hBy: Harshita Palegar Since the presidential campaigns started in 2015, immigration has been the main topic of discussion in many forums. Various candidates have many different approaches in terms of immigration policy ranging from extremely restrictive to having little restriction. This battle between national security concerns and harboring a place for anyone to enter the U.S. to create a new life for themselves has extended beyond the campaign realm more so than other campaign discussions in the past. Like other topics, immigration has reached family discussions, classrooms, and college campuses. However unlike other topics, immigration (specifically Trump’s immigration policy) has incited heated arguments from those on opposing sides. To find the best solution to deal with the immigration policy, it is important to understand the argument behind both parties and talk out the shortcomings and strong points of either side. Consequently, the deliberation I attended called “Make America ImmiGREAT Again” provided the platform and mediators to do just that.
When we first walked in, each of us were handed a pre-deliberation questionnaire to write down out initial thoughts on the issue at hand. We then started discussing amongst ourselves on our thoughts on immigration and what we think of Trump’s approach and his proposed policy. Although were many different schools of thought, people seemed to be divided between heavily restricted immigration policies and less restrictive policies as they got to voice their own ideas. On one hand, a small part of the room were avid supporters of the Trump administration’s current policies while the other staunchly opposed his extremely difficult immigration process. This initial conversation allowed everyone in the room to gauge who supported what side and how much support they gave to certain parts of the issue. To start off the discussion, the mediators introduced their first proposed approach which asked everyone what they thought the problems about the current immigration policy were. One person shared a personal story about his father, being a well-educated and successful man in the UK, having to wait for years in order to get his papers which caused some troubles. He stated that the immigration policy is already tough and that making it any tougher would deter people from wanting to enter into the U.S. Branching from that idea, people voiced how certain circumstance would not allow people from other countries to wait that long which would make the trapped in their countries and all out of options. The mediators then transitioned to the second part of the discussion which asked the audience about potential proposals for a more restrictive immigration policy. At this point, the discussion got more intense and I could see the group getting more polarized. Some of the supporters for this approach gave reasons in favor for the policy which included how illegal immigrants are costing more money than they are bringing in. The said person claimed that immigrants are costing the U.S. 128 billion dollars per year. The same group of people then went on to claim that people from Asia and Central America had a custom of having as many children as possible which was not true. They also pushed further by saying that people who immigrated from America should not keep their cultural aspects and should abandon them for American cultural values only. With those outrageous statements the rest of the room questioned where they got their statistic from, what information backed up their testimonials and they pointed out the holes in their arguments. At this point, the mediators had to divert the conversation back to a more policy based discussion rather than an opinionated one. The final topic of discussion advocated for a less restrictive form of immigration policy. Here, the rest of the group pointed out vital facts about the current and previous immigration reform and its consequences. The majority of the group pointed out that there has not been an incident of a refugee related attack in the U.S. but that all the known attacks were from home grown terrorists who have been living in the country for a while. Similarly, another person pointed out that the vetting process to get into the U.S. is already extremely strict and has many flaws in it. More importantly, comments were made about the importance of having other cultures make up the American population. Towards the end of the discussion, people were getting off topic and started discussing the flaws and strong points behind Trump’s immigration policy. Many of the attendees shared their own personal experiences which really struck a chord for many of those who attended. A woman sitting in the front described her time in other countries and how that differed from her life in America. She said that when she was abroad, people were curious about her culture, appreciated it, and understood that she was different. But in America, she felt the need to change who she was so she could be more “American”. One of the mediators even chimed in and shared how the immigration process affected his personal life. He told us that when election time came, his parents cried out of happiness and sadness. Happiness due to the fact that their son participated in an election but were sad because they could not vote even if they lived in the U.S. since 1991. After having attended this deliberation, my thoughts on immigration have not really changed. It was good to hear the other sides of the argument but it did not really affect my initial position. Entering the discussion, I was against the immigration ban and a stricter immigration policy. After hearing the claims and arguments from the opposing side, it was clear that there was not solid reason to make immigration any stricter. However, some of the statements made by the other side were reasonable such as national security being a top priority on the agenda. But, listening to the people who agreed with my opinion question the other side exposed some flaws in their statements. Overall, the deliberation made me see the other side of the spectrum but it did not sway my opinion on the current policies enacted in terms of immigration.
