Do not Shut the Golden Door: Political and Social Science - Literature review Example

Do not Shut the Golden Door: Political and Social Science In “Don’t Shut the Golden Door,” John M. MacDonald and Robert J. Sampson argue that a cross-sectional study showed that immigration is generally good for society. They refer to the research that the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science conducted. The supporting claims of the authors are: migrants helped develop the economic conditions of struggling communities; they reduced crime rate, specifically because they are more compliant with laws, have more positive attitudes toward laws, and are more cooperative with the police than communities with less minority groups; and they also improved population growth rates. The article is well-supported with evidence, although it lacks further discussion on other possible interpretations of the study and it needs clear transition sentences and persuasive concluding arguments for its last two paragraphs. The article provides good supporting claims for its main argument that immigration does not produce greater social problems for society. The study they used offered concrete evidence that in several communities across the United States, migrants are not lazy, social-welfare guzzlers. MacDonald and Sampson stress that even if migrants are generally poorer than the rest of the population, they have positive effects on communities with weak economies. They give examples from Hazleton, Pennsylvania and St. James, Minnesota, where migrants decreased hostility against minorities and turned around both the decreasing population and economic rates. MacDonald and Sampson also offer evidence that migrants diminished crime rates through decreasing homicide rates for the main racial groups and improving attitudes toward the police and laws. Despite these backed-up claims, the article no longer explores other alternative interpretations of the study. For instance, it does not consider other possible causative and mediating factors or conditions for the improved economic conditions. MacDonald and Sampson should also mention other potential causes of lower crime rates, such as better economic conditions and higher education and employment among the poor. In addition, the article fails to mention the limitations of the study. The study must be concentrated in certain areas only, where migration actually improved economic conditions, thereby not including communities, where immigration worsened socio-economic indicators. The article also lacks clear transition sentences and convincing concluding arguments for its last two paragraphs. For example, a better transition sentence for the thirteenth paragraph is: “Because of the positive contributions of migrants to American society, the winner of the election in November should carefully consider the consequences of fully closing the golden gate.” The last paragraph can also be rewritten into: “A comprehensive immigration reform should protect the human rights of migrants, while providing opportunities for guest-workers. We should be aware of the importance of controlling illegal immigration flow, without directly affronting the human rights of hard-working and law-abiding migrants.” These paragraphs support immigration, without alienating potentially valid claims regarding illegal immigration. The article provides evidence for its central argument that immigration does not harm the society and benefits it instead. Nevertheless, it does not present exhaustive explanation for the direct relationship between immigration and social and economic developments in selected communities. MacDonald and Sampson can also rewrite the last two paragraphs by creating clearer transition sentences and improving the closing ideas for their arguments. This way, they can convince their readers that immigration provides important benefits for American society. Unclear Argument and Bold Claims in “Smokeless in Seattle” In “Smokeless in Seattle,” Holden argues that the medical marijuana industry is against Initiative 502, because it has restrictive D.U.I. regulations and can infringe on civil liberties. In particular, the medical marijuana industry believes that the bill will result to violations of rights to privacy and confidentiality. Holden suggests that these claims are unwarranted, because the medical marijuana industry only wants to preserve its niche market, and ultimately, to maintain the status quo, where it monopolizes the marijuana industry. This article undermines the arguments of the medical marijuana industry, but he offers bold statements without supporting evidence, and it is not evident whether he wants to focus on defending Initiative 502, or to criticize the claims of the medical marijuana industry. Holden supports the legalization of pot for all adults, but his allegation on the profiteering nature of the medical marijuana industry does not provide proof for the positive benefits of Initiative 502. For the first three paragraphs, it is clear that Holden promotes the legalization of marijuana, because it helps patients like his friend. Essentially, he argues that it will be inhumane to criminalize marijuana, when many people need it for medical purposes. The sixth paragraph asserts that the bill will provide the benefits of improved tax revenues and elimination of drug cartels, which are often violent. This is a good paragraph that supports the benefits of Initiative 502. However, Holden suddenly shifts to discussing the arguments of medical marijuana industry, which is against the mentioned bill. He no longer explains why he needs to do this, and how this helps his support for Initiative 502. Holden should focus on one main argument, where he either attacks the flawed arguments of the medical marijuana industry, or he convinces the public and lawmakers of the benefits of Initiative 502 for diverse stakeholders. For instance, he can just concentrate on criticizing the medical marijuana industry, by pointing out that the claims of DUI and breach of civil liberties have no supporting evidence. He can quote specific stipulations from the bill, where it is clear that it will not require licenses and databases of users. By suddenly adding his criticisms of the profiteering mission of the medical marijuana industry, he weakens his claims for the advantages of Initiative 502. Making bold claims without succeeding evidence is also one of the flaws of this article. Holden quotes St. Pierre, who is biased in saying that medical marijuana industry is strongly profit-driven. Holden should provide studies, which prove that the medical marijuana industry is currently resulting to cartels and monopolization. He should also give evidence that with the status quo, the medical marijuana industry will earn more than after the passing of the Initiative 502. This way, Holden can prove that this industry has significant self-interest in stopping Initiative 502. Holden wants to support Initiative 502, but his criticisms of the arguments of medical marijuana industry derail him from this main goal. He should focus on one main argument only, in order to provide clear claims that support it. In addition, he implicates that the medical marijuana industry is only against Initiative 502, because of self-serving and profiteering goals, but he does not have conclusive evidence to support this. As a result, the article lacks a clear direction and purpose, and resorts to making bold claims that have insufficient evidence. Read More