Just Because

So, I wrote my own reflection at the end of last semester, and am going to again this semester.
It is so hard to believe this is the end of my Freshman year of college.  This year has went by so fast.  But this year has to be one of the better years of my life.  Ive grown as a person while my children do the same. I feel beyond blessed to be given the path God has given me.  God has shown me where he truly wants me to go.  I am here to tell you, the path you think you are suppose to go, isn't where he always  wants you to be.  I am meant to be a teacher.  For that I am thankful.  Everything has fallen into place since I changed majors.  Before, I  felt lost as a member of society because I thought I didn't have a productive future.  That has changed.  I have a future.  I am going to make a difference in the lives' of children with special needs.  I am going help them have a productive future. I am going to go as far as God wants me to go. I have set out to follow God's will.  And that is exactly what I am going to do.  This year, I have learned so much about myself as a person and as a writer.  I have learned that although I am almost 30 years old, that it doesn't matter how long it takes you to bloom.  As long as you bloom!  We  all have to remember that the sky is the limit.  Take it and run with it. Don't ever give up.  Keep on trying, and you will make it.  So, today I celebrate!  I celebrate my growing.  I celebrate God allowing me to discover his will for my life!  I celebrate the blessings he has given me.  I celebrate the downfalls he has given me.  I celebrate the bags under my eyes from tiredness.  I celebrate every moment it has taken to get me through the first year of college.  Today I celebrate no longer being a freshman in college!  I celebrate another chapter in my life complete! Today, I celebrate what the future holds! I celebrate life!  

Revision for the final

I chose to revise the Argument Analysis essay.  Within my revision, I combined a few paragraphs, which was to omit some of the summary about the first article.  I also elaborated on some places that were left needing more details in the original essay.  The long quote from President Obama, I had to block, as it was originally not, but for some reason its not showing up blocked on the blog.  When I reread this essay, I saw some grammatical errors which I fixed.  There were also places where I could have made two sentences or combined to make one, so I worked on combining my thoughts, making things more concise.   

Sarah High

Mrs. Thomas

SEGL 102

2 May 2013

How to live the American Dream:

The Debate over Immigration Reform

            For years one specific topic has been brought up to Congress over and over again.  Immigration reform seems to be an issue our Government has a problem laying down a solid law for.  Because of this not only are American citizens left feeling frustrated, but President Obama as well.  As American citizens are striving and struggling to make a living for themselves, many have a hard time dealing with so many immigrants residing on US land.  Some feel it takes away from their living, while others find it to be beneficial for everyone.  President Obama sees every American and immigrants’ point of view on the topic, and has struggled with Congress since his first term with a proposal for immigration reform. 

            Our President first laid out the DREAM Act, having solid evidence for ways he feels will work to boost our economy, and at the same time allow those wanting to live the American dream to do so successfully.  But while the debate continues, illegal immigrants are continuing to have American born children and more immigrants are sneaking into the country.  There are approximately eleven million illegals already residing in American, and this is causing the Immigration Reform to continue being unsuccessful (Obama).  With many putting demands on Congress to make quick decisions, some are trying to persuade them in believing immigrants brought in the country are damaging our economy putting us at risk for a downward spiral, while others are presenting solid evidence to prove differently.

            Two people specifically, one of which is a Senator, have written articles stating their reasons why immigration reform will be beneficial to our economy.  Senator Marco Rubio wrote “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a GOP Vision for Immigration Reform” which was published for the Las Vegas Review, and David Brooks wrote “The Easy Problem” for The New York Times.  Both of these men make logical arguments that emphasize the immigration reform needing to be rushed for the purpose of benefitting our economy, while they also use the ad hominem fallacy against President Obama, Congress, and our country.  In reviewing the two arguments, one can clearly see that David Brooks incorporates evidence which produces a more trustworthy stance on why it is the optimal choice for immigrants to reside in America, while Marco Rubio simply uses his political knowledge to force his stance on readers.

