Writing Feedback / Summary Paper and reflection on "Superman and me" story [3]

I didn't know how to really get started on this assignment, and I'm horrible at writing, it's definetly my weakest subject, any feedback would be much appreciated.

This short story "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and me" was written by Sherman Alexie and copyrighted in 1997. "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and me" explains Alexie's life as an Indian boy and how writing and reading shaped his life into what it is today. This short essay talks about how he first learned how to read, His intelligence as a young Indian boy, and Alexie as an adult teaching creative writing to Indian kids.

In the first paragraph, Alexie explains that he first learned to read with a Superman comic book. But before he could read the comic, Alexie taught himself about paragraphs and how they relate to the real world. He thought of everything as paragraphs such as his reservation he lived on was a paragraph to the United Sates. Or his family as a essay of paragraphs, each family member being a paragraph. He taught himself how to read the text by looking at the pictures and dialogue and pretending to say aloud what he thinks the story might be saying. Alexie learned quickly while many of his Indian classmates struggled to read basic words and vocabulary.

"I refused to fail. I was smart. I was arrogant. I was lucky." These were the words Alexie used in his story. Indian children were stereotypically supposed to fail in the classroom, and most did. Alexie was smart though and the Indians who weren't, ridiculed him. Those who failed were accepted, Those who excelled weren't. But Alexie loved to read. He read everything he possibly could, even if they weren't books.

Alexie visits schools to teach creative writing to Indian kids. Most of the children read his books and write their own. They want to learn and succeed, but there are some of the children who have already given up hope on themselves and sit in the back of the classrooms and don't care anything for reading and writing. In the Superman comic book Alexie first learns to read , Superman breaks down a door, This is what Alexie is trying to do with the kids who have already quit. He is trying to break down their locked doors and really get the children reading and writing.

This story explains the struggles Alexie and his Indian peers have trying to succeed in a non-Indian environment. Alexie looks past all the stereotypes and refuses to fail. He applies it to real world situations and excels in being a author.

I think Alexie explains vividly about how hard it was growing up as an Indian in a non-Indian world and how he looked past the fact he was Indian and succeeded in being a author. I learned a lot from Alexie and his story such as his methods of learning how to read, his "refusing to fail" attitude, and wanting to give back to the community.

I believe Alexie's reading methods are a great way to look at easy ways to teach young children how to read. He first learns the essay structure by comparing everything to paragraphs. I really believe that children will learn a lot better about essays if they learned the structure of a paper before reading or writing one. Then they wouldn't be so confused on what a paper should always look like. Then by understanding the text , he would look at the picture and guess what the person was saying or doing. I agree with this also but children should also first learn the letters and what they mean first before guessing the sentence.

Unlike many of the other Indian children, Alexie refused to fail in school. No child anywhere should give up at all and always have this kind of a attitude. The kids were expected to fail, but Alexie was one of the few to not live up to those expectations. Alexie read everything and everywhere he went. This is probably one of the reasons Alexie never failed in school, because he loved to learn, he wanted to be smart. Everyone should be saying things such as Alexie did like, "I refuse to fail. I am smart. I am arrogant. I am lucky."

As Alexie grew up he became a writer, Maybe he thought he should give back to the Indian children who weren't as lucky as him. He started to teach creative writing at Indian schools trying to help the struggling children. Many took advantage of the opportunity, but some didn't. Alexie doesn't give up on the children as they have already given up on themselves. He obviously cares and wants them to succeed as he has.

Alexie is a great author and teacher. I have a new perspective on how reading and writing affect our lives. After all, we are all just paragraphs in one big long essay.

Writing Feedback / Multi-Language Clash Synthesis essay [6]

Having trouble writing this synthesis essay which I am supposed to analyze 2 essays and switch from each essay in each paragraph. Please give me as much feedback , Is my thesis clear enough? Does my topic sentences relate to my thesis?

