Short Answer: Cultural Pluralism

Anonymous
timer Asked: Dec 16th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

Short Answer:

There are four questions presented here – Answer the questions in 1-2 paragraphs, drawing on other credible sources, vetted if possible.

1. Identify the places, institutions, and media through which the second generation interacted with both the ethnic immigrant world of their parents and with mainstream U.S. culture. How did these interactions shape the second generation’s view of their social and political roles?

2. Describe the factors that led African Americans in the early twentieth century to migrate out of the South during the Great Migration, and what they encountered, both positive and negative, after they arrived in the urban North and West.

3. According to Hannah Gurman, President Nixon’s “war on drugs” made border security a more central focus for national politics and law enforcement activity. What are some of the consequences of this shift in policy that Gurman identifies?

4. The women whose lives were documented in the film Made in L.A. faced multiple challenges in both their personal and professional lives. Discuss the ways in which race, gender, class, and immigration status intersected to distinctively shape those challenges and their responses to them.

Source: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/feature/anxiety-...


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Cold War Cracks Module 10 Lecture Postwar Labor & Immigration As we saw from the readings, films, and other course materials in Unit 3, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act cut off much legal immigration from the rest of the world This led in the 1930s and ‘40s to the rise of an Americanborn second generation that began to take on leadership roles in their communities and to use the U.S. fight against Nazism in WWII to push back against the racism in America’s own immigration policies and treatment of its ethnic and racial minorities Postwar Labor & Immigration ▪ Yet the labor needs of the nation, which had been filled by immigrants prior to the passage of immigration restriction, exploded with the arrival of World War II, at the same time that millions of laborers went into military service. ▪ So how could the U.S. produce the planes, ships, munitions, and food needed to win the war? ▪ Manufacturers turned in large part to women and African and Mexican Americans to fill vacancies in the factories ▪ For other types of work, especially farm labor, President Roosevelt created the bracero program Braceros – Temporary Americans? The Bracero Program was created in 1942 through an intergovernmental agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to bring Mexican laborers to work in the U.S. on three-year contracts, at the end of which they had to return to Mexico. Twenty Years of “Temporary” Intended as an emergency measure during wartime, the Bracero Program was repeatedly extended and did not finally end until 1964, the year before immigration reform legislation ended the 1924 quotas Over that time, it is estimated that approximately 4.6 million Mexican nationals came to work in the U.S. as braceros ▪ Although the agreements between the U.S. and Mexico guaranteed a minimum wage and “humane treatment” for braceros, they were often exploited once they had signed their contracts ▪ For instance, braceros were not supposed to work for the The Trials of Being Temporary federal government, yet the Forest Service used them to clear land in Oregon to save money (Mario Sifuentez, Of Forests and Fields: Mexican Labor in the Pacific Northwest) ▪ The program also changed social and family relations for those who participated. When braceros sent remittances home to wives in Mexico, the women often invested the money into small businesses, creating new opportunities for women’s economic autonomy and also household tensions when the men returned (Ana Rosas, Abrazando El Espíritu: Bracero Familes Confront the US-Mexico Border) ▪ Sometimes, braceros married and had children with American women, creating families here in the U.S. that they didn’t want to leave behind at the end of their contracts ▪ The Border Patrol was generally not involved with the Bracero Program, except in cases when braceros broke contracts and did not return to Mexico at the end of their term. The U.S. continued to insist that the only acceptable immigration was of a temporary, not permanent nature. ▪ According to UCLA historian Kelly Lytle Hernandez, the Mexican state also played a significant role in partnering with the U.S. to regulate their workers’ international mobility from the very beginning of the program (Hernandez, Migra! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol) Managing Mexican Migrations Operation Wetback ▪ Yes, the U.S government actually used that term ▪ During 1953 and 1954, 800 Border Patrol officers conducted a series of raids, road blocks, and mass deportations throughout the southwestern United States targeting Mexicans in the U.S. without documentation, particularly braceros who’d overstayed their contracts ▪ Over 1 million people were deported, including the U.S.