Is the best solution to the problems plaguing the US immigration system to export nearly all immigrants and start over?

Ever since the U.S. election in 2016, immigration has been a heated topic. By definition, an immigrant is a person coming to a different country in order to live there. Immigration is the cause of the United States of America. It is the one of the big reason the country became an economic global power over decades.

At first, starting over in order to deal with a problem might not be an issue. In this case, exportation of nearly all immigrants is not a reasonable and acceptable solution though. Treating human beings like things is simply misanthropic.

Also, what does “nearly all immigrants” mean? Where does it start? Where does it end? In 2014, around 40 million immigrants were living in the U.S. This is a huge number of people, more than 10% of the U.S. population. Sending all these people back to their country of origin is simply impossible.

A lot of people share the opinion of immigrants bringing only crime and other bad behavior into the United States. They’re being accused of taking jobs away as well. However, this is not the case and this prejudiced way of thinking is dangerous for the society. Often times the jobs immigrants have are unpopular and underpaid jobs that a lot of “Americans” reject.

Immigrants have helped the country’s economy and it would decrease rapidly if they were to be exported. A great example for this argument is California’s Silicon Valley. People from all over the world have been supporting the technical industry and startups with their multicultural and specific knowledge. Almost 50% of Silicon Valley’s employees are not born in the U.S. Multinational concerns like Facebook or Microsoft would suffer drastically from a loss of qualified, hardworking immigrants.

Lastly, the coexistence of many different cultures is exciting about life and one big benefit for the United States, for every country in fact. Immigrants from various places have taken so many new, thrilling parts of their everyday life and are sharing it with their new neighbors and environment via food, books, or communication. Trying to blame immigrants for bad things that have happened in the past is very immature and not the solution for the problems at hand.

And let’s not forget, the United States of America is basically a country of immigrants who claimed this country as theirs and are now categorized U.S. citizens.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum

Referenda are usually a good policy for the population to vote whether they want something or not. However, not in this case. The bare majority of Britain voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Parliament and so the Brexit is about to take place in the next few years. It seems that some important facts (or even countries) were not taken into consideration during the Referendum, for instance Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Scotland and Northern Ireland are suffering now, even though the large majority of the people in those countries voted against the Brexit. This proves that certain matters should not be generalized in a Referendum. Badly affected by the results, the Scottish and Northern Irish are desperate to find a way out of this mess and hopefully they will find their way out of it.

One fact that can clearly be said is that most of the people who wanted to remain in the E.U. were those of the younger generation. The older generation voted to leave. It is disturbing and sad to see that the younger have to carry this load on their shoulders. They and all of United Kingdom have to live with the decision until the next referendum, in perhaps 20 years. 

Why referendums are a bad idea.

The issue with referendums.

With brexit being the most recent example, the idea of referendums is again a topic of dispute in private conversations and media alike.
Referendums are definitly an effective way of giving more power to the voters of a given country by offering them a chance to directly influence their nations direction via a voting system. This kind of system could allow a country to crowdscource decisions based on the general opinion on a given problem. It could reduce the amount of corruption by limiting the power of the government and giving said power the the inhabitants.

The problems with this however is, that the average citizen is unable to grasp the ramification of macro politics. Said people also have a tendency of being easily manipulated by politicians and media alike. The backlash of the Brexit votum underlines this. Many of the voters could not be asked to think for themselves and instead succumbed to empty promises of a stronger britian.
While a referendum offers a meaningful and noticable way for the general public of a country to participate in modern politics, it has to be noted that this power will most probably lead to disasterous outcomes when given to the average person, especialy on topics like immigration.

Traditional Journalism in the age of Social Media

The outcome of this year’s presidential election in the U.S. has caused many people to reflect on the role of media in it, as illustrated by the podcast “On the Media”.  The podcast talks about reporters of what could be considered traditional journalism (e.g. CBS, NPR, and Fox News) and their failure to predict the outcome of the election.

While these media outlets are still kicking themselves for “missing the story”, many people have turned to social media outlets, notably Facebook, to seek blame for this particular “story” happening in the first place.  For example, Facebook has recently come under fire for allegedly containing a high number of fake news stories; News stories reporting on Trump’s accomplishments, which were never actually accomplished, for instance. On top of that, social media heavily panders to its users. If you consume mostly liberal media, news from liberal media is what you’re going to get on your newsfeed. Some people have speculated that this could, in part, have led to a sense of false security among democratic voters, resulting in a smaller voter turnout. And if you consume mostly conservative media, you were probably not confronted with a lot of factual criticism of Donald Trump.

I think that social media was, and is a real threat to traditional journalism, mostly because of easy access and attention-grabbing headlines and simplified news articles. Through news on social media, we stay in our comfort zone, in more than one way. But this election cycle has led people to reevaluate their relationship with the media and I think that people, whom the results of the election pulled out of their comfort zone, will now be looking towards traditional journalism to stay informed. In my opinion, people are now more eager to hold the media accountable and are more aware of its influence. The election was a rude awakening for some, and I suspect that people will be more critical in their consumption of the media, and especially more careful where they get their news from. In conclusion, while I think that social media is indeed a threat to traditional journalism, I also think that it can hold its own, especially in today’s political climate.

