ACCELERATED PACES

testetere

This article initially appeared on PolicyMic on 2/10/12

Campaigning through New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, the Republican candidates employed harsh rhetoric about immigration reform, vowing to punish people in this country illegally. The Florida primaries last week, however, presented an immigrant-sympathetic constituency which the GOP candidates worked hard to sway.

Amidst the immigration debate, the issue once again arose of whether the U.S. should declare English the official language of the country. The candidates did not hesitate to continue their tactic of attacking one another to better themselves. In his string of negative ad campaigns, Mitt Romney accused Newt Gingrich of calling Spanish “the language of the ghetto.” While this may have contributed to Romney’s victory, should this really be an issue?

Given the daunting issues we face today, pursuing legislation to make English the official language would be overbearing and unnecessary for several reasons.

First, with 82.1 percent fluent speakers and a whopping 96 percent claiming proficiency, English is the unofficial official language in America. In order to effectively participate in political life and commerce in the country, it is to one’s advantage to learn English. Knowledge of the English language not only opens up doors that lead to the realization of the American dream of increased economic opportunity, but it makes integration into American society less stressful. Thus, there is already an incentive to learn English, it just has to be exploited and government coercion is unnecessary here.

Second, an official language will not discourage multilingualism, as people will continue to speak their native languages. As a child, I lived in a country where over 250 languages are spoken and English is the recognized official language. From that experience, there is no real difference between a “languageless” country such as the United States and having an official language. Most people still spoke in their native tongues but communicated in English in the public space.

Third, learning a new language is a gradual process that cannot be achieved overnight. Most immigrants come here as adults, making the learning process even harder. While they may never become fluent English speakers, their children and future generations will be. Thus, those who view other languages as threats to the preservation of our national English heritage are worrying needlessly.

However, although I agree that multilingualism should be encouraged because it promotes diversity and serves an as an asset in an increasingly globalized world, English should be the primary language of learning in the school system. While ESL and other foreign language-based programs in schools are beneficial in helping foreign students absorb into our education system, it would also be to their advantage to learn English, as this will maximize their capacity to excel outside the classroom.

America is a nation that prides itself on tolerance and its multicultural heritage, so a decision to pass legislation is unwarranted and will only play into reinforcing the suspicion that government is on a mission to infringe deeper into our privacy.

Contrary to popular belief, promulgating law that recognizes English as the official language of the U.S. would not lead to an overnight feeling of solidarity. It may however, intensify the alienation of minority groups. In addition, how would it be enforced? Would people be penalized or arrested for not being able to speak English fluently? Would the government be obligated to fund programs that provide English lessons? What are the cost-benefits? Questions such as these would have to be taken into account before considering passing such law.

This article was originally published on www.PolicyMic.com  (http://www.policymic.com/article/show?id=3195)

The past year was marked by global economic uncertainty, a vicious partisan divide in American government, and political protests/uprisings in the MENA region as well as in the West with Occupy Wall Street. Without a doubt, these events will shape the direction of world politics and political behavior in following years. 

Ushering in the New Year and given the ambivalent state of affairs both in the domestic and international fronts, several political actors should adopt strategic New Year resolutions that would promote security and ensure some level of economic stability. 

1. President Barack Obama – Throughout his presidency, the stringent party divide has restricted the president from making significant progress in tackling issues ailing the country. Although the unemployment rate dropped from 9% in November to 8.8% in December, the economy remains a top priority as 13.3 million Americans are still without jobs. Obama will have to continue working arduously to break through the partisan gridlock that has overwhelmed Washington in order to regain the support of disenfranchised Americans. 

Secondly, Obama has been successful in terminating the Iraq War, eliminating Osama Bin Laden, and “suppressing” terrorist activities against the U.S. However, he cannot rest on these accomplishments. Ending the Afghan War and pulling troops from Afghanistan and Iraq would solidify some of the promises he made in 2008 and would place him in a better position for reelection.   