-born children of Mexican nationals ▪ The operation was motivated by concerns about border security during the early years of the Cold War, as was the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 In the years following the end of World War II, relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (Communist Russia) deteriorated rapidly Cold War Red Scare After the Soviets successfully tested a nuclear bomb in the summer of 1949, becoming the only other nuclear power in the world at that time, the United States became deeply concerned about the possibly that nuclear secrets had been leaked by Americans with Communist sympathies This fear was exploited by Senator Joseph McCarthy, who claimed to have the names of Communist sympathizers in the State Department, Army, etc. He used this claim – a lie – to further his own career while creating a nationwide hysteria and subjecting many people to the loss of their jobs and the threat of jail “Alien Subversives” ▪ Additional victims of this hysteria were immigrants and refugees from the Communist nations of Eastern Europe – suspicion fell especially heavily on Jews ▪ It also fell on anyone considered to have the potential for political “subversion,” including former Mexican revolutionaries, socialists, homosexuals, and anyone outside the mainstream ▪ This suspicion and paranoia produced the House Un-American Activities Committee, loyalty oaths, the blacklist, and new legislation on immigration and naturalization McCarran-Walter Act (1952) The Immigration and Nationality Act abolished the explicitly racialized definition of American citizenship and created exemptions to the quota system for immigrants with specific labor qualifications But it also allowed the deportation of both immigrants and naturalized citizens for suspected subversive (especially leftist/Communist) activities, such as labor and civil rights activism It also barred anyone suspected of subversion from entering the United States, and extended the search authority of the Border Patrol over a zone extending 100 miles inland from the U.S. border. Citizenship for Asian Immigrants As part of removing the racial restrictions on citizenship, McCarran-Walter also authorized – finally – naturalization for Asian immigrants Many now-elderly Japanese immigrants, only recently out of internment camps, became American citizens in mass naturalization ceremonies The wartime valor of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team is often credited, accurately or not, with helping to push the government to take this inclusive step President Truman vetoed the bill because of its de-naturalization provisions, but was overridden by a Congress under McCarthy’s sway Responses to McCarranWalter Groups like the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born organized to provide legal assistance to people facing de-naturalization and deportation McCarran-Walter was supported by Asian Americans but denounced by Jews, white liberals and other people of color, damaging the wartime civil rights coalition Cold War Civil Rights ▪ As the Cold War with the Soviets dragged on, the paranoia within the United States lessened somewhat ▪ The wartime civil rights coalition re-emerged to a degree under these conditions, and reasserted its argument about the need for the United States to live up to its claims to being the “leader of the free world” ▪ How could the nation claim to be superior to the repressive Soviets while it refused to allow the entry of refugees or stop oppressing African Americans? ▪ Pressure from these groups opened up cracks in the foundation of America’s exclusionary approach to immigration, starting with its policies towards refugees Remember the Refugees ▪ Beginning in the early 1960s, the political imperatives of the Cold War began to change U.S. policies in ways that expanded the nation’s role as an asylum for refugees ▪ In contrast to World War II, when the United States famously refused entry to Jews fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis, the U.S. in 1962 enacted the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act ▪ This was specifically in response to the unlawful entry into Florida of Cuban refugees following the Communist revolution that brought Castro to power in Cuba ▪ Large numbers of Cuban refugees were processed under this law during the 1960s, as well as some Eastern Europeans fleeing Communist repression (especially children whose parents had died under Soviet-backed regimes) ▪ Refugee policy was further expanded in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam in 1975 ▪ The Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act allowed entry to 130,000 refugees from South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, who received special relocation aid and financial assistance ▪ Priority was given to those who had assisted the U.S. military in its war with the Viet Cong and who could thus expect reprisals after the victory of Communist North Vietnam Refugee Policy Evolves The Boat People of Vietnam Beginning in 1978 and 1979, and continuing into the 1990s, almost 800,000 people fled reprisals, regional conflict, and the poverty brought about by sanctions against Vietnam They climbed into small boats and tried to reach the coastlines of other countries such as Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand Many people died at sea in the rickety boats or died at the hands of smugglers The Boat People of Vietnam Overwhelmed by the number of destitute refugees, who often carried little more than small backpacks of supplies with them, the receiving Asian nations called on Western countries for assistance Beginning in 1980, an international resettlement program was established Most of the boat people were resettled in the U.S. (some also went to Canada, Australia, France, etc) Just over 100,000 were repatriated to Vietnam, either willingly or unwillingly Vietnamese Boat People, 1979 The Boat People Cuban Mariel Boatlift, 1980 The Mariel Boatlift from Cuba In 1980, Castro opened up a brief period of open departure from