Category: Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship refers to the law that resulted from the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution that took place around 148 years ago. This declares all the children who are born on US soil as legal US citizens. This right is often referred as jus soli, meaning the right of soil. According to the Fourteenth amendment to US constitution and Immigration and national act “citizenship is automatically granted to the baby born within and subject to its jurisdiction of the United States.” Nowadays this amendment has been challenged by many American politicians and the public. Opinions are divided on this right granted to the babies. Opposition to this matter of citizenship is against the basic human right that has been part of ancient legal tradition due to many reasons.

Jus Soli has roots back to the time of Roman Empire and has been part of the Roman law. This law has been the basis of civil law system of the European continent. This law is implemented in its original form or new modified form in numerous countries, where citizenship is granted on the basis of birthplace but also on the base of citizenship of parents. This means that a child becomes a legal citizen automatically if one or both parents are citizens of that country. US law along with some other countries grant this right to all children who are born on the US soil, waters and aerial territory. It is also given to the immigrants who are ‘naturalized’(Lind).

This amendment has become a hot topic in US media after President Donald Trump communicated his dislike and strong concerns about this law. He claims that this law is threatening and the reason for problems of America and its citizens. He is known for his controversial personality, speeches, and remarks. A huge percentage of Americans more or less have xenophobia against the immigrants, and this population became the voters of Donald Trump’s election campaign. Donald Trump is again giving rise to xenophobia among this population and is using it as tactic and strategy to win next elections. Majority social analysts consider his desire to change this law; just a political motive to win next elections. But the truth is birthright citizenship is the law that ensures security and human right protection, but at the same time, it has put America in a complicated position regarding immigration. This law needs enhancements but not abandonment.

America is known as the land of immigrants. Today’s America has been colossally shaped by the culture, values, and lessons that immigrants brought to this land. All parts of US have been altered and improved by these citizens who belong to various roots and backgrounds, who have contributed to nation-building and its lawmaking process. America is great because of its acceptability and versatility. Immigrants come to America to become part of a great nation. Many of immigrants come to America to seek security for their future generations in terms of economy, law and culture as per jus soli; right of the soil(“OPINION”). Trumps has declared this right against American interest, as many of the citizens from different nations come here just to give birth and become citizens. Many of these immigrants are the ones who cross-border illegally (Mutz, 2018). This statement of his has many supporters who are now trying to redefine “jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction is a term that refers authority of the law. Opposition to birthright citizenship claim that immigrants who pass borders illegally or stay here after their visa expires have acted in defiance of US law and government, therefore, they are not included in birthright citizenship. And the US still has the power to act against unauthorized immigrants. And such immigrants should be deported from the US. This argument seems valid, but there is a limiting factor involved in this argument, that immigrants still pay taxes that means they still come under jurisdiction. Congress is split on the meaning of jurisdiction that has added complexity to the issue. Illegal immigrants have started the competition for jobs among the public. Illegal immigrants accept less salary and work without other benefits of insurance and bonuses. This makes many employers prefer hiring these; as it causes them less money. Also, these immigrants often are not involved in illegal business and robberies. This put nation under serious threat. Giving them citizenship seems invalid. But again, abandoning this birthright is not the solution, as it will cause problems in the future.

There is no proof for birth tourism unlike suggested by the opposition. Also ending birthright citizenship will increase the number of illegal immigrants, as children of illegal immigrants will add to the more illegal population; also, these children are not involved in this unlawful act. Complete abandonment of these children raises the question what happens if one parent is legal and other is not, then how new policy will tackle this issue. “The 14th Amendment has upheld the promise that the United States would never again become a two-tiered society, comprised of U.S. citizens on the one hand and a hereditary underclass of “illegal” persons who have broken no laws on the other” (“Birthright Citizenship Is Essential to Our Ideal of Equality before the Law”). As abandoning citizenship of American citizen will again be against rights. This act will put citizenship of many Americans in doubt as it will require many of them to prove their citizenship. This act will give birth to new two-tier society; where one class will always remain as underclass citizens. This act will give rise to crimes and influence order situation in the country (“Birthright Citizenship Is Essential to Our Ideal of Equality before the Law”).

In short birthright citizenship is the fundamental ethical right that should not be abandoned. This is a powerful weapon against racism and inequality. Using illegal immigration to justify the abandonment is profoundly incorrect, as it won’t reduce illegal immigration, crime rate neither it will influence countries economy. It requires new policies and modifications in already existing laws. Changes in immigration policy and an increase in the security of borders are the only solutions to these problems. “The U.S. can make improvements at its borders to stop additional illegal immigration”(Inserra). And politicians should not use their xenophobic mentality to influence public opinion to reach political goals. Ones who are born on American soil are American babies, and they should not be deported and kept away from their families (Anderson).