            The article by Senator Marco Rubio states that our Congress needs to address three key factors in order to fix our broken immigration policy.  He gives details why a modernized legal immigration policy, strengthened law enforcement, and addressing the illegal immigrants already here, would build a policy which is fair and honorable to ancestors; at the same time it would help the economy (Rubio).  In the first paragraph of his article he mentions how immigration built our country, and how it is a part of our future.  President Obama agrees as he is quoted in January 2013, “we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants, that’s who we are -- in our bones.”  On the other hand, because Rubio has this erroneous belief that, “our dysfunctional Congress has been unable to put in place a new legal immigration system that honors our heritage as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,” makes his statement seem he is not out to make an argument about immigration reform, but to claim our Government as a failure. 

            As the article continues, he expresses his opinions in that the first key area needing to be addressed is a modernized immigration system with new aged technology.  Besides Rubio’s political background, he gives no verification this is what our country needs.  However, with President Obama saying “Now we all know that today we have an immigration system that is out of date and badly broken,” gives Marco Rubio’s article more credibility because our President agrees needing updates to the system.  Rubio feels updating the system this will provide a way for immigrant entrepreneurs, those in the fields of math, science, engineering, technology, and seasonal workers into our country, which will open the job market for American born citizens.  According to the Americas Society/ Council of the Americas 28% of new US businesses were immigrant owned in 2011; this created one in ten new jobs.  Those foreign students who graduate in the top fields and remain in the United States will create approximately 262 jobs for Americans.  They also state passing the DREAM Act would bring $320 billion to the economy and create 1.4 million jobs by 2030.  Although Marco Rubio didn’t offer any of these supporting statistics in his article, his intellect of how immigrants will boost our economy is clear.

            Rubio proceeds with the need to strengthen our law enforcement.  Not only is his argument weakly supported, but he has contradicting views on how to penalize those who improperly crossed the borders.  He blames our broken immigration system on the law enforcement because they do not properly force the immigration laws.  In his opinion, this is why our country is flooded with undocumented Dreamers and Congress is having this drawn out debate.  Since Marco Rubio follows Obama’s immigration proposal he knows our President recently spoke to a crowd in Las Vegas about his visions for the reform.  President Obama announced,

            “During my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in             the system.  First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally              stem the tide of illegal immigrants.  We put more boots on the ground on the southern     border than at any time in our history.  And today, illegal crossings are down 

nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000” (Obama). 

With Rubio declaring enforcement needs to be strengthened, overlooks what has already been proposed making his assertion unsupported.        

             Rubio states, “They knowingly broke our immigration laws and do not have a legal right to remain here.  But they are also human beings who made those choices in pursuit of a dream we recognize as the American dream.”  On one hand he says they don’t have a right to be here, while on the other it will be difficult rounding up the millions of undocumented to have them deported.  So they should come forward, pay back taxes, go through a background check, and perhaps be granted a temporary non-immigrant status which would prevent them from benefitting from government funds, including college financial aid (Rubio).  So even though Rubio’s opinions on current illegals shift, they are supported by Obama’s current proposal, in that it’s only fair they play by the same rules as every other American, including paying their taxes (Obama).   

            As Rubio concludes his argument, he directs fallacies toward Republicans and Democrats which includes the President, with “both sides should want this kind of common-sense reform.” He also blames our country on having a “de facto amnesty,” meaning current immigration laws are temporary that allow those immigrants to continue with no penalty, and the risk for family separation through deportation, is the cause of arguing politicians.  Rubio addresses the debate between congressmen without giving logic as to why they struggle with the vast issue.  Because he doesn’t verify his theory will function, it seems he is casting an “easier-said-than-done” option for immigration reform.  He shouldn’t assume every member of Congress ought to favor his theory because there’s an unlimited amount of methods that need consideration.  There are obviously no quick fixes to this issue. 

