In class, we talked at length about storming the wall. the article was an amazing source of information about the level of power that states have to raze borders around themselves to keep out their own citizens. throughout American history we often see these instances of states often taking their own boarder's protection to an insane level. The idea of states protecting their own border is not a new one. during the early days of the united states often did protect their own borders with armies they raised from their own citizens. In fact, it was such a common and important idea that the founding fathers made an implied right in the second amendment that not only protects the rights of states to protect themselves against outside threats but also goes as far as to say that one of the key reasons that
Articals of confederation favored states rights to control trade movement and even the currency that entered their states. As you can probably tell if you have ever taken an American history class that the articles did not last long partly because of the fact that allowing states to control their own currencies and borders often lead to unneeded unrest and it was extremely inefficient. Even though we don't have the articles in place the states themselves have still found ways to implement control over their own borders. In the article, it points to the bum blockade in 1931 but it also talks about the Chinese exclusion act. this act was a way primarily to stop the flow of Chinese workers to California during the Gold rush. When this law was passed the remaining immigrants from China were systematically hunted by the united states which lead to two separate massacres. These laws of Chinese migrants getting abused did not fully end until 1965 when the national origin formula was abolished by the united states. Furthermore, you may think that I bring up a law from the gold rush seems like nothing more than a bad memory but George had implemented a controversial law in 2012 that latently lead to the near failure of most of Georgina agriculture. the law was called
HB 87 this law was effectively the harshes anti-immigrant worker law in modern American history. the law stated that steep penalties would be implemented if anyone was caught using illegal workers for labor. In the time it was a law there was such a shortage of labor that crops literally rotted in the fields and the state had to resort to using prisoners to boost their own labor pool. This law which saw thousands of workers who had been living peacefully for years thrown out of their homes and almost lead to a complete collapse of Georgias agriculture. In addition, during hurricane Katrina the united states declared martial law on its own citizens. This was so emergency crews could help people and that no fleeing people who left in the wake wouldn't get hurt on the way back to their homes, in reality, the blockades ended up leading delays in relief and cost more lives then they saved. in conclusion, the use of militarizing borders against countries own citizens never yields the perpetrator's goals of order, in fact, they often lead to more chaos then if they had just helped their own people.
we have the second amendment, to begin with. That being said after we won our independence the first ruling document we had, the articles of confederation,
In class, we talked at length about storming the wall. the article was an amazing source of information about the level of power that states have to raze borders around themselves to keep out their own citizens. throughout American history we often see these instances of states often taking their own boarder's protection to an insane level. The idea of states protecting their own border is not a new one. during the early days of the united states often did protect their own borders with armies they raised from their own citizens. In fact, it was such a common and important idea that the founding fathers made an implied right in the second amendment that not only protects the rights of states to protect themselves against outside threats but also goes as far as to say that one of the key reasons that Articals of confederation favored states rights to control trade movement and even the currency that entered their states. As you can probably tell if you have ever taken an American history class that the articles did not last long partly because of the fact that allowing states to control their own currencies and borders often lead to unneeded unrest and it was extremely inefficient. Even though we don't have the articles in place the states themselves have still found ways to implement control over their own borders. In the article, it points to the bum blockade in 1931 but it also talks about the Chinese exclusion act. this act was a way primarily to stop the flow of Chinese workers to California during the Gold rush. When this law was passed the remaining immigrants from China were systematically hunted by the united states which lead to two separate massacres. These laws of Chinese migrants getting abused did not fully end until 1965 when the national origin formula was abolished by the united states. Furthermore, you may think that I bring up a law from the gold rush seems like nothing more than a bad memory but George had implemented a controversial law in 2012 that latently lead to the near failure of most of Georgina agriculture. the law was called HB 87 this law was effectively the harshes anti-immigrant worker law in modern American history. the law stated that steep penalties would be implemented if anyone was caught using illegal workers for labor. In the time it was a law there was such a shortage of labor that crops literally rotted in the fields and the state had to resort to using prisoners to boost their own labor pool. This law which saw thousands of workers who had been living peacefully for years thrown out of their homes and almost lead to a complete collapse of Georgias agriculture. In addition, during hurricane Katrina the united states declared martial law on its own citizens. This was so emergency crews could help people and that no fleeing people who left in the wake wouldn't get hurt on the way back to their homes, in reality, the blockades ended up leading delays in relief and cost more lives then they saved. in conclusion, the use of militarizing borders against countries own citizens never yields the perpetrator's goals of order, in fact, they often lead to more chaos then if they had just helped their own people.
Interesting exploration of the issue of state's rights. Editing tip: use multiple paragraphs, and double check for spelling and editing. Your blog is public!
ReplyDelete