Works Cited

1. Anderson, Dave. “Top 10 Reasons School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory.” ListLand.Com, 30 Sept. 2014, https://www.listland.com/top-10-reasons-school-uniforms-mandatory/.
2. “Birthright Citizenship Is Essential to Our Ideal of Equality before the Law.” America Magazine, 6 Aug. 2018, https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/08/06/birthright-citizenship-essential-our-ideal-equality-law.
3. Lind, Dara. “Birthright Citizenship, Explained.” Vox, 23 July 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17595754/birthright-citizenship-trump-14th-amendment-executive-order.
4. Mutz, D. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. [online] pnas.org. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2018].
5. “OPINION: Birthright Citizenship Is Important for the United States.” The Daily Wildcat, http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2018/11/o-birthright-citizenship. Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.

Introduction to Democracy’s Evolution

Democracy is a political idea of which there is great significance in many societies today for which we can thank fifth-century Athens. Democracy was created and molded throughout the years by Greeks who had great societal and political influence. In antiquity, the common form of government was an aristocratic and tyrannical form of government in which the upper classes of society dominated in a top to bottom framework. The economic and social divisions existed in Athens as a rich, middling, and poor classes in which people were categorized by wealth and power was distributed as such. These classes were also decided and established based on bloodlines and nobility. It was determined before birth what class one would belong to based on inheritance. As we shifted closer to the fifth-century, ideas of democracy were becoming very prominent as people sought after sovereignty. Democratic values were entrenched into society and protected by the government. These democratic ideas, that were raised and evolved from the fifth-century to now, dominate Canada’s political and social structure today. Although we use the term ‘democracy’ when comparing these two different points in time, we must acknowledge that, the word ‘democracy’ has differences and has evolved from antiquity to modernity. When researching these two points in the life of democracy, of which are vastly separated by time, it is interesting comparing and contrasting the two societies based on democratic values, and the role citizens had within these democratic societies.

The Structure and Function of Athenian Government

Beginning with the examination of citizens roles within Athens’ democracy, it is evident that there are major differences between modernity and antiquity. Fifth-century Athenian democratic society was built upon the idea that “it’s working is in the hands not of the few but of the many.” Athenian men were the only ones granted rights and privileges within democratic society. Women and slaves were denied access to political and democratic involvement. The structure of Athenian government was based around the border reforms by Cleisthenes; where the territory of Athens was split into three districts. The three districts were the city zone, the coast zone and, the interior zone. These three zones were known as ‘Thirds’ and were deemed too large to take over all the councils within that territory. Thus, due to the requirement of a smaller body of government, Cleisthenes came up with the solution of the “demes” which was an invention that would prove to be successful as it lasted throughout the course of Athenian history. Demes were a new governmental unit of local governance. There was a new division of around a hundred demes into about ten divisions, but according to Alfred Zimmern, we do not know the exact number. Demes were highly enforced in Athens, an individual’s membership to a deme was decided for them by birth. Only at the age of eighteen in Athenian society could a man become an Athenian citizen. Prior to eighteen, or if you were a woman or slave, an individual did not have the rights or privileges of citizenship in Athens. Once of age, a man would then be registered onto the roll of citizenship for his deme. Once recorded a man had all the rights afforded to Athenian men such as, the ability to have a seat on the General Assembly as well as military participation. Deme citizenship was only afforded citizens participation in public affairs of their own deme; outside of their deme they were not allowed to participate and were treated as outsiders. Within the demes, their governance included, annual examination as well as the election of new officials and priests, managing the lands within their deme, sacred affairs, honouring local patrons, and perhaps most importantly, the category of local justice and juries that handled only the affairs of their deme. Supplying the central state of Athens with workers was an important aspect of the deme to state relationship.