1 Comment
By: Harshitha Palegar With Earth Day just around the corner, there is an impending socially organized march that will be held in front of the White House similar to the Women’s March held earlier this year. The March for Science is an outcry from the science community that resists the popular opinion among the Republicans that climate change is a mere myth. And from one Republican specifically, a hoax conjured up by China. Scientists, alongside ordinary citizens with an understanding of the alarming climatic events in recent years, will gather in Washington to express their concern about the Earth’s environment and what human activity has done to it. Hopefully, this will incite others to bring attention to the issue while also alert politicians to support and improve the actions already put in place to protect our environment.
The idea of an accelerated climate change due to human activity is commonly shared throughout the scientific community as there is sufficient evidence to back this claim up. One very importantly being the known effects of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases and their relationship with humans. To run industries, homes and other aspects of our lives, we have to burn coal which in turn releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which have detrimental effects to the ozone layer. Some of these gases put holes in the ozone layer which serves to protect the Earth from the harmful UV rays emitted from the Sun. Other gases linger in the atmosphere and reflect heat back onto the Earth which, of course, increases the overall temperature of the planet. Policies such as carbon dioxide emission caps are put in place to curb these harmful emissions. There is also empirical evidence to show the effects of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas release. The most alarming being that the warmest years on record have occurred within the past 20 years. This discovery is directly related to the finding that in the past 400,000 years, carbon dioxide emissions have not exceeded a certain level until the 1950s when industrialization took off. This is just a basic overview of what the scientific community has released about the reasons behind the warming of the Earth. There are many other factors and evidence that accompanies the previous information that bolsters up the climate change argument. But unfortunately, many party leaders on the Republican side do not believe the proof put forward. Instead, they believe the climate changing is a natural part of the Earth’s cycle, which in part is true. The Earth goes through warm periods and cool periods and always recovers from them as history shows with the melt after the ice age. But the only difference is that humans are speeding up the warm period which can hurt future generations. The Earth will recover as it did before but humans may not. So the argument put forth by climate change rivals is somewhat correct but it is not entirely true. Thus far into the recent presidential election, Trump has made it clear that he does not believe in the claims made by the scientific community in regards to climate change. As his theory goes, he believes we are too worried about the climate changing and that humans have only minimally impacted the overall increase in global temperature. As a result, he has rolled back many of the energy regulations put in place by the Obama administration. The cutbacks include reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, decreasing methane outputs, and increase funding to find alternative energy sources. All of which the scientific community has approved of and went through under the consideration of Obama’s secretary of energy; nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz. On the other hand, many scientists have been very worried about the future of the Earth with the cutbacks Trump wishes to make. Originally, they hoped Obama could have done more to decrease the amount of pollutants in the air and the elimination of the current regulations forces them into taking a stand on the issue themselves. Scientists are also unable to appeal to the current Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry. Unlike his predecessor, Perry does not have the same knowledge about climate change and therefore cannot be swayed to go against his superior. Unable to go Rick Perry, scientists are left to take to the streets to have their voice heard and to bring attention to the climate crisis. The goal for the March for Science is to voice out the concerns of the scientific community and to bring attention to the importance of preserving our climate before it is too late. Saving our climate now is extremely important and cannot be delayed any further. The effects are being felt already as there is an increase in the average temperature, the polar ice caps are melting, the oceans are warming, there have been more droughts and the sea level has been rising. All of these could be potentially detrimental to humans and the rest of the ecosystem. The effects listed above will change humans’ day to day lives and can be extremely harmful to the future generations. Likewise, many animals around the world are suffering as well. Fish in the ocean are dying at faster rates, animals are suffering due to longer droughts and there have been a surplus or deficit of certain species due to the extended growing season of crops. The bottom line is that, with all the damaging effects of current human activity, there has to be an outlet for advocates of climate change to show their concern. Knowing the current course of action from political elites in D.C., the March for Science is the most impactful way to showcase the viewpoints and credibility from the science community. Usually, scientists do not delve into the political realm but when it comes to the complete rejection of scientific evidence that has been collected over a period of a few decades, they had to step in. And others who feel the same way will march alongside them to show support. By: Harshitha Palegar With Earth Day just around the corner, there is an impending socially organized march that will be held in front of the White House similar to the Women’s March held earlier this year. The March for Science is an outcry from the science community that resists the popular opinion among the Republicans that climate change is a mere myth. And from one Republican specifically, a hoax conjured up by China. Scientists, alongside ordinary citizens with an understanding of the alarming climatic events in recent years, will gather in Washington to express their concern about the Earth’s environment and what human activity has done to it. Hopefully, this will incite others to bring attention to the issue while also alert politicians to support and improve the actions already put in place to protect our environment.