Cuba for anyone who wished to leave the country With the active support of Cuban Americans, 125,000 Cubans left the country’s Mariel harbor for Florida over a 6-month period The revelation that many refugees in the boatlift had been released by Castro from jails and mental facilities damaged Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign and the refugee resettlement programs in general Refugee Act of 1980 As a response to these new arrivals, Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, which instituted a more uniform refugee absorption and settlement policy in accord with the United Nations convention on refugees. It also raised the limits on the number of refugees the U.S. would accept each year In the case of both the Vietnamese and Cuban refugees, the ongoing tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (as well as its Communist allies) led the nation to accept poor, nonwhite refugees that the U.S. might previously have barred from entering ▪ This Cold War consensus for assisting refugees was challenged by the arrival in the late 1970s of boats filled with political refugees from Haiti, then under the brutal rule of U.S.-supported, anti-Communist dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier The Limits of Asylum ▪ In 1980, as 40,000-80,000 Haitians sought to enter the United States alongside the Marielitos, President Carter created a special status that classed Haitians with Cubans and allowed them to apply for asylum through October 1980 ▪ After that date, Haitians attempting to enter without visas were arrested and deported back to Haiti, a policy which Presidents Reagan and Bush reinforced and extended Political Refugees Only Through the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of asylumseekers dropped due to the ouster of Duvalier and the democratic election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President When a violent coup deposed Aristide, thousands of Haitians fled to the United States seeking asylum Presidents Bush and Clinton both claimed these were economic refugees, fleeing poverty rather than political repression in Haiti, and refused to grant them asylum Refugees at Guantánamo The Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that Haitians had to make it to U.S. soil to apply for asylum; those intercepted at sea were repatriated with no opportunity to plead their case In 1992 alone, nearly 40,000 Haitians intercepted at sea were repatriated to Haiti or being held in temporary camps at the U.S. base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba awaiting repatriation (the base is a legacy of the territories the U.S. won from Spain in the Spanish-American War of 1898) Essentially the same policy is still in place today, although nearly 60,000 Haitians were granted Temporary Protected Status to remain in the U.S. following the terrible 2010 earthquake in Haiti Refugees Today ▪ Today the refugees risking their lives in boats are mostly in the Mediterranean, fleeing violence and hunger in Libya and Syria ▪ The U.S. continues to limit its approval of asylum applications, typically taking between 25,000 and 35,000 per year ▪ 18,000 Syrians, half of them children, were resettled in the US between 2011 and 2016; Canada took 40,000 Refugees Today ▪ In addition to refugees in the Middle East and Africa, there are also refugee crises related to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, climate refugees in Bangladesh, and violence and poverty in Central America (as we learned in Unit 1) ▪ Photo: 2,000 Guatemalans seeking entry into Mexico on their way to request asylum in the United States, October 19, 2018 U.S. state policies on guest workers, naturalization, and refugees, from the 1950s through the 1980s, were deeply impacted by the politics of the global Cold War and the economic needs of U.S. corporations Cold War Cracks The pressure of living up to its promises as “leader of the free world,” as well as a new focus on skilled labor and supporting families, created a more open, permissive, and welcoming nation with regard to immigrants and refugees than had existed during the early years of the 20th century, although there were still many who faced exclusion The end of the Cold War in 1992 changed the conditions under which immigration policies were decided, and in which immigrants in the U.S. would live, as we’ll discuss next week ▪ In this module, as well as in Unit 1, we have explored the histories of different refugee communities – Eastern European, Cuban, Vietnamese, Haitian, and Central American peoples. ▪ Choosing two of these groups, explore the similarities Discussion Board and differences between their reasons for coming to the United States, their experiences once here, and the policies that have governed their arrival and acceptance – or lack of acceptance – in America. ▪ What types of labor roles have they taken on? Where have they lived? What larger-scale forces have impacted their social and political incorporation? Have they struggled with insecure immigration status, incarceration, and/or deportation? A Collapsing Division: Border and Interior Enforcement in the US Deportation System Hannah Gurman American Quarterly, Volume 69, Number 2, June 2017, pp. 371-395 (Article) Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2017.0032 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/663336 Access provided by University of California @ Riverside (26 Jul 2018 01:45 GMT) A Collapsing Division | 371 A Collapsing Division: Border and Interior Enforcement in the US Deportation System Hannah Gurman O n a hot spring day in 2011, Barack Obama waved to a