Multi-Language Clash
Richard Rodriguez & Amy Tan

Richard Rodriguez and Amy Tan talk about their experiences with non-American backgrounds living in America. Both essays "Aria: Memoir of a bilingual Childhood" by Rodriguez, and "Mother Tongue" by Tan, are very similar in they both emphasize the importance of language and how it affected their lives. Both Rodriguez and Tan stress the importance of their family's language. Tan expresses two major issues; how language has impacted both her and her mother's lives and the different English's she uses toward her mother and others. Similarly, Rodriguez explains how language has affected him and his family's lives and the transition from Spanish to English.

Tan states in her essay that she loves language and its power. Tan and her mother both speak to each other differently than Tan would speak to someone else like, "It has become our language of intimacy, a different sort of English that relates to family talk, the language I grew up with" (Tan 418). Even though they both speak English to each other, it's not how other people talk to one another. Tan is so used to hearing her mother talk in a "Broken" (Tan 419) English, she doesn't seem to notice much of a difference between broken English and clear English. She grew up listening to her mother talk this way and is so used to it. This way Tan and her mother talk is their family talk, the special way they communicate. Rodriguez shares the same family language.

Rodriguez and his family, which are Mexican immigrants, have a special family language as well, Spanish, which is used primarily at home. Rodriguez thought of Spanish as more of a private language, "I'd hear strangers on the radio and in the Mexican Catholic church across town speaking Spanish, but I couldn't really believe that Spanish was a public language, like English" (Rodriguez 330). It seems as if Rodriguez was living in two different worlds. He would go inside and speak only Spanish, but when he left, he would speak mainly the little English he knew. Rodriguez loved his family's language and felt when he was addressed by a family member he would feel "specially recognized" (Rodriguez 330). Although family language is very important, both Tan and Rodriguez learn to cope with having to adjust to a clearly spoken English environment.

Tan talks about how many different English's she uses and writes about, "I began to write stories using all the different English's I grew up with" (Tan 423). Three is the number of English's, which is weird because most of us only know one English that is clear and understandable, Tan describes this as "Watered down", in where Tan translates from her mother to other people. Tan talked to her mother in "simple" English so her mother could understand her better. Her mother talked to Tan in"broken" English, which a lot of us wouldn't usually understand. All three English's helped Tan become a better writer. Just think about it, knowing one English is good, knowing three English's must be astounding. Tan knew English her whole life, however Rodriguez didn't.

Rodriguez grew up learning only Spanish, and for that, it affected relationships with others outside his family and his school work. "until I was seven years old, I did not know the names of the kids who lived across the street"(Rodriguez 328). It must have been hard to make friends when he was younger without knowing basic English. He states he listened to what people have to say and learned English this way. He could distinguish Spanish from English by the "high nasal notes"(Rodriguez 329) of English. He seemed to think of Spanish as more of a softer sound and something he enjoyed. The way he describes English speakers makes it sound that English is frustrating to hear and he can't stand it. Probably the greatest factor in Rodriguez learning English was the nuns that came to visit his house and influenced Rodriguez's family to use English only in the household. They came because they felt his lack of English affected his school work, and it did. Years later, English became his primary language and he lost his personal family language.

Both essays stress the importance language is and how both Tan's and Rodriguez's family language has affected the way they write and think. Tan and Rodriguez both have different views and backgrounds. Both of them write a lot like one another and could learn a lot from each other if they were to meet. I felt as if I was reading the same essay with different details. Tan and Rodriguez are also so very similar in that at the end of both of their essays, they really understand how their language affects their writing, loved ones, and most importantly, themselves.

Writing Feedback / A letter from Birmingham Jail- A Argument essay [4]

My job was to write a paper that applies to MLK's letter that reflects a current issue. Please give me as much feedback as possible.

