Repy to the original assignment which was: Discussion Topic for this Module: You

Repy to the original assignment which was:
Discussion Topic for this Module:
You are asked to write two letters to fictional immigrants to the United States. In the first part of the letter, review the details of the claim by providing some fictional biographical details about their situation. Then, use Carens’ arguments to explain to them what you think are the relevant considerations related to their case, and, based on this description whether you think their request should be granted. Try to discuss different considerations in your letter – what would be the implications of admitting them, and what would be the implications if you don’t?
Remember, you have to choose only two letters out of the following three.
1. Write a letter to an irregular immigrant already present in the United States. Explain to them whether you think they should be granted amnesty given their situation. This immigrant has been in the United States for some substantive amount of time (you can choose what age they moved to the United States), did not engage in any major crime (but you can choose whether they have some minor criminal record and whether this is a relevant consideration), and have some ties to their community (decide which).
2. Write a letter to an individual from Afghanistan who is escaping the Taliban regime (you can check the International Rescue Committee for You are not asked to assess their claim for refugee status from a legal perspective. The question is about whether they are entitled to relocate if they are fearing their own government (how credible this fear should be in your view) and whether they have any particular right to relocate to the United States?
3. Write a letter to an individual who just wants to live in the United States because they think that there are desirable professional or personal opportunities for them. This individual is not under duress to leave but believes their life would be better in the United States. This individual does not have any criminal background. They also never engaged in any terrorist behavior (or anything close to it). The individual is asking why the US should not allow more open and flexible immigration policies for individuals like them.
Then, write replies to the posts of two other students. Make sure to engage their letters. Did they consider all the relevant considerations? Do you agree with their assessment?
reply to these letters:
Letter #1
Hello,
I appreciate you sharing your story with me, I appreciate your openness and candor.
You’ve been here for a little over 13 years, beginning with when your parents left Somalia to come to the US when you were just 16 years old, during which time you did not obtain any sort of visa or legal form of citizenship. Though despite the difficulties you faced without citizenship status, you graduated high school and went on to graduate from Boston University, where you met your now partner.
You are married and have a four-year-old child with your partner, and you currently reside with, in Boston, MA. While living here you have spent time in jobs in several industries, and in the latter years, in public education, working as a beloved teacher in a local elementary school. However, recently, as you went to move out of public education, into private, a background check raised some flags and immigrations and border control showed up at your doorstep threatening deportation. This is egregious, you will not be deported, Boston is your home; your life and family are here. You should undoubtedly be granted amnesty by the United States government.
You should receive amnesty for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to) the circumstances in which you arrived as a minor; the length of time you have been here; and the family and life you have established during your time here, all point to the life you have made in this place you have called home (Carens, 2009). Even beyond those undeniable aspects of your moral right to remain, the involvement you have had in education and the community have been measurable, an integral impact upon any society:
The later years of childhood are the most important once from society’s perspective–the formative years of education and wider socialization. Human beings who have been raise in a society become members of that society: not recognizing their social membership is cruel and unjust. (Carens, p. 4, 2009)
To not admit you, would be cruel and unjust, and I would have to agree with Carens when he states, “…there is something deeply wrong in forcing people to leave a place where they have lived for a long time” (p. 5, 2009). The bottom line is that morally, and fundamentally you are a member of this society, from which not only you have benefited, but your town, community, and countless students have as well. Without amnesty, other forms of immigration are not open to you, and it may be incredibly difficult for you to enter the country in any different, sanctioned way—not only that but the alternatives are also lengthy, and nearly impossible to succeed with, even for the majority.
To acknowledge all the above, is to also recognize that amnesty is not offered as often as it should be within the US (and other countries). For the relevant reasons I have highlighted, I believe you have every right to be here as I do, or any other US-born citizen does. In the considerations of your case—and in an argument for a more just process by which amnesty is accessible—your moral claim to amnesty is irrefutable; you have been nothing but an upstanding member of society and to suggest you are a criminal for living within the borders of the country you call home is “an abuse of the legal process” and a vile exercise of power (Carens, 2009, p. 11). The time you’ve spent here, the life you’ve built, roots you’ve made, and the ways in which you make such an impact are what defines your home, not the place you were born.
You are a citizen by every other definition, except the current legal one, amnesty should and will change that.
Sources
Carens, J. H. (2009, May 1). The Case for Amnesty. Boston Review.
Letter 2
Dear (fictional immigrant two),
I appreciate you contacting me to obtain advice regarding your case for refuge. I would like to start by stating that your claim is credible based on the information you have provided. As it stands, you are currently residing in Pakistan an internationally displaced person after leaving your home country of Afghanistan due to threats by the Taliban. You are seeking legal authorization to come to the United States as a refugee as your current living conditions are unfavorable and opportunity is limited.
Your case for refuge is strong on three particular counts, established by Carens’ arguments on the ethics of immigration (2015). Firstly, ” Sometimes we have an obligation to admit refugees because the actions of our own state have contributed in some way to the fact that the refugees are no longer safe in their home country,” and as the US involvement in Afghanistan has greatly contributed to the current conditions, there is a responsibility for the United States to aid in addressing the refugee crisis as a result. Secondly, humanitarian concern creates a moral obligation to aid those in dire circumstances such as yours. Finally, as the US is a strong advocate of the state system, it holds another obligation in securing statehood for those displaced, such as yourself. I am confident in your search for refuge, as the United States holds multiple obligations to aiding you in your current predicament.
Sources
Carens, J. H. (2012). “The Case for Amnesty”. Boston Review.
Carens, J. H. (2015). “The Ethics of Immigration”. Oxford University Press.
Each reply will get 3 points if it engages the post to which it responds in a meaningful way and based on the readings. The purpose of the reply is to discuss the way the post understands or applies the reading. Suggestion: your task will be easier if you read through a number of the posts and choose the ones to which you have meaningful things to reply. Reading just two posts at random and responding to them might appear as an easier shortcut, but it may make it actually more difficult to write a reply.
The best replies are the ones that encourage reflection, for example by saying things like (these are illustrations, not templates!):
I think that you got this particular part of the argument from the readings not fully accurately…
Your post made me rethink the way I understood the reading in that….
I agree with the way that you understand this piece of argument from the reading but I don’t think that it applies to the example you bring up…
I think that the two authors that you mention actually present different arguments….
Replies that engage the argument without circling back to the readings are expected to get 2 points.
Replies that are general and do not add anything meaningful are expected to receive 1 point (things like “I fully agree,” or, “I like what you wrote,” or, “this is exactly what I think.” Of course, each of these can be part of a good reply, but they cannot be the entire reply since they can apply equally to any post and do not demonstrate engagement with the argument).
seperate responsesw