crowd from his podium at the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas. The president had come to the memorial to deliver a major address on immigration, in which he would unveil his broad vision of immigration reform, the central legislative ambition of his second term. It was a fitting site for the occasion. El Paso sits directly on the border between the United States and Mexico, and the Chamizal memorial marks the peaceful conclusion to the last official dispute over the placement of the sovereign boundary between the two countries. When the park first opened in 1966, US president Lyndon Johnson and Mexican president Adolfo López Mateos met in Chamizal for a formal unveiling of the new boundary marker.1 Forty-five years later, Chamizal became the site of a different kind of border negotiation. In characterizing his vision of immigration reform, Obama first invoked the celebrated nation of immigrants that gained widespread appeal during the 1960s: “That’s the promise of this country, that anyone can write the next chapter in our story. It doesn’t matter where you come from . . . in embracing America, you can become American.” Literally interrupting this thought, Obama then turned to border enforcement, offering a very different vision of the nation, one that privileges the state as an agent of exclusion and boundary policing: “And yet, at the same time,” he said, “we’re here at the border today, we’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants. This, too, is our heritage.” As proof of his commitment to border security, the president recited a detailed list of his administration’s achievements: “They wanted more agents at the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history.”2 To secure immigration reform inside the country, Obama insisted, he would continue to secure the nation’s external border. A cruder version of this dynamic 2017 The American Studies Association 372 | American Quarterly helped define the US Senate’s immigration reform bill. The Democratic senators in the “Gang of Eight” that drafted S. 744 agreed to make the legalization of about eleven million undocumented individuals currently living inside the country contingent on further securing the border.3 And a similar division between the border and the interior structured the reform attempts of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2011 ICE announced a sweeping program of administrative reforms in which immigration judges were directed to reduce excessive levels of interior deportations in order to focus on criminals and border enforcement.4 This basic paradigm is not new. Efforts to distinguish between the “border” and “interior” are embedded in the legal and institutional roots of the modern nation-state system. If, as Hannah Arendt said, individual rights derive from one’s membership in a nation-state, then at the border these rights are pared down to a bare minimum.5 These tenets serve as central organizing principles of US border enforcement law. Regardless of residency status, the bodies and vehicles of US border crossers can be searched without warrant; property is subject to random seizure; and the state can detain or expel individuals without due process. Conversely, in the interior, border crossers have several due process rights, whether or not they are legal residents. Over time, they may even be granted citizenship in the nation-state.6 The US deportation bureaucracy similarly distinguishes between “border” and “interior” enforcement, characterizing the former as “returns” and the latter as “deportations,” and maintaining a separate branch of personnel dedicated exclusively to border enforcement. Despite its deep historical roots, profound policy influence, and commonsense status, the divide between “inside” and “outside,” “border” and “interior,” has been in a continual state of collapse since its very inception. Moreover, the distinction between these two spaces of enforcement has become increasingly blurry in the context of modern deportation. This blurriness is a daily reality for Latinxs who are racially profiled by enforcement officers both at and away from the territorial border. Although politicians and activists periodically attempt to roll back the overreach of ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Richardweir
School: Rice University

Attached.

1

Running head: CULTURAL PLURALISM

Cultural Pluralism
Institution:
Course:
Name:
Date:

CULTURAL PLURALISM

2

QUESTION 1
Second generations are children born and raised in the U.S of parents who are either both
or one of them is an immigrant. These second generations struggle with trying to know their
parent's origin and the U.S so as to know their roots even as they try to fit in the U.S society.
These immigrant children get to interact with their parent(s) cultures through media such as the
internet, books, news media and all that, institutions such as schools, religious places,
Universities and all that and places such archive houses, cinema and all other places. Interactions
with their cultures in places such as schools have exposed to them where their parents originated
and why they are in the U.S (Waters, 2004).This knowledge has tremendously shaped their
understanding of their place in the society and what this impacts on their social and political
roles. The knowledge of their parent's origin and them being second-generation immigrants
makes them mindful of the roles they are expected to play such as giving back to the community,
being peacemakers and patriotic and being concerned with the mat...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors