Many people believe that racial profiling should be prohibited because it is offensive to American values. Malkin disputes this and insists that, “…the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure ‘diversity’ or ‘parity’ in peacetime.” (493). However, Iftikhar strongly disagrees and believes that, “the most disturbing legal trend in America has been the growing disparity in how American Muslims are treated under the law.” She explains how the reports of civil rights cases, a majority of which were Muslim hate crimes, have increased tremendously since the 9/11 attacks due to racial profiling. Many Muslims were accused of crimes they didn’t do and were treated awful. While Iftikhar understands that America is focused on keeping everyone happy and winning over people abroad, she strongly states in her piece that, “it is high time that the Bush administration try spreading a little American democracy here---while winning the hearts and minds of Americans by treating all people equally under the law.” (497).
Flynn, Stephen. “Recalibrating Homeland Security.” Foreign Affairs 90.3 (2001): 130-140. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar.
Illegal Immigration – An Alternate Proposal The immigration debate in the U.S. is complicated by history, economics, political correctness and emotion. Some would argue that the Federal Government has not enforced the current immigration laws leading states like Arizona to enact their own immigration policies (Bender). On the other side of the debate, the U.S. Congress has pending legislation known as the “Dream Act” that would provide a pathway to permanent residency for those under 18 brought to this country illegally. Some argue that the cost of finding, apprehending and deporting illegal immigrants is justified to protect the citizens of the United States, while others would argue that in the end, the cost does not get the desired
Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue. The second article from The New York Observer also had a few ideas that in my eyes were wrong. First and foremost, the author seems to doubt his own opinion towards the end of the editorial by questioning his own views on the matter. I believe that if you are going to write about something you should be sure about it. The author also states that the U.S. is unable to prevail in Iraq.
Retrieved April 1, 2003, from http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,79083,00.html?OpenDocument&~f Neiderhoffer, M. (2002, August). Internet security and the CPA. In P. Warner, L. Smith, (Eds. ), The CPA Journal. 72(8), 71-72.
Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2008. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE52&iPin=DACH0060&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 21, 2011).
Some foreign cultures just don't fit well with democracy and it's a waste of time”(Jackson 1). Jackson went on to summarize his view with a great statement, “My point is that no matter what we THINK, it's not our business to judge how another country should be run. We would have a fit if Israel were to send troops onto our soil with the intent to fix our moral decay with their policies and laws, so why do we think that it's alright to do the same to other countries? We would do more good to take our troops out of other countries
Not every state agrees that gay marriage is wrong and illegal, but if the federal government were to pass a amendment outlawing gay marriage then every state who allows gay marriage would have to declare it unconstitutional and against the law. This shows that the federal and state governments have different restrictions. The state government protects the people of the state but the federal government protects everything in this country. Once something is declared unconstitutional, it will over ride any state government policy. Some people have mixed emotions about the way the government works but overall the relationship between state and federal governments protect the everyday
If a member of a minority group were to be offended by another individual then the minority group member must take stand for himself or herself instead of allowing that certain individual to walk away with these hate words. The best way to combat hate speech is to speak out against it. Not only will they set things clear for others but they’ve made an effort to stand up and clarify situations that they may find offensive such as racist stereotypes. Speech codes do not allow people to clarify situations; all speech codes do is silence individuals. These very individuals still do not know what’s wrong and right and will still have a mindset that will offend others in the future when they’re out of college.
I believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional. Gun Control laws are only taking away our rights given to us in the second Amendment of the Constitution which are protected by the fourteenth Amendment. Forcing people to have background checks before purchasing a gun or making assault weapons illegal will not lower the level of crime that is caused by guns. These laws will only affect law abiding citizens of the United States. Why would a criminal follow gun control laws if he or she is already going to break the law to commit a crime?