Recent orders
The Mexican Border Wall Argumentative Essay
Name
Professor
Course
Date
The Mexican Border Wall Argumentative Essay
Each country reserves the right to decide who walks through its borders. This idea is the most basic component principle of a nation’s sovereignty and should be supported by any side of the political spectrum. A border wall will not end illegal immigration, but it will be a significant deterrent. It is unfair to say Americans commit more crime, and the border wall will not reduce it. One does not follow the other. Substantially many people die in car and plane accidents, but there is no advocacy to ensure air and road safety.
It will be non-patriotic to advocate for an open border where immigrants that promote violence against Americans, or who possess criminal histories can freely roam around and stroll into the country. Democrats especially have presented proposals for the security of the border in hushed voices that make this side of the American political sphere as blindly objecting of any form of security at the Mexican border.
Those that oppose the wall do it as a reaction to President Trump rather than an honest opinion on the need for security and the aspiration to maintain a uniquely diverse mosaic of cultures that is the heart of the American experience (Easter, Jeffrey, et al.). Although the majority of the immigrants do not pose a threat to security, the ones who do are ticking time bomb. At one point, an immigrant will use American laws that allow easy access to firearms. When this happens, Republicans will be presented with a political catnip putting Democrats and their opinion against the wall at a disadvantage.
However, all these arguments do not outweigh those against the border wall. No matter how tall and secure the wall will be, illicit goods will still find a way in. Undocumented immigrants and drugs will still find a way into the country no matter the barrier that is put in place. For the issue of illegal immigrants, the Mexican border wall will not be applicable to those that outstay their visas – a group that has significantly outnumbered those undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Mexican border.
The Mexican – U.S. border and, more broadly, the relations between the United States and Mexico, directly impacts more than 12 million Americans who live within 100 miles of the border (Meneses, Alejandro, & Hector). In many and very essential ways, there has been no understanding of how this wall affects communities in the United States as much as Mexico.
It is not easy to understand why the nation would spend billions of dollars, $15 to $25 billion to be precise, on the wall considering the government already spends a lot on the current security at the border (Nail). There are more than 20,000 border patrol officers, with physical borders, advanced technology, aerial surveillance along the 1,954 miles Mexican border. What has not been brought to the attention of people is that approximately 1,350 miles of fencing are already in place, including the border fence, secondary fencing, tertiary layers, and pedestrian fencing all in place for the prevention of illegal crossings.
The estimates for this construction will vary widely because of the lack of a clear estimate of who much the project will cost. There is no specification as to whether this wall will be a concrete wall or a see-through structure with the height going beyond 18 feet with a 6 feet foundation that will not prevent tunneling. All these descriptions will not cover the private land that the government will use, which will definitely call for compensation in addition to legal settlements.
The ecosystem at the border is very delicate, and the activities of the Department of Homeland Security in regard to the border wall implies no respect for environmental laws. The border is a habitat for the rarest and endangered species on the planet, such as the Mexican gray wolf, the jaguar, and the Sonoran Pronghorn. Interfering with it will result in disorientation and human interaction, which is not ideal for animal populations. Also, the wall will block natural floods and impede the flow of rivers in this area, especially the majestic Rio Grande River.
The wall will not end smuggling because smugglers have been using tunnels since the method was pioneered in 1989. The sophistication of these methods has also grown over time. There are other methods, such as drones, catapults, and joint drainage systems shared by border towns. There are also tubes where immigrants crawl, and drugs get pulled through. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that the various drugs, marijuana, cocaine, and heroine get into the country through 52 legal entry points. Traffickers have created sophisticated compartments in the cars and trucks processed at ports, fooling the port officials and security personnel.
Works Cited
Easter, Jeffrey, et al. “The US-MEXICO BORDER WALL-A SENTIMENT ANALYSIS.” Issues in Information Systems 20.4 (2019): 123-129.
Meneses, Maria-Elena, Alejandro Martin-del-Campo, and Hector Rueda-Zarate. “# TrumpenMexico. Transnational connective action on Twitter and the border wall dispute.” Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal 26.1 (2018).
Nail, Thomas. “The Crossroads of Power: Michel Foucault and the U.S./Mexico Border Wall.” Foucault Studies (2013): 110-128.
The Methods of Ethics
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
The Methods of Ethics
Henry Sidgwick published the book ‘The Methods of Ethics’ in 1974. The book mainly examines three forms of ethical theories; utilitarianism, egoism, and intuitionism. Many ethicists believe that Sidgwick supported the utilitarian approach more than the others. Sidgwick proposed that these three ethical theories should coincide and lead a person to make a similar decision no matter the methods they use. He examines the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and gives possible improvements that can be made so that each ethical position can be made into its best possible version.
To begin, Sidgwick that ethics should be based on common sense, which he refers to as common sense morality. The ordinary people in the society should give their views on what they consider to be ethical and this is the basis for moral theories. The main focus of the book is to provide a clear understanding of conventional moral theories of utilitarianism and egoism and also to suggest ways to make them better in areas where they may be vague or inconsistent. In his other works, Sidgwick is known to be a supporter of utilitarianism. He speaks positively of the theory in many parts of ‘The Methods of Ethics’ but does not explicitly endorse it over the others.