                        In the second article by David Brooks, he agrees with Rubio’s argument on the best chance in saving our economy is through immigration reform; however Brooks focuses on normalizing the illegals already here.  Also, he wants our immigration policies more like Canada and Australia which allow high-skilled immigrants into the country.  Although Brooks uses his own research to establish his credibility on the topic and to validate his claim being more suitable for immigration reform, he also uses the ad hominem fallacy against our nation. 

            According to Brooks, “The Office of Punditry” deals with many hard issues that are full of mixed evidence, except for immigration reform.  He feels there is enough evidence to prove immigration reform is the only option, and is so clear that even a “Forlorn Pundit” knows the answer to the debate.  He completely insults Congress when comparing them to a forlorn pundit, who is a miserable critic.  If a columnist who can’t give a proper critique knows the answer, Congress must be in a complete and inexcusable condition.  But with him opening the article insulting our Government seems he wants to draw attention to how horrible they are instead of focusing on immigration reform.  Does he think by starting his article with this he will make connections with more of his readers? Just because him and some Americans feel there is ample evidence for a solution, doesn’t mean Congress thinks there is. 

            Brooks continues expressing his perspective on the reform by alerting his readers on how immigrants would have a positive impact on the economy.   He includes evidence by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of The Hamilton Project which states, “Immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start new businesses than native-born Americans, and a quarter of new high-tech companies with more than $1 million in sales were also founded by the foreign-born (Brooks).  He also includes a study by Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at Agnes Scott College, who discovered that 262 jobs for U.S. natives were created for every 100 foreign-born workers.  These statistics are accurate, as I previously mentioned the Americas Society/Council of Americas’ facts.  With Brooks citing reliable sources, this gives his argument influential strength.

            According to Brooks, the Congressional Budget Office reveals, “giving the current illegals a path to citizenship would increase the taxes they pay by $48 billion and increase the cost of public services they use by $23 billion, thereby producing a surplus of $25 billion.”  As he quotes the Congressional Budget Office, his understanding on immigrants boosting our economy is clear, yet this data seems to single out America as solely being a “take-all-you-can” country instead of a land full of liberty and prosperity, which is what the American dream is centered around.

             He recalls the last major immigration debate in 2007, with the focus on immigrants lowering pay wages for low-skilled workers.  Brooks uses the previous debate to compare how time has changed, and with research it is proven immigrants don’t have a negative effect on American-born workers.  In some cases he shows wages were actually raised.  He points out that in 2007 economists were divided on the debate, but in current time the Economic Policy Institute has presented reviews to support immigration reform and the effects on pay wages.  As a result in Brooks analyzing and comparing data from the 2007 and current debates, the readers understand that society has advanced over the years, so past opinions on the issue are no longer accurate.  Because Brooks presents the justifiable claim, “The argument that immigration hurts the less skilled is looking less persuasive,” makes his view more appealing and accepted.  Most Americans will see Brooks as a competent writer on this issue, therefore lean more towards his concepts on immigration reform.

            There is no doubt every country competes with one another for recognition; Brooks describes this as “competing to win the global talent race.”  According to him, over 60% of nations have improved their policies, which now have more talent from around the world entering, but has America losing the competition.  In order to get back in the race he suggests for our country to organize the system to be more like Canada and Australia’s.  According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, one can qualify in becoming a Canadian citizen after completing several steps.  The first being a permanent resident of three years and at least eighteen years old , unless the parent is applying at the same time or adopting.  After applying one must know proper English or French, pass a criminal background check, and have complete knowledge of Canadian history, symbols, and values.  Canada also has a variety of requirements for work or visitation visas and for refugees.  It seems as though those with visitation visas feel very welcomed in Canada.  This has helped Canada with seasonal jobs and to have a successful economy, which is why Brooks thinks having an immigration policy like Canada’s will give America success in regaining economic strength.

