First of all, the main point that I have to make is very clear. It is called illegal immigration for a reason. That reason is because it is illegal. If there was nothing wrong with this practice, it wouldn't be called illegal immigration. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter the United States of America. Illegal immigration is clearly and obviously the wrong way to enter this country.

One reason why I am not in favor of illegal immigration is because of the fact that these people steal jobs away from hard working Americans. The unemployment rate of the United States is way too high to begin with. By allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country, the unemployment rates here will only increase even more. Employers and companies are always looking for the cheapest labor. Companies are also always looking for the best way to save money. These two points go hand in hand. What I am saying is that the easiest way to save money is to find the cheapest labor that is possible. The cheapest labor possible is more times than not illegal immigrants. The victims here are hardworking Americans. It's not right that our country's own people have to suffer by becoming unemployed because of these people.

Another point I would like to make is about money and illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants immigrate to the United States because they don't have the money to immigrate legally, then that's their fault. I don't know how else to say it. Either immigrate to the United States legally or not at all. Another thing about illegal immigrants is the pay they receive for their jobs. They often get paid significantly below minimum wage. This is problematic for many reasons. It is inhumane to offer someone pay that cannot support the cost of living here in America. Whether or not illegal immigrants are willing to accept such small pay, this practice should still not be allowed. Second of all, if a company can pay illegal immigrants much less for a job than an American, they are more times than not going to hire the illegal immigrant and fire the legal United States citizen. It is important that we look out for our own people first before we look out for immigrants. This point often gets overlooked and that's just unfortunate.

I am fine with legal immigration though. My uncle is actually from Mexico. Now he is an American citizen. He immigrated legally, which is the right way to immigrate to the United States, or any other country for that matter. Immigrating legally can be done. It is just a matter of whether these people take the correct steps to immigrate legally.

I thought this lecture was incredibly interesting. The lecture tied in perfectly with ethnocentrism, which is what we were talking about in the previous lecture. I never really thought about the war in Iraq from an Iraqi's perspective before. This lecture forced me to try to see their point of view. Going into this lecture, I had always seen Iraqis as the enemy. In some ways they are the enemy. After all, they are the United States' opponent in the war. However, it is easy to stereotype all Iraqi people and all Muslims, especially after September 11. It's important to recognize that not all Muslims are like this. Sam touched on this in his lecture. He said that most Muslims are not extremists. There are extremists in every religion and culture, but the vast majority of people in any religion are by no means extremists. Sam even said that he had talked to his one friend, who I believe was a reporter in Iraq. His friend said he had never met an extremist in his entire life. It's easy though for a few extremists to taint your view on Muslim people as a whole.

I really enjoyed how Sam made us pretend that we were the people of Iraq. For once, I basically forced to see things from their point of view. Sam brought up some good points on why Iraqi people feel the way that they do about the war. He said that Americans are essentially here to take your oil. They are here to take what is actually yours. He also said that as a citizen of Iraq, you watch these Americans take your oil and get rich, while your country struggles. I can totally see why a person from Iraq would be frustrated by this. It is quite a simple and straightforward reason for Iraqi people to be mad at America. As simple as this reasoning is, I never really thought about it like that before. He also posed the question, what if China came in and took all of America's coal and made a fortune off of it. How would you feel about that as an American?" I realized then that I would be incredibly anger over such a situation, just as the Iraqi people are mad at America for taking their oil.

After this class, I felt completely different about the entire war than when I entered the classroom and hour and fifteen minutes earlier. I came to the realization that America is not completely "good" and Iraq is not completely "bad." The news and other media always seems to make America out as the good guys, when this isn't entirely true. It's easy to see things only one way when that is the only view you are exposed to.

As we all know, welfare is a very interesting and controversial topic today. Personally, I am not a fan of the current welfare system. But do I think that we should abolish the welfare system all together? Probably not. I don't think that getting rid of the welfare will in any way solve the problems associated with it, but it would instead make things worse. I think that the answer to the welfare dilemma is that the entire welfare system needs to be reworked, but not eliminated.

The main reason the welfare shouldn't be stopped is because there are too many deserving needy people out there. Many of the welfare recipients are hard workers in unfortunate circumstances who just need some help along the way. Welfare offers these people this help. It is important to understand that not everyone can help the financial situations they are in. For these people, welfare can be a source of hope, and may eventually get them out of their unfortunate financial circumstances.