The idea of an accelerated climate change due to human activity is commonly shared throughout the scientific community as there is sufficient evidence to back this claim up. One very importantly being the known effects of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases and their relationship with humans. To run industries, homes and other aspects of our lives, we have to burn coal which in turn releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which have detrimental effects to the ozone layer. Some of these gases put holes in the ozone layer which serves to protect the Earth from the harmful UV rays emitted from the Sun. Other gases linger in the atmosphere and reflect heat back onto the Earth which, of course, increases the overall temperature of the planet. Policies such as carbon dioxide emission caps are put in place to curb these harmful emissions. There is also empirical evidence to show the effects of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas release. The most alarming being that the warmest years on record have occurred within the past 20 years. This discovery is directly related to the finding that in the past 400,000 years, carbon dioxide emissions have not exceeded a certain level until the 1950s when industrialization took off. This is just a basic overview of what the scientific community has released about the reasons behind the warming of the Earth. There are many other factors and evidence that accompanies the previous information that bolsters up the climate change argument. But unfortunately, many party leaders on the Republican side do not believe the proof put forward. Instead, they believe the climate changing is a natural part of the Earth’s cycle, which in part is true. The Earth goes through warm periods and cool periods and always recovers from them as history shows with the melt after the ice age. But the only difference is that humans are speeding up the warm period which can hurt future generations. The Earth will recover as it did before but humans may not. So the argument put forth by climate change rivals is somewhat correct but it is not entirely true. Thus far into the recent presidential election, Trump has made it clear that he does not believe in the claims made by the scientific community in regards to climate change. As his theory goes, he believes we are too worried about the climate changing and that humans have only minimally impacted the overall increase in global temperature. As a result, he has rolled back many of the energy regulations put in place by the Obama administration. The cutbacks include reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, decreasing methane outputs, and increase funding to find alternative energy sources. All of which the scientific community has approved of and went through under the consideration of Obama’s secretary of energy; nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz. On the other hand, many scientists have been very worried about the future of the Earth with the cutbacks Trump wishes to make. Originally, they hoped Obama could have done more to decrease the amount of pollutants in the air and the elimination of the current regulations forces them into taking a stand on the issue themselves. Scientists are also unable to appeal to the current Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry. Unlike his predecessor, Perry does not have the same knowledge about climate change and therefore cannot be swayed to go against his superior. Unable to go Rick Perry, scientists are left to take to the streets to have their voice heard and to bring attention to the climate crisis. The goal for the March for Science is to voice out the concerns of the scientific community and to bring attention to the importance of preserving our climate before it is too late. Saving our climate now is extremely important and cannot be delayed any further. The effects are being felt already as there is an increase in the average temperature, the polar ice caps are melting, the oceans are warming, there have been more droughts and the sea level has been rising. All of these could be potentially detrimental to humans and the rest of the ecosystem. The effects listed above will change humans’ day to day lives and can be extremely harmful to the future generations. Likewise, many animals around the world are suffering as well. Fish in the ocean are dying at faster rates, animals are suffering due to longer droughts and there have been a surplus or deficit of certain species due to the extended growing season of crops. The bottom line is that, with all the damaging effects of current human activity, there has to be an outlet for advocates of climate change to show their concern. Knowing the current course of action from political elites in D.C., the March for Science is the most impactful way to showcase the viewpoints and credibility from the science community. Usually, scientists do not delve into the political realm but when it comes to the complete rejection of scientific evidence that has been collected over a period of a few decades, they had to step in. And others who feel the same way will march alongside them to show support. By: Harshitha Palegar One in five women are sexually assaulted during their first year at college. That being said, contrary to popular belief, sexual assault and is not only a women’s issue. 5.4% of males are victims of sexual violence during college as well. In an environment dedicated towards education and career building, student should not have to be concerned as to whether they will be sexually assaulted or not. It is the duty of universities to harbor a safe environment especially in a place as structured as a university where living, eating and learning spaces are in close proximity of each other.