Every immigrant man, women, or child has a story to tell, whether they travel alone or together, they have a reason to travel and start a new beginning. If a immigrant travels to America from a foreign country, they aren't always treated equally or fairly. Martin Luther King Jr. writes in his essay, "Letter from Birmingham Jail", about various topics regarding equality. Even though King writes about African-Americans and equal rights in America, he's writing about every person who is not welcomed in their country. He would have helped anyone in any country who was treated unfairly, "Had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers"(King 227). Immigrants face the same issue that King had to deal with during his time. There are five main issues that prevent immigrants from being accepted; equality, justice, oppression, freedom, and the advantages and disadvantages to allowing immigration.

Like King, immigrants coming to America want equal rights as all Americans do. That's the reason coming to America. There are other factors preventing them to become legal and have the same rights as Americans. Most of them come illegal which would cause them to apply for citizenship, this can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. Kin states in his letter "We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and god-given rights" (King 224). This is entirely true for all immigrants. According to Brad Knickerbocker, of The Christian Science Monitor, there are roughly seven to twenty million illegal immigrants who live in America, none of who have equal rights as a legal American. About 52% of Americans think of immigrants as a burden to America by taking jobs and housing, and only 41% think immigrants "strengthen the US with their hard work and talents". Who knows how many years it will take for immigrants to gain equal rights like Americans. For all we know it could take another 340 years. Unlike equality, justice is another issue affecting immigrants eligibility to be accepted into society.

Justice is a serious matter that should be taken with great concern. This is the way King thinks, "one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty"(King 226-227). Not only the immigration population or the negro population, but America as a whole. Anyone living within the country needs to understand that every action has a consequence. So if a white man commit's an act of burglary, he shall receive the same punishment as if a Hispanic or a African-American man commit's burglary. The law shouldn't bend for a person based on their skin color or ethnic background. Immigrants have done nothing but make a positive impact on America, "Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life"(John F. Kennedy). Justice alone can't ensure a immigrant to be accepted into society. Oppression affects many immigrants who have done nothing, only to receive an unjust punishment by a higher power.

Oppressed people are at the bottom of the priority list. Instead of charging forward they are forced to take a step back, and just let it happen. "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself"(King 230). What King means is that people being shoved down will eventually be empowered to get up and want to earn what they want. Oppression is a walk in the totally opposite direction as justice. That is why immigrants can't gain equality, because there is a little bit of justice and a whole lot of oppression. The oppressors are the ones who run this country, and the little amount of leaders that want justice, are overpowered. To overcome this issue of oppression is when one will finally gain their freedom.

America is built around freedom and having equal rights. This is why so many people immigrate to America, they want those freedoms, they need those freedoms. So many of us take advantage of the constitutional rights we have, and so many others strive to get them. "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves"(Abraham Lincoln). Although I do agree with this, I believe that everyone deserves freedom, even if they refuse to share it. Freedom should be handed out like greeting cards. Everyone in the world should have the pleasure of experiencing freedom first hand. Freedom is a gift, and it needs to be shared.

There are many positive effects immigration has on America. Immigrants are hardworking and intelligent beings. They bring a rich culture to America with a friendly smile. That is what America is built off, Thousands of immigrants from many countries bring their ideas to one table. Different cultures is what makes all Americans similar. Immigrants also meet the demand for low paying jobs which are needed to keep prices lower, sadly but true. Another influence is that immigrants boost minimum wages for the vast majority of native workers and contribute more tax dollars to the government. These positive effects are good, but immigrants also bring a negative impact to America.

Sadly to say, but there are much more negative impacts on America than positive ones. One of the biggest debated issues is drug trafficking. Many drugs come from other countries that will do more harm than good. Other issues regarding immigration is diseases and increased crime. Crime is a huge problem within the white, black, and brown populations. There is no way of completely ridding crime from America. Many people believe that immigration rises the crime level in America, based on most of the people immigrating from other countries come from war torn environments. Another huge issue is the unemployment rate greatly rises. If all the jobs are going to the immigrants, then more people will be without, so therefore it also damages the economic status. Immigration requires sacrificing some of these things so that many more can experience what we have. The positive changes definitely overwhelm the negative impacts.