2. OWS Leadership – OWS has chosen to shun the traditional top-down hierarchical leadership structures in place of peer-to-peer networking and working groups which may prevent outside infiltration, but how effective will this leadership approach be in the long run? OWS organizers in the United States should consider consolidating their demands, formulating a leadership panel, and taking their demands from Wall Street to Washington. Consolidating a single voice in the months leading up to the presidential elections could be very strategic in bringing their demands to fruition.

3. American Millennial Voters – Without a doubt, millennial voters have a very important role to play in the upcoming elections. Candidates will be targeting this population due to their vulnerable positions in the economy as recent grads and struggling job hunters. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has gone as far as to say, “If I’m president, all college grads will have a job….”  

Although a bit drastic and unrealistic, Romney’s statement highlights the importance of young people’s votes to his campaign. Thus, a nonchalant attitude towards the presidential elections would be counterproductive because young voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard and demand more of government.

4. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – Iran has come under attack in recent months and much of current political discussion revolves around the “Iranian threat” which in reality is essentially non-existent. Ahmadinejad will have to remain a rational actor and employ diplomacy in order to avoid war with the U.S. and possibly a demise of the Islamic Republic as we know it. Unnecessary political chauvinism such as the one displayed by Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraqi invasion could prove detrimental to Iran and the rest of the world.         

5. President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria – Finally, the president of the most populous African nation, as well as the world’s 10th largest oil producer, will have to seriously address the terrorist threat in his country. Boko Haram, an Islamist religious sect in the Northeast region of the country aiming to eliminate the Nigerian democracy and establish a fully Islamic state has committed acts of terrorism against the Nigerian people and their government since 2009. 

Rumored to have links to Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram is responsible for the bombing of a United Nations building in the nation’s capital last summer and the bombing of five Catholic churches on Christmas Day. Nigeria’s role as one of the most prosperous countries in the continent is at stake if Jonathan does not act effectively in eradicating this threat.

Professor Chinua Achebe’s refusal to accept Nigeria’s second highest national honor, Commander of the Federal Republic (CFR) was an exemplary move that all honorable Nigerians should admire. Given the failure of the Nigerian government to render promises made since independence in 1960 and since the return of democracy in 1999, the least of things that the country’s resources should be allocated to are award ceremonies recognizing politicians and cronies who have achieved virtually nothing but systematic looting. Although actors and academics were also honored at the ceremony on Monday November, 14, activists and opposition leaders who represent the voiceless poor and have made large contributions to their various communities were not acknowledged. This immediately brings into question the credibility of the selection process and points to the fact that recipients are awarded solely as presidential favors.

Unsurprisingly, Professor Achebe declined the National Honor on the grounds that he provided several years ago when the Obasanjo administration presented him the very same award. On a press release in 2004, he wrote, “Nigeria’s condition today under your watch...is too dangerous for silence. I must register my disappointment and protest by declining to accept the high honor awarded me in the 2004 honors list. This time, he added, “The reasons for rejecting the offer when it was first made have not been addressed let alone solved. It is inappropriate to offer it again to me. I must therefore regretfully decline the offer again.”

I respect Achebe’s decision and identify with the rationale behind refusing the CFR award on the grounds that although Nigeria has tremendous potential to live up to the name – “the giant of Africa,” its leaders have failed in leading the country to the full realization of this potential. Similar to the military regimes before it, civilian rule has been marked by poor governance guided by tribal patronages and a strange zoning system that basically rotates power between the Christian south and the Muslim north. Bribery and corruption remains the norm and well over 60% of Nigerian youth are unemployed including college degree holders.

Aside from the country’s shortcomings, the Association of National Honours Awardees (ANHA) itself has a history of being manipulated as a pawn by Nigerian heads of states. During the regime of Sani Abacha (1993-1999), the General conferred the highest medal of honor of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the late Colonel Muamar Qaddafi of Libya. Fully aware of Qaddafi’s legacy as an international representation of terror, General Abacha’s decision to present him with such a prestigious national honor demonstrates the hidden political agendas behind the selection and awarding process.

