The Attack on Discourse
Courtesy of Shutterstock
As the United States continues to divide itself based on political affiliation, there is one thing that is becoming less and less important: free speech. When the President of the United States condemns certain news outlets for disagreeing with him, and this idea of "fake news", we progressively regress. Nowadays, simply mentioning party affiliation, or an opinion on something could mean losing friends and family as well as ostracization. Political discourse or any discourse for that matter is under attack.
One of the main things that come into question is hate speech and free speech and what should be protected. In my opinion, it all should be protected. Obviously, threats to another person yield legal trouble which is totally understandable. However, more and more it seems as though that free speech is being confused with hate speech due to the simple fact that a person gets offended. And it is this fact that is troubling to me because this then prevents people from engaging in any real discourse, as they fear to say anything remotely controversial that would offend the other person. For instance, in the "Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman Debate," Newman asks Peterson "why should your freedom of speech trump a . . . person's right not to be offended" to which Peterson replies "in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive" to which I agree. For there to be any progress in a discourse, people must risk offending the other person in order to present their full ideas instead of sugar-coating it to ensure that the other person does not get offended. The main purpose of discourse is not necessarily to get another person to agree with you but rather to understand your point of view, but that will not be possible if you can not express yourself completely out of fear of offending them.
This was prevalent especially during the first year of President Trump's term where universities had student clashes with guest speakers that did not fit within their opinions. While some of these speakers were known to have rather extreme views (as seen with UC Berkely and Yiannopolous), shutting them down usually results in no progress and in fact might make them feel stronger about the opinions they had. In these instances, many saw the solution to shut down speech they found offensive through protests-turned-riots.
Immigration and How to Solve It
Melting Pot stirred by Liberty courtesy of American wikki
Immigration has always been an integral part of the United States. Throughout my years in school, I can always recall some iteration of the United States being referred to as the "melting pot of the world", and it is this fact that has caused me to question the amount of hostility that has recently enveloped this country towards immigrants. However, to think that this hostility towards immigrants is newfound would be a very misinformed thought to have. Hostility towards immigrants can be seen with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Mexican Repatriation early 20th century, and the Internment of Japanse Americans during WWII. While it seems that hostility towards immigrants comes and goes depending on circumstances, the reasons for immigrating are constant. While GlobalCitizen and Witness for Peace list multiple reasons for immigrating, I think it all comes down to one thing: the search for a better life.
Now, a better life has a multitude of meanings since it can mean different things for different people. But for the most part, a better life constitutes better opportunities, and when a person's native country is plagued with political turmoil, poverty, war, and crime, it makes sense as to why they would want to migrate elsewhere. It is a basic survival instinct to get away from an environment that is detrimental to one's personal well being, so why be hostile towards someone who only wants the best for themselves? Let us take Latin America and the Middle East as an example. Latin America has been plagued with the drug wars for decades, and living there is a nightmare. Cartels have reigning control over the corrupt governments of many Latin American countries and are "deeply rooted inside communities... [such that] governments get frustrated confronting an enemy they can't see and unleash soldiers to torture and murder civilians" (Grillo). To be in constant fear for your life is no way of living and leaving, to me, seems like the only option. Same can be said with the ongoing conflicts within the Middle East such as the Syrian Civil War, terrorist groups that have taken over land the size of small countries, and historical conflict linked to religion with the fight for Jerusalem (Shah), all of which lead to difficulties living there.
With these things in mind, it is heartbreaking to think that in the midst of all these problems, you have things such as President Trump's travel ban and the "No Tolerance" approach that led to the prevention of entrance to certain people and the removal of children from their parents. Now, I am not here to drag the President's name, that is not what I set out to do. I see the President's actions as his method to solve this "immigration crisis" that he had promised to fix as he campaigned. However, this is far too simple of a solution to such a complex problem, and it is for this reason that immigration is still a problem. This can also be seen with the way that the United States handles the drug cartels in Latin America. This scorch-earth policy towards drug farms only leads to the drugs being made elsewhere. Instead of going for the producers, go for the corruption in the government and reestablish rule of law (Grillo).
While it may not be the most helpful suggestion, I think the best way to solve this immigration crisis would be to remove this need to look for a better life. Obviously, immigration will always be something that occurs, but in order to reduce its volume, countries that are war-torn, drug-torn, etc. would need to be helped out of their situation in order for people to no longer feel the need to immigrate.