            Although David Brooks has the intentions of providing an example of such a prestigious stature, one must realize that Canada is not perfect.  According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, they are working on updating their immigration system in hopes of using biometrics to help track immigrants.  They say even with strict immigration policies about 80,000 illegals remain in their country.  Although the Canadian immigration system seems more successful than America’s, there is no proof using their policy as an outline will be beneficial for American people because our country is dealing with a larger population and separate issues.       

            As Brooks concludes the article, he emphasizes his point on immigration reform being the better alternative in fixing the economy than tax reform and fiscal reform, but focuses on us needing Canada’s policy to better the work ethics brought into the country.  With his ending statement he uses the ad hominem fallacy against our Government, calling it pathetic if unable to finalize an immigration law this year, given the evidence that supports it.  By him putting our country down and saying Canada is better, is like saying he no longer has confidence in America. As a result citizens might lose respect for his opinion and begin feeling even more timid about their future.

            Although David Brooks presents a strong argument by citing reliable sources, Marco Rubio’s argument is drawn from his experience in politics.  With both of these men feeling passionate about the reform, they manage to redirect the readers’ attention many times by showing animosity towards American bureaucrats.  Yes, immigration reform is an issue that Congress is struggling to conclude, but considering the amount of information they are working with its no wonder they are slowly progressing.  Because there are several points of view that have to be taken into consideration, can one really blame Congress for wanting to make sure this is done right the first time?   So these men’s opinions on how immigration reform will brighten our economy are fully supported; however, the need to call names and be impatient on such a crucial topic isn’t providing evidence Rubio and Brooks are familiar enough with the issue.  The evidence presented has me believing immigration reform will boost our economy, but how and when, leave it up to congress to continue debating on.

Works Cited

Brooks, David. “The Easy Problem.”  the New York Times.  31 Jan. 2013.  Web.  12 Feb. 2013.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  Canadian Government.  6 Feb. 2013.  Web.  16 Feb. 2013.

Marczak, Jason.  “Get the Facts: Immigrants and the Economy - Five Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Needs Immigrants.”  Americas society/council of Americas.  12 Feb. 2013.  Web.  16 Feb. 2013.

Obama, Barack.  “Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”  Del Sol High School.  Las Vegas, Nevada.  The White House.  29 Jan. 2013.  Web.  16 Feb. 2013.

Rubio, Marco.  “Ex-Las Vegan Rubio Outlines a GOP Revision for Immigration Reform.”  Las Vegas Review-Journal.  27 Jan. 2013.  Web.  12 Feb. 2013.        

reflective essay

Sarah High     

SEGL 102

Tasha Thomas

29 April 2013                                                                                       

Reflecting Through English 102

            In the beginning of the semester I felt very confident on my abilities to deliver each task at hand.  However, as the semester continued I quickly realized this was going to be more difficult than what originally thought.  Although this semester has been very stressful and time consuming, I can honestly say it has been very rewarding.  Through Mrs. Thomas’ teaching methods, not only did she help relieve some of the stress this semester brought, but her assignments also helped guide me on how to be a more critical reader, thinker, and writer.  Researching credible sources, analyzing, and developing and identifying thesis statements have all become clearer.  I have always been interested in writing, but being exposed to various types of writing and learning better approaches this semester have encouraged me to develop a love for writing, especially research papers.  Because of this class, I now feel well prepared for writing papers in future classes; therefore, I feel more prepared for academic success. 

            Transitioning within my essays has been a struggle since the beginning of the first semester, and I made it a point to really work on them this semester.  With the help of the books They Say, I Say and The Norton Field Guide to Writing, enabled me to follow through with this goal.  Because Mrs. Thomas assigned readings from these books, and I had them to reference back to, writing the papers were less complicated.  Along with They Say, I Say and the many examples given in class, my transitions have improved greatly.  However, I still feel they need to be a bit stronger, and will continue with this. 