King and the negro population faced the same problem that immigrants face today. Five main ones which are; equality, justice, oppression, freedom, and the advantages and disadvantages to allowing immigration. Since 1924, the United States government has limited the amount of immigrants allowed in America. The fact is America is healthier, spacious, and richer than it was a century ago. Immigration has done nothing but make America a better living environment and a diverse culture. I believe we owe it to immigrants who have brought their cultures and hard work to share with our countrymen. Open the borders, let immigrants enrich our country even more, give them the freedom they desire.

Writing Feedback / MySpace Not Responsible for Predators (an argumentave essay) [3]

Hello all, This is a argumentave essay. I am supposed to state the claim the author is trying to make and 4 diff supporting points. My teacher said to summarize it first then give my own ideas. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. I haven't written a essay in a couple months, so be easy. :V

MySpace Not Responsible for Predators

In the essay, "MySpace Not Responsible for Predators", Kevin Alexander talks about how a 14 year old girl and her mother filed a lawsuit against MySpace for allowing a 19 year old man, Pete Solis, to contact and rape the 14 year old girl. The family is accusing MySpace for its lack of privacy and protection and that the site focuses more on money. Alexander argues "MySpace is a business and one that has never advertised itself as an online baby-sitting service" (119). Alexander also says it's the mothers fault for not being a parent by advising her daughter of the dangers of the internet. Even the daughter is at fault here, Alexander argues, "The girl . . . should be held responsible, too" (120). Another point Alexander talks about is the waiver that the 14 year old girl signed before signing up the site. Alexander states, "This should be enough to get the suit thrown out" (120). Alexander claims that MySpace didn't make Pete Solis rape the girl nor did it make the 14 year old girl meet with him. He backs his claim with four very strong and direct points which are: MySpace is not there to babysit, the lack of being a good parent, common sense that the girl obviously didn't use, and the waiver you must sign before allowing access to the site.

I think Alexander's first point about MySpace not being a online babysitting service is the first thing someone should look at before signing up for the site. You need be responsible about putting personal information on a public website, and usually the site isn't there to control what you put up, or even do outside of the site. For example meeting someone you don't know or know anything about.

This could have been easily avoided with decent parenting. Alexander argues that "Any police officer will tell you that nearly all youth crimes happen because some moron forgot to be a parent"(119). This is very true, if the 14 year old girl's mom would have just known where the girl was going, this could have been easily avoided. The mom could have made the girl give the password to her account so she could read her daughters messages, or even just made her daughter delete the account. Also, by suing the website for her own mistake isn't providing a good example to her daughter about responsibility, it's pointing the finger at someone else. Not only is it the mothers fault, but the daughters fault.

Common sense is probably the best tool you can use to prevent almost any accidents or risk. The girl should have known what she was getting into; Alexander states "[a]t 14 years of age, she's capable of calculating risk and other higher brain functions" (120). At 14 years, you should know right from wrong. What was going through the girls mind is a mystery to me. She should have known that people can, and will, lie about their age. Alexander argues "She could've prevented from being a victim, but she was determined to ignore all the apparent risks, and she paid for it" (120). Yes, she paid for it, she ignored the risk factors, and now she wants revenge by suing a web site that makes you sign a waiver stating that "MySpace.com is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of the MySpace Services"(120).

The girl signed a waiver, which allows the user to be responsible if something was to go wrong. Then why is the girl suing the site? She probably doesn't want this to happen to anyone else, which is a good thing, but it wouldn't happen to anyone else if they just read the agreement and didn't ignore it. Then again, maybe MySpace doesn't stress the waiver enough; maybe the site should put in big, bold, and red letters stating to make sure to read this, no, read it 2 times. Yes, maybe this will reduce the number of cases dealing with stupid people who continue to ignore the warning signs.