The three standard methods used by the ordinary man in decision making are egoisms, utilitarianism, and intuitionism. Intuitionism means that from the onset, we can be able to tell what is right and wrong without too much thought. Egoism dictates that each person should always pursue what is best for them regardless of how it affects the others. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, underlines the greatest good as the basis of decision-making (Sidgwick). A person should choose an action that brings the most benefit to the maximum number of people involved. Sidgwick gives suggestions on how each of these three methods can be improved so that the same reasoning can be used in choosing a course of action. He, however, acknowledges that it is impossible to come up with a completely unified method of reasoning.
According to Sidgwick, utilitarianism and intuitionism are the easiest to reconcile. Many moral principles applied in life are claimed to be self-evident although they are not so obvious. However, there are some that are quite clear. These self-evident axioms turn out to be compatible with the utilitarian principle of decision-making. In addition to this, the moral basis of intuitionism is often full of utilitarian assumptions. It is infinitely more difficult to reconcile the laws of egoism and utilitarianism. The pursuit of self-interest clashes with morality in many situations (Sidgwick). Sidgwick explains that we cannot always demonstrate that the two coincide. The only reconciliation between the two is the existence of God who uses punishments and rewards to ensure that a person always acts ethically. On the other hand, he also explains that such religious references should be avoided in ethics; the theories should be based on science.
In conclusion of the conflicts, Sidgwick says that people often have two conflicting ethical voices speaking to them, and it is impossible to reconcile the two (Sidgwick). Sidgwick greatly influenced many ethical theorists that came after him. The founders of utilitarian theory including John Stuart Mill and William Paley did not examine the relationship with other theories of ethics. Sidgwick’s approach to show compatibility between utilitarianism and other theories of egoism and intuitionism increased the popularity of utilitarianism. He gave a careful analysis of each method including the problems associated with each, and this has been of great value to ethical theorists that came after him. Even in modern times, it helps in the comparison of common sense and ethical principles in making decisions.
Works Cited
Sidgwick, Henry. The methods of ethics. Hackett Publishing, 1981.
The Merchant of Venice
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
The Merchant of Venice
‘The Merchant of Venice’ is one of Shakespeare’s most widely-read plays. The play is set in the sixteenth century, with Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, and Shylock as the main characters of the story. Bassanio is a wealthy prince who lost all his money but wants to seek the hand of Portia, a wealthy heiress in marriage. To do this, he needs a loan, and he approaches Antonio, a Christian lender who does not believe in usury. Unfortunately, Antonio committed all his money on a shipping investment but promises to guarantee Bassanio’s loan from Shylock. Shylock is a Jewish moneylender who has no mercy on his debtors if they fail to repay their loans. Shylock despise Antonio because Antonio practices his business differently, lending money without interest and repaying some of Shylock’s debts. In 2004, Michael Radford made a film based on the play. He tried to adapt the play to the modern audiences by changing aspects such as the language used in the play (Magnus), but the major themes of gender, money and justice remain the same in both the film and play.
One of the significant points of contention in The Merchant of Venice is the character of Shylock. In the original play, Shakespeare presents Shylock as a ruthless and bloodthirsty Jew, intent upon causing harm and suffering to those who could not repay his money. Many have argued that Shakespeare was either anti-Semitic or tried to expose the anti-Semitism in Venice at the time. Radford tried to change this view of Shylock, but this proved a difficult task (Magnus). In contrast to this, Antonio is presented as a merciful and understanding Christian, lending money at no interest showing that his main aim was helping others.
The central theme in both the play and the film is money. Bassanio lost all his wealth, yet he wanted to woo Portia and get access to her wealth. Bassanio is forced to take a loan from Shylock when Antonio cannot lend him any money. Antonio stands in as a guarantor for Bassanio, promising Shylock a pound of flesh if he failed to repay the loan on time (Gale). Antonio’s investment is lost at sea, and Shylock insists on the pound of flesh he had been promised. The whole play revolves around the theme of money, and how it affects other areas of the character’s lives such as love, family and friendship. Connected to the topic of money is the theme of justice, presented similarly in both the play and the film. Justice mainly relates to the situation between Antonio and Shylock. Shylock is Jewish, and he believes in the Old Testament which emphasizes following the law to the letter. Antonio’s Christian beliefs are based on the New Testament that focuses on mercy. Which direction will ensure that justice prevails? Shylock is unjust because he refused to take Bassanio’s money and instead insisted on a pound of Antonio’s flesh, motivated by his long-standing hatred for Antonio.
The theme of gender is also evident and remains similar in both the play and the film. Shakespeare challenged the idea that women should be subservient and submissive as per sixteenth-century standards. Instead, the women in The Merchant of Venice defy stereotypes and show strength. An example of this is Portia and Nerissa who had the courage to disguise themselves and defend Antonio against Shylock (Gale). In conclusion, the film retains many of the themes found in the original play, ‘The Merchant of Venice.’ The themes of gender, money and justice are the base around which the plot of the play revolves, and Radford did a spectacular job showcasing these themes.
Works Cited
Gale, Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for William Shakespeare’s” The Merchant of Venice”. Gale, Cengage Learning, 2016.
Magnus, Laury. “Michael Radford’s The Merchant of Venice and the Vexed Question of Performance.” Literature/Film Quarterly 35.2 (2007): 108.