This article was originally pulished on www.PolicyMic.com See link: (http://www.policymic.com/articles/despite-state-immigration-reforms-we-still-need-a-federal-dream-act)

Although immigration reform has consistently been an issue for presidential campaigns and in Congress for the past decade, the federal government has yet to address the issue in any serious way. Several senators have refused to pass any reform that is not comprehensive in nature (i.e. border security and path towards citizenship). This is primarily why the DREAM Act has not passed into law since it was first introduced in 2001 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). 

State legislatures have therefore stepped up to the plate to deal with their immigration issues on the state level. To date, 11 states have passed their versions of the DREAM Act, providing undocumented students with the opportunity to attend college on in-state tuition along with some financial assistance. 

While strides have been made on the state level to incorporate undocumented immigrants into higher education institutions, there are several reasons why we need immigration reform on a federal level to fully benefit well-deserving undocumented youth.

First, without a doubt, financial aid and in-state tuition will make college education more attainable, but states still lack the power to confer legal status on undocumented immigrants. What becomes of these students after they have received college degrees but cannot apply their education to a profitable career?  For example, a provision in New York State’s version of the DREAM Act (S. 4179) if passed, will grant New York State work authorization to some 345,000 undocumented students residing in the state.  Although this would enable them to seek employment, they would still be restricted to working only in New York State, thus limiting their ability to explore employment opportunities in other states.

Second, with no access to employment, undocumented students are faced with two choices – remain in the states and take on under-the-table-jobs or return to their home country. Regardless of the options they choose, state DREAM Acts that focus solely on education accessibility could potentially be wasted resources for students who cannot contribute their talents and education in bettering our economy afterwards. In the case that state DREAM Act beneficiaries take on low-paying jobs well under their qualifications, this would still be a loss, in that their income would be less taxable than it would have been if they were authorized to work legally. 

Lastly, most state versions of the DREAM Act induce false hope. For example, the California DREAM Act (AB 130), passed last month and has been celebrated by the pro-immigrant community as a step forward in addressing immigration reform in the state. However, it is also important to point out that although AB 130 could potentially make higher education a reality for many, the law also provides that undocumented students would not be eligible to apply or receive any Competitive Cal Grant unless funding remains available after all California resident students have received Competitive Awards. Thus, the law does not place California’s undocumented students on a level playing field in competing for financial assistance with their American counterparts. Instead it puts them under a second priority status where funds would only be available after California residents have been served. Given the state of California’s ailing coffers, one can only imagine the limited amount of resources designated for education.

Whether political posturing or a genuine attempt to bring undocumented students out from the shadows, state versions of the DREAM Act cannot benefit students nor the state itself in the long-run because recipients still cannot work legally in the U.S. The main beneficiaries of state-sponsored immigration bills are universities who would enjoy an increase in school revenues as students who would normally not attend college start to pay tuition. 

This article was originally published on www.PolicyMic.com - Our generation's news outlet.  Article Link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marine-research-not-nasa-space-research

In the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americans remain concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser priority areas. Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to NASA, encouraging the administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological development, and scientific discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion, $1 billion less than their requested amount.

This large discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clear-cut example of the growing concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending. Given that 95% of the underwater world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years, should the space program remain a priority?

The last half of the 20th century was marked by the ideological and technological warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet bloc. The Cold War morphed itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological competition such as the Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main frontiers where the Cold War was waged. As a result, accomplishments and developments made in these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received with a strong sense of national pride.  

However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and technology that will enable us to explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space exploration has contributed largely to this effort as a result of relentless government support and a strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and the corporations typically awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their agendas forward in Washington. 

On the contrary, although oceans are exploited for economic activities such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation, fisheries, and aquaculture, oceanic exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S. government. According to NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP originates in coastal areas, the ocean is key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the cures to many diseases." Since its potential contribution to human sustainability stands at equal footing with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to explore the deep-sea frontier.  

Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social activists accusing the agency of wasting resources that could be used here on earth. Given the daunting issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment, lack of access to health care, a broken education system, and many others, many believe that the large amount of money poured into space research could be used to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic activities and processes, we continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters stemming from the ocean. Investing in oceanic research may help discover preventive mechanisms against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills.  

Go read my article on gender-geared quotas and engage in constructive political discourse at www.PolicyMic.com!