While the welfare system helps out many people who deserve assistance, we cannot forget those who abuse the system. For every hard working person on welfare, there is another person abusing the welfare system. Many of the welfare abusers don't have a job, not because they can't find a job, but because the voluntarily choose not to work. These people just sit around and collect welfare checks for a living. I actually learned in my Econ class that some people would make more money in a year by not working and collecting welfare checks than by working a minimum wage full time job. I'm sure many welfare recipients are aware of this. Although it is morally wrong to cheat the system, I see can understand why some people do. Many times, welfare recipients don't even use the welfare checks for what they should be used for, which is things like food and other basic needs. Instead, they put the welfare money towards material items like expensive cars that they can't afford.

So, the suggestion that I am making is that we keep the welfare system, but modify it. Modifying the system isn't enough though. We also need to make sure that any changes to the system are monitored and all the rules and regulations of welfare are enforced. First of all, it is important that only deserving people receive welfare checks. This means that they must have and maintain a job or must be actively pursuing a job. Also, we need to better monitor how welfare recipients are spending their welfare money. The welfare money should only be going towards essential goods and needs, nothing else. If all of this is done, I feel like the entire system of welfare can be a lot more successful than it has been in the past.

When Sam started discussing "bleeding" in class, I thought he took the topic too far. I feel like he was trying to get people to react, which he certainly did. As far as when he said he wanted to see the menstruation before his wife flushed it, I seriously hope he was joking. He called it "art." That's one messed up individual. No offense to Sam, but no normal person would do that. I understand that this topic was worth mentioning in class, but it got old after the first time he brought the topic up. I almost felt like that's all we talked about this week. Also, almost all of the blog topics for this week have to do with "bleeding." Last time I checked, menstruation had nothing to do with race relations. This topic may apply to gender relations and sociology as a whole, but not race relations.

As far as the whole "bleeding" conversation we had in class, I have mixed feelings on the topic. First of all, I would like to say that I don't think women should have to be secretive about this issue. It is a totally normal process for women to go through. When I am married one day, I really would have no problem with my wife telling me about her "bleeding," as long as the situation was appropriate. This topic clearly isn't something to discuss in public or at the dinner table. The reason I say this is because while this process is natural and normal, it is also disgusting. In general, this a topic I believe can be discussed with others, but should be discussed amongst people the woman is close to like a husband or boyfriend.

The big problem I have about this problem is it's appropriateness. I understand that menstruation is something that women go through every month. However, I don't necessarily need to know about it. That is your personal business, and should stay that way. For example, I wouldn't tell a group of people that I had a wet dream last night, because that is not conversation appropriate. I also wouldn't tell someone that I just took a huge dump. Some things are better to be kept to oneself. There is no reason I need to know that you are "bleeding," so what is the point of telling me in the first place?

I guess the main point of my post is to say that there is a time and place for everything, including the topic of menstruation. If you are married or in a long term relationship, this topic may be appropriate for conversation at certain times. At the same time, I don't need to know that some random girl is "bleeding."

I totally agree with what the person in the video is saying. When white people answered one of the texting questions offensively, I too noticed an uproar in the class. The same cannot be said when a black person or a person of color said something offensive about white people. There was little, if anything, said when a colored person made a negative comment about white people.

I think the reason why everyone made a bigger commotion over the comments towards black people is because it is easier to say something to offend black people in my opinion. All you have to do is say the "N word" and there is controversy. With white people, there's no one word or phrase that compares as far as offensiveness to the "N word." So as soon as the something like the "N word" appears on the board, many people are instantly offended, as they should be. However, I feel that a majority of the comments made by white people were not comments of this nature. A large majority of the responses by white people were honest and harmless. It only takes a few idiots to post some racial slurs to make all white people look bad. Honestly, I also feel like black people overreacted at times too. The one comment in particular said that "black girls are always being loud in the computer lab." While the comments was uncalled for and irrelevant, I don't understand why black people got so offended. If someone said "white people are always being loud in the computer lab" I could honestly care less.

I do have a huge problem with many of the texting answers submitted by people of color towards white people. As I said before, only a few white people posted racist material, making white people as a whole look bad. With colored people however, I feel like there was more consistency with negative comments. Although the things colored people said weren't nearly as offensive, the offensive comments were much more common and abundant. The stereotypes people of color were saying about white people had absolutely no truth to them at all. People of color were constantly saying that white people are overprivileged, rich, etc. First of all, my family is the epitome of middle class, not rich at all. I am also not overprivileged. I get the feeling that minorities think that white people have everything in life given to them. I am at Penn State right now because I am a hard worker. Wealth has nothing to do with it. I really get annoyed when minorities try to downplay the accomplishments of white people. If you want to be successful in life, whether you're white or black, rich or poor, you have to work hard. Period, end of story.