The claim Alexander makes about how it's not MySpace's fault that the 14 year old girl got raped, isn't controversial, just that it can be avoided with a little bit of common sense. Another argument Alexander makes is "If someone does something stupid while on the internet, then that person can sue the Net" (120). This is of course if the case goes through and the girl and mother win the case. Yes, maybe this is how it will be. I can blame the internet for everything that is wrong with me and sue any site I choose for any stupid act I commit.

Writing Feedback / The Hijab: Friend or foe? (argumentative essay on 2 authors essays) [7]

Hi, I'm writing a argumentative essay on 2 authors essays. "My Body Is My Own Business" By Naheed Mustafa and "Why I Won't Veil" By Nadia Gaber. I'm supposed to alternate beetween texts and point out the claims of each. Then at the end give my own opinion of the essays.

Here's my essay, any feedback would be greatly appreciated (sp??)

Two very different points of views and claims differentiate Naheed Mustafa, author of "My Body Is My Own Business", And Nadia Gaber, and author of "Why I Won't Veil", about why women should or shouldn't wear a Hijab. A Hijab is a type of head covering or body covering that Muslim women traditionally wear for privacy. Mustafa argues for the Hijab, claiming, "I do this because I am a Muslim woman who believes her body is her own private concern". This is a policy claim. On the other side of the argument, Gaber claims that the Hijab is clearly not for her by arguing that she doesn't need to be pressured into covering up her body. This is also a policy claim. Both authors seem to use similar approaches to argue their point of view on why they wear or don't wear the Hijab. Which are: How the Hijab scrutinizes individuals and how the environment influences to wear the Hijab.

Mustafa argues that the Hijab is important to her because looks are not important and people shouldn't be judged by looks or gender, she states "[t]he only thing that makes one person better than another is her or his character". Mustafa thinks that people shouldn't have to care what someone looks like or how old he/she is or even what gender, but only inner beauty. She also feels like no one understands why she actually wears the Hijab. She accuses people of thinking of her as a terrorist or "the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere", which is completely untrue. However Gaber sees a different perspective on how the Hijab examines people.

Gaber feels the opposite on the issue and feels like wearing or not wearing the Hijab puts more pressure and attention on an individual depending on where you are in the world. For example, when she went to Egypt, people stared at her for not wearing the Hijab due to her being Muslim, and in the United States it is normal not to wear the Hijab and people stare at you for wearing it. Gaber says "I have never been more conscious about my appearance than I was in Egypt". This is due to her not wearing the Hijab, unlike her friends who were with her who were white and not expected to be covered by a Hijab. How the environment influences whether to wear or not to wear the Hijab is also an issue.

Mustafa doesn't feel like she is required to wear the Hijab, only that it is her own choice. The environment and the people have no say in whether she shouldn't wear it; they only have their own opinions. Mustafa looks past those opinions and focuses on her own beliefs and traditions. She asks herself "why would I . . . want to cover myself so that with the hijab and the other clothes I choose to wear, only my face and hands show? Because it gives me freedom". Nowhere does she state she cares about anyone else's input, only that she wears it for her own personal freedom. Gaber also agrees with this, but with a different view.

Gaber also feels like it's no one else's business what she wears. If she doesn't want to wear the Hijab, then she shouldn't have to. Gaber states, "The idea that any woman should have to limit her personal freedom in order to gain the ability to move through society unmolested is one that I will never fully understand". She ponders at why the Hijab wearing women have to wear this cloth that covers up them because someone else told them that it was required. Gaber and Mustafa aren't completely different after all.

Both Gaber and Mustafa argue their claims of wearing or not wearing the Hijab by arguing how the Hijab scrutinizes individuals and how the environment influences to wear the Hijab. Both have very different and similar points of argument. I think it just depends on the house or the environment you were raised in. If you feel like your body is your own business and no one else should be able to view it but yourself, then wear the Hijab. If you think that everyone is equal in their own way, and no one should have to cover up their face, then don't wear the Hijab. I also agree with both authors on their point about not caring what people think about them. It really is no one's business what you wear or don't wear.