One factor that exacerbates the chances of being sexually assaulted in college is the consumption of alcohol. Specifically, there are types of pills and drugs that are dropped in drinks to limit a person’s ability to understand their surroundings or control themselves. Such drugs are extremely dangerous because they are usually tasteless, odorless and colorless and therefore can go easily undetected in one’s drink. Not only that, but these drugs can make a person completely forget what happened the events of the night. Drugs like date rape drugs are extremely dangerous to a person’s body as well. The toxins in the drug can create harmful side effects and even death in some instances, especially when they are mixed with copious amounts of alcohol. The Office of Women’s Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gives advice to prevent being date raped. One such way to always make your own drink. Making your own drink obviously means the drink has not been tampered with. However, in situations where you cannot make your own drink it is important to watch your drink being poured as this can decrease the risk of something harmful added in the process. Another important rule to follow is to never leave your drink out of sight as this can greatly increase the chances of someone dropping a drug in the contents of the cup. Date rape drugs are illegal in the United States, but unfortunately, people can still get their hands on them. Until the sales of these harmful drugs are eliminated, precautions must be taken. Another way to prevent date rape drug associated sexual assault is to step in when something does not seem right. Letting someone know their drink has been tampered with can have a huge impact on the safety of someone who is out drinking in campus. However, intervening when signs of someone drugging a drink is not the only time when stepping in is necessary. Bystander intervention can mean the difference between an assault victim and someone walking away from a dangerous situation. Many attacks can be prevented if someone steps in to offer a walk home, alert a friend or lets the perpetrator know what he or she is doing is not ok. Even something as simple as asking someone if they are ok can prevent a person from a sexual violence attack. In our own Penn State campus, sexual assault is a recurring issue. This is made evident by the constant university alerts that notifies students of an assault on campus and how desensitized students have become to such warnings. In its efforts to stop attacks, Penn State does have precautions put in place throughout campus. When it comes to date rape drugs and alcohol, the streets of Penn State are equipped with “safe walks” which, when pressed, will alert campus security to walk someone home. Penn State also has rules put in place within fraternities as to how drinks are distributed. Fraternities must have all alcohol behind a bar and all alcohol must be given out by one of the brothers who over the age of 21. These rules in fraternities somewhat decrease the chances of drugs being poured in the alcohol. Along with these regulations, Penn State sets up informational meetings and posters that preach advice similar to that of the Women’s Health Cabinet as mentioned above. In terms of bystander intervention, Penn State tries to educate students in the signs of sexual assault so they know when to step in. Not only does the university educate people on the red flags of potential sexual assault, but they also give advice in ways to step in without putting yourself in danger. Campus leaders give lectures and talks to spread the importance of taking a stand to prevent sexual assault and ways to do so. RAs also give presentations about intervention of sexual assault and they post informational newsletters to remind us of signs of sexual abuse. As good as Penn State’s strategies to prevent sexual violence related attacks are, they are still not enough. The ever present attacks signify how posters, talks and e-mails are insufficient. The “safe walks” put on campus sidewalks reportedly takes too long to respond and those who did press it for help end up walking home by themselves. Going along with that, the rules and regulations put in place at fraternities do not stop date rape drugs from circulating in the socials nor does it stop binge drinking. After all, standing alone on a street for 15 minutes is just as dangerous as walking back alone. The posters and talks do incite a sense of duty in students, however many people ignore the posters plastered along the walls and it is tough to get students to take time out of their schedule to voluntarily attend the lectures. Moreover, it is a struggle to eliminate the stigma of thinking “it’s not my problem” in students when they actually see signs of sexual assault. Unfortunately, with the increase of sexual assaults on campuses all over the country, including Penn State, it is evident that the precautions taken in our own campus are not enough. In order to bolster our resources to make our campus a safe environment, we must come together and formulate new ideas to implement throughout the school. The purpose for the deliberation is exactly that. It is so important to have an outlet that allows individuals to voice their opinion to deal with this intolerable issue. |
Categories
All
|