I have absolutely no idea what the person posing this question is talking about. I have been in a fraternity for over a year now and have been a part of many themed parties. Not one of these parties had to do with minorities or race at all. There is St. Patty's day, Christmas parties, and Halloween parties, but all three of these celebrate holidays, nothing else. Other themed parties I have been to include highlighter parties, anything but clothes party, and beach themed parties. I don't see how any of these relate to race or racism at all. I have also never heard of any kind of themed party being racist at all.

The whole point of having a themed party is to have fun with it and be creative. A good theme can set that party apart for just your ordinary, regular non-themed party. Clearly, these parties are set up to draw in large crowds of people to the party, not to be racist.

I also don't see why the person in the video claims that themed parties are mostly thrown by white people. I never connected white people and themed parties together, mostly because there is absolutely no connection. A black person is just as able to throw a themed party if they'd like to.

The thing that really pisses me off about this video is the fact that the person in it is trying to stir up unnecessary controversy. Clearly, she doesn't know what she is talking about, because not once did she mention a particular themed party that she felt was racist. Her statement was extremely general and has nothing to back up her point. At best, she saw one racist themed party and generalized that most or all themed parties are racist in their theme.

Although I am not black, I understand that even today they have to put up with racism that white people don't have to deal with. Not all of the racism is blatant or obvious, but it still occurs. These parties are not one of these racist instances thought. A lot of times, I feel like some black people are always saying, "that's racist." Sometimes, they just need to realize that not everything is racist. If they get fired from a job, then they say "that's racist." No, you most likely got fired because you didn't do your job. Most black people are probably not like this. Most are willing to take accountability for their actions and recognize that you can't use racism as an excuse for everything. I feel like sometimes black people look for controversy and racism that isn't there to begin with. The girl in the video is clearly displaying this. This really needs to stop. I am so tired of it.

I thought the person in this video posed an excellent question. When exactly should we start educating students about Native Americans and what exactly happened to them? Also, how do we go about doing this? One reason I am particularly intrigued by this question is because I am an elementary education major. I started to wonder about this question myself while Sam was lecturing about Native Americans.

As a kid, I was taught that Christopher Columbus was some sort of hero. I was also taught that Thanksgiving was a feast celebrating the cooperation of the settlers and the Native Americans. Clearly, kids are misled. I did not even realize that the killing of Native Americans is the largest genocide of all time until this class. As I got into middle school and high school, I began to realize that we essentially stole the Native Americans' land and we killed many of them to take their land. However, I had no idea the killings were on such a large scale. In junior high school and high school, I felt like my history teachers would almost beat a dead horse when the topic of the holocaust came up. I realize that the holocaust was terrible, but a larger genocide occurred right here in our country, but no one seems to even bat an eye. It's as if history teachers ignore the topic all together, because America can do no wrong of course, but we are quick to point the finger at Germany and the Nazi party for the holocaust.

As far as when exactly we should start teaching children about the genocide of Native Americans, it is tough to say. To tell every detail to a kindergarten student may be a little overwhelming. I feel like the best way to tell children about the topic is to introduce it slowly. All you may want to tell a kindergarten child is that we stole land from the Native Americans. You can then discuss with the kids why taking something that does not belong to you is bad. As the kids become older, you can begin to give them more and more details on what really happened. It is also important not to lie to children. I feel angry now that I was misled as a child about this topic. I would say maybe third grade would be the proper time to go into detail with children about this topic. At that age, they are better able to comprehend the information you are sharing with them and really take it into perspective.

When I become a teacher, I fully intend on educating my kids on what really happened. To what degree I educate them depends on what grade it is I am teaching. I will make sure though that I will not lie to my students and I will not mislead them, as my teachers did to me as a kid.

The question posed was, "After today's class, how could anyone still be opposed to gay marriage?" The answer is quite simple actually. Gay marriage is clearly a very controversial issue that probably won't be resolved in the near future. Many people have strong feelings for or against gay marriage, and a lecture won't change many people's minds. It is also important to note that those for and against gay marriage both have many valid and solid points. With an issue like this, there is no clear consensus. If there was, this issue wouldn't be an issue and it would have been resolved a long time ago.

