinity United Church of Christ
http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

Clinton Comeback and Takes Three of Four

Ohio Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 54%
Obama 44%

McCain 60%
Huckabee 31%
Paul 5%

Texas Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 51%
Obama 48%

McCain 51%
Huckabee 38%
Paul 5%

Rhode Island Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 58%
Obama 40%

McCain 65%
Huckabee 22%
Paul 7%

Vermont Results (from CNN.com)
Obama 60%
Clinton 38%

McCain 72%
Huckabee 14%
Paul 7%

Fallout:
Huckabee drops out; Clinton still trailing in delegates.
Also:
Did the Clinton campaign "darken" Obama's image in a campaign ad? Click here.

--Cicerone

For Discussion: Free Speech? UPDATED

Does a student at a public university have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment? Are public universities supposed to be havens for free discourse and open discussions?

Over the past few decades public universities have been writing speech, harassment, and conduct codes that some believe have infringed upon students' rights of free expression. One organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has been fighting legal battles on behalf of students and professors who have run up against these policies. They have had a surprising run of success as courts or public opinion have generally backed FIRE's arguments.

Your assignment: go to and explore FIRE's website here. On the right margin is a "Find your school" map. Find one of the colleges that you applied to and read FIRE's entry about that college.

In your comment report on the school you looked at and what you found out. Is FIRE on to something or are they exaggerating a minor issue? If someone has already done your school then pick another one.

--Cicerone

UPDATE: In case you might think that FIRE is merely a right-wing special interest group trying to stir up trouble, according to this article the current president of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, is a "a self-described 'pro-choice liberal'."

For Discussion: Keep Your Tired, Your Poor, and Your Huddled Masses!

Caption: School children, half of Polish and half of Italian descent, at a festival in May 1942, Southington, Conn.
Photo Source: Library of Congress at Flickr

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--Emma Lazarus

Our last discussion concerned abortion and the death penalty. With the exception of Romney's flip-flop on abortion and Guiliani's pro-choice stance, neither of these issues have been major ones in the current primary races.

Six months ago, most pundits would have predicted that the vital electoral issue would be Iraq, but the issues of immigration, "change," and the economy have become the driving ones. Great portions of the Republican debates have been dominated by questions about immigration.

Most candidates agree that illegal immigration (or undocumented Americans) present a number of problems that haven't been effectively addressed at either the state or federal level. Control of immigration is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and the failure of the federal government to govern immigration has left the states holding the bag on issues like law and order, health services, education, and government services. Increasingly states are turning to controversial measures in a disjointed attempt to fix the system. Meanwhile, many business owners rely upon the check, unskilled labor that illegal immigrants provide. Many labor groups oppose illegal immigration because it creates unfair wage competition that tends to keep wages lower than they should be (illegal immigrants are often paid in cash or "under the table" to avoid payment of federal and state payroll taxes).

Hillary Clinton was hit early in the campaign when she seemed to support a state ID proposal for illegal immigrants; she has since backed off. Last year, McCain co-sponsored the so-called "Amnesty Bill" that would give illegal immigrants citizenship in return for a fine, some back taxes, and some other requirements. He has since repented of his "don't call it amnesty" proposal.

What can be done then? Here are some of the proposals:

Amnesty: Allow immigrants currently residing in the nation illegally to follow a legal path to citizenship. The path can include a waiting period, background check, return to homeland, payment of back taxes, registration with the government, fines, or other requirements. This proposal recognizes that illegal immigrants are an important part of our economy and allows for minimal economic disruption. Proponents of amnesty do not like to call it amnesty. "Amnesty" has become a dirty word in American politics. Opponents believe that it rewards illegal behavior and is unfair to those who have been waiting for their chance at legal immigration.

Guest Worker: A guest worker program would allow illegal immigrants to work as legal guests in the United States. This includes registration and a limited time-frame for working in the United States. It is similar to amnesty but without allowing citizenship at the end of the process. Many people oppose this because they think it will become another avenue of illegal immigration. Those for it claim that immigrants do the jobs that "Americans won't do" and that eliminating illegal immigrants from the workforce would devastate the U.S. economy. In addition, they argue that this would require the workers to pay taxes.

Secure the borders: This proposal calls for a serious federal effort to end illegal immigration through any or all of the following: a new barrier on the border (both electronic and physical), more border patrol agents, and an active and energetic effort to stop all illegal immigration. Most proponents of this proposal argue that this is only a partial solution as it ignores the estimated 10-15 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those opposed to the "fence" claim that it would be a gigantic waste of money, and that immigrants would still find ways across as long as there is an economic incentive to do so.

Deport all illegal immigrants: While most people believe this to be a pragmatic impossibility, some believe that anyone who breaks the law in order to enter the United States is a criminal and deserves deportation. Others find the possibility to verge on the precipice of ethnic-cleansing.

Revoke automatic citizenship for children born in the United States: The proponents of this idea argue that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded by having their children born in the U.S. declared legal citizens. To accomplish this would mean revoking the right to jus soli guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

English-only education: This proposal attempts to address the concerns of those who think that the United States will ended up with a permanent, unassimilated sub-culture (much like Quebec in Canada). It is also thought that English-only education will let immigrants know that they are not welcome if they cannot speak English.

Attrition: Attrition is an attempt to force illegal immigrants to self-deport. Instead of organizing and paying for the deportation of over ten million illegal immigrants, attrition would remove the economic incentives for living in the United States illegally by forcing businesses to confirm the legality of its workers. Businesses who fail to do so would be punished by stiff fines and possible criminal charges. Those who argue for attrition claim that employers who employ illegal immigrants do so with full knowledge of the status of the workers in order to save money on payroll expenses.

It is difficult to have an honest discussion of immigration in the U.S. today. Charges of racism and fascism fly easy from the lips of both sides, and neither party wants to forever lose the votes of such a large group of potential voters (Irish and Italian Catholics have voted Democratic ever since Republicans embraced Nativism in the 1800's). While most Americans are uncomfortable with the rapid influx of immigrants legal and illegal, most also recognize that immigrants serve a vital role in the economy and that the Statue of Liberty means something. Americans are proud that people around the world desire to move to the United States for all that it offers, yet are fearful that too much immigration will change America into something unrecognizable.

Read this article at AFP to see the impact of what one state is trying to do. Is Arizona on the right track or is there a fundamental flaw to Arizona's approach?

--Cicerone