Author: Ella Hogan

In chapter nine of Victor Davis Hanson’s The Case for Trump, the crudeness and public opinion of President Trump is discussed. Many people, including those that voted for him and those that didn’t, have expressed concern for his character which sparks debate on how this will and has affected his role as president. Hanson explains three ways in which the progressives supported their beliefs that Trump as a person marked a low in “American political and presidential history” (258). One way is that the media is not at fault for his bad press, it is President Trump’s own fault because of the way that he presents himself. The next is that Trump has been the most ethically questionable president, acknowledging the fact that there have been other immoral presidents. The final explanation is that his massively negative personality traits cancel out his ability to properly complete his agenda.

Hanson goes on to describe the ways in which many past presidents have performed unethical actions with the help of the White House staff and the compliance of the media to not release information on said actions. These include issues of adultery, sexual assault, and hidden illnesses, which Hanson argues none of which are true of President Trump. The way in which the media works today makes it much more difficult for such types of secrets to be kept hidden from the public, and insider sources still expose unwanted truths through various media such as exposé books. Although, Hanson argues that the legitimacy of these books is questionable due to the sources being kept anonymous, making it possible for this information not to be true. 

In Chapter 10 of Samuel Huntington’s Who Are We? the topic of America as a nation with no enemy is discussed. After the Cold War, as Huntington describes, America was left with no enemy with the destruction of the Soviet Union which caused some problems. Historically, many nations have suffered after the destruction of their major enemies due to the lack of motivation and heat that the rivalry provided for the citizens. This makes sense because competition encourages growth and novel ideas and innovations, so with no competitor a country is left with no reason to strive to create something new. Huntington gave examples such as the Roman Republic which collapsed to Caesarism after defeating its final enemy, Mithradates. Of course, the country left with no enemy is not the only one that suffers in such a situation. When the Soviet Union was defeated it was left with no true, uniting identity, causing the dispersion of all the individual states.

One of the main reasons that these conflicts were in place originally was the fundamental ideological differences between each country. On page 261 Huntington quotes David Kennedy saying, “Whether the enemy was German ‘Kaiserism’ in World War I, Japanese regimentation in World War II, or Russian collectivist communism in the Cold War, a central component of the American definition of the adversary had to do with the enemy’s embodiment of anti-individualist values.” This statement embodies the many ways in which large American conflicts were centered around idealisms.

In the final chapter of “We Wanted Workers”, George Borjas essentially summarizes what he believes to be the most important takeaways from his book. Borjas explains that there are three main themes in the book, the first of which being that immigrants are classified as either being merely labor inputs or as actually being people. The classification of labor inputs is wrong, according to Borjas, which I do agree with. The second theme is that although much research has been done on the economics of immigration, there is no real way of predicting the future of the economic patterns of immigration considering the people who immigrate are exactly that: people, and people involve many factors that can affect their “immigrant experience” (193). The third and final theme that he discusses is the importance and difficulties of skepticism when it comes to expert opinions on immigration. Because it is such a politicized topic, formulating individual ideas is important; however, since it is such a complex issue with many hidden factors, it is hard for those who are not experts on the subject to fully understand what is going on.

Borjas has an enriched background in the study of immigration and policy, which makes him a viable candidate for writing about this subject in depth. He explains a few topics that he believes will be helpful when predicting how immigration policy will be established in the future. An important one mentioned in this chapter is about assimilation, which had an entire chapter in the book. Borjas admits that “assimilation is not inevitable” (195) due to many factors including the skill level and population size of a specific group of immigrants.

Overall, Borjas stresses that other than in a utopian world, no policy change will be able to benefit everyone. This dilemma is what prompts him to ask the question “who are you rooting for?” (200) Because there is no way to benefit everyone, people have to make the tough decision of deciding which group to help most when creating immigration policy.

Chapter 9 of Samuel Huntington’s “Who Are We?” discusses the unique nature of Mexican Immigration in the United States. Considering the fact that the close proximity of the United States and Mexico is the only circumstance worldwide in which a developed nation boarders a developing nation provides reason to look into the specifics of this unique relationship. In recent years, Hispanics have become the overwhelming majority of immigration into the United States, both legally and illegally, with the majority of that group itself being of Mexican origin. This comes as no surprise because of the lack of the need to cross an ocean in order to immigrate, as well as the fact that Mexico (and other Latin American counties) is facing a much harder economic struggle compared to the U.S.

The assimilation of Hispanics in America is different compared to other nations, especially for Mexicans, in some ways because of the history between American southern territories like Texas that once belonged to Mexico. However, in other ways they follow similar patterns to other cultures like in the example of language. A typical pattern of language assimilation includes the first generation of immigrants to continue speaking their own language and not learning the language of their new country. This is followed by the second generation often being fluent in both language, and finally the third generation and beyond only speaks the language of the new country.

There are many other factors that go into the immigration and assimilation of Hispanic groups like education and occupations. The special situation of Hispanic immigration in the United States has sparked debate and conflict since the rise of it in 1965, and it is unsure as to whether it will go down, even if the economic situation in Mexico and other Hispanic countries improves.