Personally, going into the lecture I was against gay marriage and I am still against gay marriage. Like I mentioned earlier, people have strong feelings about this issue, and a lecture isn't going to change my views. Although I am against gay marriage, I have nothing against gay people. They have every right to be together and love each other. However, marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Why? Because that's how society has defined the word "marriage." I don't really consider myself a religious person, I just believe in the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years. Gay people already have every right to be together and have a family, so I cannot understand why they can't just be happy with that. They're just seeking attention in my opinion. I understand that there are certain benefits gay people would gain if they got married, but a marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I kind of have a problem with the questioner and her question. When it comes to gay marriage, people often accuse people like myself who are against gay marriage of being close-minded. I don't think that I'm close-minded at all. I listened to the lecture and thought it was a well presented lecture. Just because I am against gay marriage doesn't mean that I don't understand why people would be for gay marriage. I even have a friend who's gay. However, by posing the question, "after today's lecture, how could anyone be against gay marriage?" the questioner clearly appears to be the close-minded one. Although I am against gay marriage, I am aware that other people have different views on the issue and I respect those views even if I don't agree with them. The questioner on the other hand, appears to have no acceptance for opposing views. It's as if she feels that gay marriage is the only acceptable view on the issue. Clearly there are multiple views on the issue and both sides have valid arguments. The questioner clearly fails to see and acknowledge this. It's a shame that some people are so clueless.

As I looked at some of the responses to this article, I realized that almost all of them were against the comments were against Bauer. I will agree that Bauer shouldn't have said what he said. However, I understand where he is coming from. I'd be lying if I said I have never made negative comments towards those on welfare. I'm sure there are lots of people who work really hard and are in desperate need of the welfare money. At the same time, there are people that abuse the system. These people are lazy and don't work and spend money on material items, weapons, and drugs rather than the necessary items they need to survive. Actually, I remember learning in my econ class that some people would make more money a year by staying on welfare and not working as opposed to getting a job and not being on welfare. In this way, the system itself is flawed and encourages some poor people to be lazy and not work as opposed to becoming motivated and actually making something of their lives. Also, the people who take advantage of the welfare system by being lazy and not working are setting a bad example for their children. Children often adopt the values of their parents. So, if a kid's parents are lazy, the kid is likely to grow up and be lazy, just like the parents. Then these kids may end up being on welfare as adults just like the parents.

As a whole, people need to be more conscious of where their tax dollars are going. I have no problem with tax dollars going towards those in need that really deserve the money. However, in my opinion it's not fair if my tax money is going towards an unjust cause. By this, I mean I don't want my money going to people who just sit on their asses. I want my money going towards something that will improve the community.

I firsthand have seen tax money towards welfare go to total waste. I live about an hour outside of Philadelphia. A few years ago, a new projects area was constructed in South Philadelphia. I would always pass this area on my way to ballgames. A few years after being constructed, the place already looks like a total shithole. There is garbage everywhere and before too long, they will probably have to renovate these fairly new structures. The main point is that welfare recipients must first prove that they can respect and care for what they already have. Why should we continue to give to these people if they are going to continue to act this way? So if welfare recipients can prove that they can and do care for their property and they are working, then I have no problem with my tax money going towards their cause. However, it is the other people in the welfare system that ruin it for the whole group.

After reading this blog, I have no problem with the Census using words like Negro as a category. In my opinion, the main point of the Census is to get an understanding of how people perceive themselves. So if people want to be called Negros, then let them call themselves that. As long as there are people lobbying for certain words in the Census, those words should be added. As the blog said, the word Negro will probably find its way off the Census as the years go on since it is a word primarily used by older African Americans. People who take offense tot he word are probably younger African Americans for the most part. The younger African American population just needs to understand that times were different not too long ago, and Negro is just a term that some older African Americans identify with. As soon as the older generation passes, the term will most likely be taken off the Census and the younger generation can stop complaining.

The only way that I would have a problem with the word Negro being on the Census would be if it were white people lobbying for it to be on the ballot. Then, it could be seen as racist. What I mean is that if white people put the term Negro on the Census during the slavery era, then it could be seen as a derogatory term. Clearly, this is not the case. Therefore, I do not see a problem with this term being on the Census.

I guess as a white person, I am not as passionate about this topic as someone of color. For me, white is white. White is what I would check off on the Census. However, things clearly get more complex for black people as well as many other people, including Hispanic people. So I guess I would see this as a bigger issue if I was being directly affected by the words used on the ballot.

I completely agree with the blog in the sense that including more and more in each Census is definitely improving the system. Everyone wants to be represented, and a more detailed Census does a good job at this. The more detailed the Census is, the more accurate information it can collect. Even now, the Census isn't perfect. Diversity is increasing as more and more immigrants enter the country and for various other reasons. The Census needs to make sure they account for this growing and increasingly diverse United States population. One thing that I thought was a significant change was the fact that you can check more than one box. This just proves the growing diversity that exists in our country today. By continuing to add to the Census over time, it will become more and more accurate.