Writing Feedback / Cool vs uncool - an argumentive definition essay [7]

This is a argumentive definition essay. We have to define something that has an argument. I chose Cool. I hard a heck of a time coming up with the conclusion.

Cool vs. Uncool

What defines cool or uncool? I could tell you that cool means not warm nor very cold, or that uncool means to be either warm or very cold, but I won't. I will tell you however that cool is the best way to describe itself. It's the best way to say something that swell without sounding uncool, which is the opposite of cool. Certain environments define cool differently than others. For example high school kids define cool as being the most rebellious as possible and uncool high school kids follow the rules and lack self confidence. When people think cool they think that guy wearing the leather jacket, flipping his hair and smiling. All the girls are obviously in love with him and all the guys want to be his best friend. When people think uncool they think that nerdy guy sitting in the corner studying linear algebra or complex analysis and actually understanding and excelling at it. There are many ways to define cool and how to be cool; there are also ways to be uncool.

Cool is never arguing with someone because you realize winning an argument is pointless. When you know you're right you just know it. You don't need to waste your time trying to persuade someone who has no knowledge base on the subject. Cool is not walking or running, it's gliding. While other people walk as slow as possible and others run as fast as the speed of light, you are cool, calm, and collected when seen in public. Cool is using your own language and not following the crowd. When others say "What up" or "cya", you use neither of these; you have your own expressions. Cool is never being scared. You look down at fear and laugh. You take fear head on. Cool is speaking and having people listen. Cool is speaking with such confidence that you never mumble and have to think of what you are about to say. Cool is being moderately late, so that you show up in time so that people notice how cool you are when walking in to class late. Cool people define cool themselves, they don't let people define it for them. Cool is knowing you are cool. What everyone else says is wrong. You realize they are speaking to you but don't actually listen. Cool is not knowing what "floccinaucinihilipilification" means. Cool is actually being so uncool, you are actually really cool, like Napoleon Dynamite. Cool is having a cool nickname, but no one really knows how you got it. Cool is wearing your hat any other way except the right way. These examples define cool, but what exactly is uncool?

Uncool is riding a hybrid bike to school wearing a helmet strapped as tight as it can be. Uncool is wearing glasses and pants that are pulled up to your belly button. Uncool is trying to be cool and fail and be an embarrassment in front of everyone else. Uncool is rushing down the hallway as soon as class gets out so you can be the first person to your next class. Uncool is having your mom pack your lunch for you with a note from her saying she loves you. Uncool is having all the buttons on your knock off polo buttoned to the top. Uncool is always carrying having the following with you: Pokémon cards, ACT prep books, SAT prep books, and 9 notebooks filled with unnecessary math equations. Uncool is saying things like "neat-o" or "rad". Uncool is lacking self-confidence and learning to accept it. Uncool is being so cool you are actually really uncool. Uncool is wearing your hat the right way, and only the right way. Uncool is driving a minivan to and from school and listening to Styx on the radio.

Both of these terms are used frequently in high schools today. Everyone is either cool or just plain uncool. There are many ways to be either. One could argue that uncool is actually cool and being cool is actually really uncool. It all depends on who you really are; whether it's what you look like, what you wear, who you hang out with, or your personality. Cool means different things to different people whether you live in today's society or one hundred years ago. So just remember to be yourself and don't worry what that cool or uncool person says about you. You are cool if you think you are cool, and if you think you are uncool, then well, you are uncool.

Research Papers / Illegal hiring "under the table" [2]

I have to write a persuasive paper on illegal hiring, and I'm supposed to persuade the audience why it is wrong. I have to look at both sides of the argument. And if anyone knows the ORIGINAIL author of the story Joe LEgal vs Jose Illegal, Please tell me.