            Having The Norton Field Guide to Writing and reading assignments throughout for each paper, along with the explanations given in class, allowed me to develop into a more critical reader and writer.  I am now able to distinguish the various meanings authors use in their literature, and analyzing what I read seems to come natural now.  I am able to use my newly developed critical reading skills for my own writing.  Not only has this helped me in understanding what I want included, but exactly what I want and how to say it.  I now take the time to reread and analyze what I write for any changes.    

            Being a technology intensive course and using the many digital tools, allowed me to think beyond just writing academic papers, and helped me to understand there is more to literature than just words.  I find it to be beneficial submitting everything through blackboard and via blogs.  This helps keep all of the assignments well organized, and the feedback from each paper is right there to help with future papers.  Although every assignment was posted to the blog, it seems like they weren’t concentrating on their purpose.  The blogs weren’t active within other class members unless to do the peer reviews, and it was always the same classmate.  I read what I saw posted to the blog, but never commented.  Because I find it to be beneficial reading opinions about my work from others, I should have engaged more with the blogs as well. Despite not communicating enough through the blogs, I still find them of help.  I am able to see how others format their papers and use language, but would have liked to get opinions from more classmates in order to see how they view my work as well.

            One assignment I found very interesting was participating in groups while working with Haiku Deck on the iPad.  This was one assignment that encouraged me to become a more critical thinker.  Because of this, I understand that with the use of pictures and a few words, you can get the same meaning across as if using a thousand words.    Being able to connect pictures to the article about early child education not only helped me understand how to pull out the main points in articles, but also think more in depth about what the true meaning of the article was.

            I had never discovered a podcast until the class was introduced to them.  I enjoyed working with the podcasts in groups, and now find them very interesting.  There is a lot of fascinating material on podcasts that I didn’t realize I was missing out on.  With this assignment being linked to the rhetorical analysis, which is one of my favorite papers, helped me to understand the value of rhetoric in literature.  Between English 101 and 102, I now know what rhetorical devices are and how to spot and use them within my own papers.  I have certainly learned that rhetoric is a fundamental aspect in literature.

                Although I have come a long way with writing, the feedback given on each paper

 mentioned working on being concise.  I am not sure where to start on correcting this, but is 

something I will continue to work on.  Overall this class has encouraged me to open up and given me 

a better understanding about writing.  I have discovered a lot about who I am, not only a writer but as 

an individual, because of the experiences within this class.  I use to not be a reader, but I now enjoy 

reading books and articles.  Every bit of information taught in English 102 will follow with me as I 

continue to work on my writing skills.  As a whole, I can honestly say this class has been a joy, and I 

take with me a love for writing, reading, and understanding

Digital tool: facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/HopeForHomelessStudents

Self reflection: Essay 4 Proposal

 Self Reflection: Essay 4 Proposal

1.       What were your biggest challenges in researching and writing your Proposal?

With researching and writing my proposal I had difficulty deciding which material to use, and where to insert the material I did decide to use.  I was also challenged with the organizational pattern, and how to tie the introduction story throughout my paper.  I had to go back and rearrange a major amount of my paper, and several times before I decided it worked in the order it is in now.  The conclusion also gave me a problem.  I wasn’t sure the best way to end my proposal.  I am still not sure if I concluded it the best possible way.   

2.      What do you feel is the best element of your final proposal?

                        I feel the best element of my final proposal is my own voice throughout the paper.  I gave an abundant amount of my own opinions, and feel the solutions I proposed would really work towards ending homelessness.

3.      What do you feel is the weakest element of your final proposal?

            The weakest element in my final proposal to me is the research that I included throughout.  I could have included more research, and should not have relied so much on the one resource.  Although I used eight resources, I did rely heavily on the Murphy and Tobin.

4.      What could you have done differently to improve your overall performance with both the Literature Review and the Proposal?

            In both my Literature Review and Proposal, I could have elaborated more in some sections, and worked on being more concise.  In the last section of my proposal, I have great ideas, but wasn’t sure where else to go with it.  I could have taken more time to elaborate in the section about the homeless shelters.