Is the right wing media's manipulation of identity politics actually interested in the truth?

Regarding the fact, that manipulation is a tool used my many politically influenced media, it doesn't matter if it's left wing or right wing, neither of them seem to be interested in an objectiove truth.
Of course the right wing media tend to be more fond of a homophobic ideological body of thought, but ignorance is as present on the far left, as it is on the far right, as you can see in Germany for example, the left wing media or leftists like Sahra Wagenknecht for sure broach the issue of immigration and how to deal with it, but they tend to forget very often to mention the causes and roots of the problem and why these people flee and are forced to leave their bombed cities. The same about the right wing media that is trying to deamonize refugees. Nobody mentions the armaments industry that is stockpiling high sales and again investing them in war and terror - or to say "War on Terror"?
Ignoring issues, not mentioning them because they wouldn't fit in to assist the production, developement and mediation of a certain mindset or lobby, show that truth has been thrown into oblivion.

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by a referendum?

The whole world watched the U.K. fence itself off of the rest of Europe in June 2016.
The nation, devided from within, found itself making a decision with significant consequences for all members of the United Kingdom. Both sides, "Leave" and "Remain" had strong campaigns, fighting for their point of view and politicians justifying the leaving of the European Union or remaining.
Immigration was, by far the most important argument of the EU opponents. Security in general, but also regarding the "War on Terror" could be more effective with EU-assistance, said the proponents.
The circumstances and the media coverage at the time Brexit was at issue, let me come to the conclusion that a referendum as such is a valuable and democratic way of making a collective decision, but if the public's attitude is shaped through the mediation of fear and sensation mongering of biased media, then it lacks impartiality and therefore is an improper way of deciding issues like Brexit.

Traditional journalism jeopardised by social media?

We can all agree, that the contents of sites like Buzzfeed differ very much from those of more serious sites like Tagesschau.de here in Germany. Unlike most social media, I know I can rely more on the truthfulness of the articles published there (e.g. tagesschau.de) than I can anywhere else on the Internet.

I can honestly say for myself, that I visit the Buzzfeed website several times a day and know of the allurement of articles with sensationalist headlines. Although I usually use it for entertainment reasons, I also tend to check on any recent developments happening around the globe. To get some general information, I do read some of the articles on buzzfeed.com but for more in depth explanations, I will always consult websites which distinguish themselves from others by providing reliable information most of the time.

Judging by my behaviour, I’d say that traditional journalism can survive in the current media environment based on the fact that they actually convey information the majority of citizens believe to be true and not only the sensationalist gossip social media sites most often contain.

Brexit

The idea of Brexit started a worldwide discussion. Overall the European people started to question what will happen if the majority of British people votes for the Brexit. They did vote for leaving the European Union. Now there is still the question what will happen and what are the consequences for people from other EU countries if they what to travel to Great Britain or want to live there. The Brexit is something most of the people didn’t expect to happen. Normally countries want to join the EU and don’t want to leave it.

The results of the vote are depending from region to region. The majority of the Scottish people, the people from London and Northern Ireland voted for staying in the EU. Moreover the British people started to ask google what the leave means for them and what the EU is after the results were published. Probably the politics should have informed the people more so they don’t have to ask google before or after the vote. 

In my opinion the Brexit referendum ended a little bit in chaos but this does not mean that it wasn’t a good idea. It is always good to ask the people what they want and let them decide if it is going to happen. I think that people and politics all over the world can learn from this and will inform the people who have to vote better and the people will inform themselves better the next time in order to be sure that something like this will not happen again.

traditional journalism vs. Buzzfeed

Nowadays many people use the internet to check what is going on in the world. They are using social media sites like Facebook or Twitter. This is the reason why websites like Buzzfeed became more popular. They are using the social media sites to offer their articles to the users with titles which make the reader interested in the article. They are not talking about serious news. It is more like a fun, entertaining website. There are also some Buzzfeed YouTube channels.

On the other hand the traditional journalism is more talking about the news in the world. It is talking about serious news. It is completely different than websites like Buzzfeed. The traditional journalism is responsible for the news we get every day about what happens in the world. Without all the Newspapers or TV-news we would not know anything about it. And this is what the traditional journalism is for to inform use about the world happenings. 

I think there is no danger that websites like Buzzfeed could replace the traditional journalism in the future. Everyone wants to read or hear serious news. In the internet are also serious websites people can read when they want some news. Buzzfeed is the opposite of traditional journalism. People read the articles or watch the videos for entertainment and not to inform themselves.

Is the best solution to the problems plaguing the US immigration system to export nearly all immigrants and start over?