Joe legal V Jose illegal

When someone says illegal immigration to you, you think illegal immigrants from a third world country that come into America seeking a better life from the one they had before. But are these illegal immigrants actually hurting or helping? Here is part of a statement found on freerepublic.com:

You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California . "Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted..."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

So what's so wrong with that? Both families have an income to be able to put food on the table. Some people would think it is helping the economy, because companies can hire workers for less pay so prices lower. But what about the legal American people who work and pay their taxes, like Joe legal. Perhaps it's really hurting the economy because not everyone is paying the required taxes. Companies need to follow the guidelines of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 which makes it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants. There are pros and cons relating to both arguments about if it's really helping or hurting the American economy, it is helping by putting more money into companies so they can hire more workers and lower their prices. It is also hurting America. By hiring these illegal immigrants, companies can pay them a much lower wage and the worker doesn't even have to pay taxes. Also, if illegal immigrants are being hired, legal citizens are not getting jobs and then unemployment rises. America should stop looking the other way and stop illegal hiring because it is hurting the economy.

So we have two different people, one who is a legal hardworking taxpaying American, Joe Legal, and the other who is illegal and equally hardworking, Jose Illegal. And let's say that two different construction companies of equal popularity hired one of each. According to Fredric H. Fischer of the employee relations law journal, "Employers should implement procedures for verifying and monitoring the employability of all employees and new hires." Now, not every company will follow this, they need to save money by hiring the cheapest labor, who is Jose Illegal. So the company who hired Jose Illegal doesn't have to record any time that he had worked and the company can pay him what they want to pay him. The other company who hired Joe legal has to record every hour he works and make sure that he pays the correct amount of taxes. According to IRCA, "employers must inspect and verify documentation which establishes both the identity and employment authorization of every new employee, regardless of circumstance." Companies who do not provide record of their employees can be fined up to ten thousand dollars. So the company who hired Jose Illegal would have to pay a hefty fine and it would be costing the company more money to keep the worker than to just hire a legal worker.

One of the biggest issues of the American economy today is that people are not spending enough money so that companies and corporations cannot make more money to hire more workers. It's really just a big circle. One way companies are beating this is to fill low paying jobs which only illegal workers can fill and even though they are being paid illegally and not paying income taxes they are still paying other taxes. Illegal immigrants are providing seven billion dollars annually to social security, according to a New York article in 2005, ". . . the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year. . . Moreover, the money paid by illegal immigrants and their employers is factored into all Social Security Administration's projections." Most illegal immigrants pay their fair share of sales taxes which contributes to social security, and almost none of them even use social security because they use false social security cards only as a way to work. So Jose Illegal pays for Joe Legal's social security, how is that fair at all? Jose Illegal will never even receive any social security benefits, but he still must help pay for social security if he wants the things he needs.

Another big issue of the American economy is that unemployment keeps rising. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, "The largest statistically significant job losses occurred in California (-579,400), Texas (-276,000)." This is over the past year. Why is that? It's because California and Texas have the largest amount of illegal immigrants out of all the states, according to the US citizenship and immigration services. But how does illegal immigration affect the United State unemployment rate? If no one is spending money due to the economy then companies are not making as much money so they need to hire the cheapest labor they can, so they hire illegal immigrants and if illegal immigrants are the only ones being hired, then legal Americans aren't being hired. If Americans aren't working then the government isn't receiving as much income taxes.

Hiring Joe Legal rather than Jose Illegal is much better for the American economy because America needs to not depend on breaking the law to fund social security. If we hire legal American workers than we can get much more money flowing in the economy by the unemployment dropping and Americans spending more money. It would be great if the immigrants coming to this country illegally would get the proper and legal documentation to work here. Even though hiring illegal immigrants is beneficial to the economy, it is not the way we should be solving the economic meltdown, plus it isn't helping the illegal immigrants either. They are paying for our social security and they get none of the benefits when they retire. Open your eyes America, help the legal Americans and the illegal immigrants by supporting legal hiring, not illegal hiring.