Proposal—nickalodeansallthat

It seems counter intuitive how America claims to be the land of the free, but when immigrants come they have to be Americanized or else they become a complete pest. With that it is counter intuitive that they need to be Americanized but we also tell them to respect their heritage and to be proud of it. America is a massive topsy-turvy place, more so then we perceive it to be, and with recent events, some of us have to question if it really is the land of free. Id like to look more in-depth to how counter intuitive America’s famous phrase really is towards those that come here to start a new. But is it really coming to a safe haven or is it straight of the frying pan into the fire?

Sources so far:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2011/12/15/10759/the-publics-view-of-immigration/

http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/detained-immigrants-often-face-harsh-unfair-treatment-us-hands-study-says

http://www.prri.org/research/poll-immigration-reform-views-on-immigrants/

http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/immigration-and-americanization

http://cis.org/BecomingAmerican-ImmigrationDebate

This entry was posted in A04: Proposal Resources, nickalodeansallthat. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Proposal—nickalodeansallthat

  1. davidbdale says:

    It seems counter intuitive how America claims to be the land of the free, but when immigrants come they have to be Americanized or else they become a complete pest. With that it is counter intuitive that they need to be Americanized but we also tell them to respect their heritage and to be proud of it. America is a massive topsy-turvy place, more so then we perceive it to be, and with recent events, some of us have to question if it really is the land of free. Id like to look more in-depth to how counter intuitive America’s famous phrase really is towards those that come here to start a new. But is it really coming to a safe haven or is it straight of the frying pan into the fire?

    That’s a mess of a paragraph, Nick, but I think I get your basic theme. I certainly hope you’ll begin very promptly to improve this post with a more coherent description of your observations and a carefully-phrased thesis. You don’t have one yet.

    Vetting your sources will be a challenge for this topic (and your eventual thesis), Nick. You’ve collected five here from 2005 to 2016, a ten-year period during which America’s attitude (if it can be said to have ONE) has gone through several drastic changes and been challenged many times. Of the five, your PRRI is likely the most objective and non-partisan. The other four all have decidedly political leanings. If you use them for data and objective material, they may be useful and safe. If you lean on them for their points of view, though, you’ll find they have interpreted facts to draw very different conclusions.

    Sometimes their biases are obvious.

    • The Center for Immigration Studies identifies itself as “pro-immigrant,” for example.
    • The Atlantic Philanthropies site will always focus on the inherent rights of individuals.
    • The Center for American Progress displays a decidedly liberal bias in the article you cite.
    • The Heritage Foundation makes its position abundantly clear (“That said, we cannot take in the entire world, and it is essential that those who do come here must become American.”)

    So, just a warning. You’re wading into a hot, ongoing, debate. It will be tempting to toss all the opposing views into a messy stew and call it an essay. You’ll have to find some hard facts and shape them to your own needs to make an independent contribution to the conversation. Let me know immediately the best idea you’ve had so far about how to craft a provable thesis from the swarm of viewpoints you’ve gathered.

    • nickalodeansallthat says:

      Thank you so much for the heads up, I didn’t keep that in mind. It is a heated debate but I’d like to discuss is because it’s an important issue in my eyes. I’ll scope out for more right winged sources and try and have a good balance within my writing. Thanks again!

  2. davidbdale says:

    That’s almost what I meant, but not quite, Nick. The way to counteract biased sources is not to add more biased sources with a different bias. It’s to find unbiased sources. And THAT’S what makes current controversial topics dangerous. You’ll be tempted to “pick a side,” add if the only answer were to choose between two known options. Did I say that more clearly this time?

  3. davidbdale says:

    *as if the only answer*

  4. davidbdale says:

    Nick, you have not given yourself an assignment here. Reply, please.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s