Immigration was one of the key issues in last year's American presidential election, as the Republican candidate and now "President" Donald Trump suggested to deport nearly all immigrants. His supporters seemed to agree with him, but let us look at why it is not a good idea.

Firstly, it is an unrealistic proposal. Immigrants make up an estimated 13.3% of the entire US population. How would one deport such a massive amount of people? Aside from that, it would also be a major setback for the American economy, with a large portion of workers suddenly missing. Even just deporting all illegal immigrants would be a problem; on the one hand, because they work in jobs that no one else wants to do, and on the other because they are underpaid, thus creating an uncomfortable situation for rich businessmen like Donald Trump himself, having to actually pay his workers accordingly for their work.
Secondly, immigrants are not only Muslims or Latinos, but literally everybody that is not Native American. One cannot target specific, "newer" groups of immigrants but leave out the rest because oneself belongs to this rest.
Lastly, what even are the problems that immigrants cause? Depending on their heritage, they are often accused of certain crimes, for example selling drugs or even being terrorists. Or maybe the problem is just that they allegedly steal jobs from "real" (=white American-born) Americans. This is not the case.

In 2017, one would like to assume that these stereotypes would have been debunked, but sadly, that is not the case. All I can say is that the deportation of about 40 million immigrants is not the solution to any problem at all.

- Esther Doumen

(Author's note: Please bear with me. I refuse to call that Cheeto spork by the title he is utterly undeserving of)

Should some issues not be decided by referendum?

In my opinion, the Brexit is an example that some issues may should not be decided by referendum. Issues like Brexit, that have a huge political impact on the country should probably be decided by not only one person but by a group that really is aware on the consequences.

I believe that the Brexit shows, that most of the people voting where probably not aware of those consequences and therefore the lack of information is the biggest problem when letting a referendum decide on such issues. When there is a campaign, informing the voters on the consequences a referendum may be the 'fairest' solution to decide such issues, because everyone will be able to vote for his/her opinion. 

Americas "free enterprise system"

The "free enterprise system" is often referred to "free market" or "capitalism". It consists of very few descriptions on ownerships and types of business activities by the government. Considering that this makes the people able to work in jobs they want to and purchase what they want to, it seems to offer more advantages than disadvantages.

Nevertheless, this also maximizes profit over everything and therefore basically cuts out small companies with limited network reach of the competition. When a company is huge, it is likely to remain so and the market nearly never changes. 

Can traditional journalism survive in a media environment in which consumption happens mostly on social media?

In today's society, most of us definitely consume news troughout social media.

Contrasting to traditional journalism like newspaper or television, social media offers the reader to really response to the consumed media throughout a comment section.

Whereas the traditional journalism functions more as a truly informative media, social media in contrast has more of an exchanging function and is more convenient and fast to use because of the internet.

I believe that traditional media will last at least as long as the generation who has not grown up with smartphones and social media does, but the generations growing up with it are more likely to just use what they are used to. Nevertheless, for me the feeling of a real newspaper in the morning is still the best, though most of the times I will research interesting articles in the Internet at the same time. 

The American “free enterprise” system

The American economy can be classified as a free enterprise system. This means that they value minimal government involvement in business and trade. Most businesses, incidentally, are owned privately and operate under only few government regulations.

Nevertheless, there are some important regulations. This kind of economic system is characterized by a pronounced sense of competition. With regard to the consumer, this usually means lower prices, since businesses are competing on the free market. They want consumers to spend their money with their business, which is only achievable through matching prices and deals their competitors offer. This competition can only be upheld through regulations that prevent monopolies, as far as government involvement is concerned. If one business were to monopolize a certain product, it would not be bound by competition and free to raise the price as high as it wished to.

Americans value the idea that everyone can succeed through hard work and the free market offers opportunity to anyone. Some people, however, deem it responsible for the ever-growing class disparity. It creates a sense of “every man for himself” and supports the idea that people are responsible for their own fortunes and misfortunes.

To conclude, as with most economic systems, there can be things said for and against it. While some people see their opportunities in it, some people might not find it to be working for their advantage.

Print Media

The on-going debate about the online media, replacing the print media has been highly discussed ever since the Internet became a prominent medium.  The big editorial and publishing houses have feared the ending of the printing era. The online media has completely revolutionized the way we consume our news, and with this the newspaper have naturally adjust as well.

The journalist Ed Amory, published an essay in 2015 in “The Guardian”, claiming that in Britain, the print newspapers, will indeed stay more dominant than the online media.

Since Amory’s career began in the 90’s, he belong to the journalist hat experienced the print to media transition.

Amory references to the media agenda that it has been until now maintained by the British media, something that has failed to happen in other countries, like in the U.S.

Britain has had the opportunity to mange the reporting in order to favor the print newspapers.

If the rest of the world follows the British example and the medias agenda keeps favoring the print mediums, then it will still survive. Changes might be adjusted over the years but it is all subject to the media agenda. This means, if the media outlets where to only publish the most important information online, people would be forced to acquire a medium in order to obtain the most important reports.