Citizen Involvement and the Essence of Athenian Democracy

Democracy simply does not work and is useless without the large amounts of citizens involving themselves within the offices of the government. A government for the people does not benefit the interests of the people without their involvement and entrenching their rights within their government. The role of an Athenian, within the government in the fifth-century, differs highly from a citizen of modern Canada. Athenians had councils of representatives in which were employed by the citizens Athens. The council consisted of five hundred men in total, fifty representatives from each division, and then selected by lot to their positions of power and governance. These men served for a one-year term; after their year was up they did the same process to cycle citizens in and out of a governmental position. The citizens role as lawmakers was a lottery like process, but, more important roles such as the entire nations finances or military officials were selected by an election. From democracy’s early foundations it was evident that the people wanted to preserve these ideas. In an oath of resistance, that was written and recited by the citizens, they were very patriotic in preserving democracy and the notions of dying to protect democracy, as well as killing those trying to get rid of democracy. “I will kill with word, deed, vote and my own hand, if at all able, whoever dissolves democracy at Athens. And if someone undertakes an office when the democracy has been dissolved in the future, and if someone should rise to establish a tyranny or conspire to establish a tyrant. And if someone else kills him, I will consider him sinless before the gods and divine powers, as killing an enemy of the Athenians, and having sold his property, I will give half to his killer and will keep nothing back. If any should die in the act of killing a tyrant or in the attempt, I will honour him and his children…” This oath does not only show the citizens devotion to democracy and democratic values; the oath illustrates that the people have a role in protecting and preserving democratic rights. Citizens were willing to fight and die for later generations to have these democratic rights, in turn, these later generations should be willing to fight and die to preserve them. This oath also displays that Athenians swear to intervene if tyranny tries to resurface politically and are ready to protect democracy at all times.

Modern Canadian Democracy: A Comparative Perspective

Democracy in modernity is a governmental structure that represents the voice of the citizens in a given nation. In Canada, the right to vote is given to everyone that is over the age of eighteen that has Canadian citizenship. In modern Canada, citizens are protected by The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, listed under the Democratic Rights section, article 3 of the charter states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. In Canada all citizens of legal age are allowed to participate in voting. However, Canada’s voting system is a little bit different because we have separate elections for different governing bodies. Citizens can participate in three elections in which an opportunity is presented to have their voice heard and select a political party based on their self-interests. The three elections are: federal, provincial or territorial, and municipal. These three types represent different levels of governance and the responsibilities they hold within Canada. First, and most powerful, the federal government has the most power because it is responsible for the entire nation. Second, and the next most powerful, is the provincial and territorial government which only is responsible for governing one province or territory. Lastly, and the least powerful of the three, is the municipal government; this section of governance only is responsible for a specific city or town. Based on the Government of Canada website, there are a total of 338 ridings in Canada. Each riding has their own Member of Parliament (MP) and citizens vote by selecting a Member of Parliament by selecting one candidate on the voter’s ballot. In Canadian elections, an individual does not vote for a political party, one votes for a candidate; voters also do not directly elect the Prime Minister. The system in which decides who wins the election or has the governmental power is called “First-Past-the-Post” which is when the candidate who gets the most votes in their riding represents their party in the House of Commons as 1 seat out of the total 338 seats. If a political party has more than half the seats, 169+1, than that government has formed what is known as a ‘majority government’.

Democracy in modern Canada is an integral part of our government much as it is integral to Athenian democracy. Where fifth-century Athenian democracy and modern Canadian democracy differ largely, is the level of citizen participation in government when it relates to governance, political participation and equality. In modern Canada the government is structured in such a way that citizens participate and elect candidates that hold the responsibility of representing the citizens to make decisions on their behalf. Athenian democracy has much larger amounts of citizen participation because effectively the citizens are the government and are expected to serve when called upon. Although it was only males in Athenian democracy who could participate, citizen participation was not viewed as optional. Participation in government was an expected duty by all Athenian citizens. According to Statistics Canada, in the 2015 federal election, 77% of eligible Canadian voters exercised their right to vote. Of the 23% of non-voting citizens the two reasons for not voting was: not having an interest in politics and being too busy to vote. In, The Greek Commonwealth, Alfred Zimmern describes the annual examinations and elections as, “the most exciting time of the Athenians year” was when the citizens got to participate once again and play a role in the state law and policy decisions and discussions. Athenian citizens not only were expected to be involved in the political action of their government, but everyone embraced democracy and the freedom of opinions gifted through this new style of governmental structure.

Concluding Reflections on Democratic Participation

Over the long lifespan of the term ‘democracy’ citizens continue to use their democratic voices and political power. The structure of government has evolved over time since the fifth-century, as has the term and application of ‘democracy’; but, the importance of democratic freedom as well as the basis to which democratic ideas were based off of still resonate throughout history. Societies have been fighting to preserve or strengthen democracy since antiquity. “What is important is that [the Athenians] all participate collectively as a single body made up of citizens who are exactly equal.” What is interesting about this quote is that by simply exchanging ‘Canadians’ into the brackets, one can view that democracy is still built along the same values and frameworks that the Athenians founded it upon, it is being applied in different societal and governmental structures, yet, the freedom and impact that citizens have on the government continues through modernity.

A very great key for building up an environment free from war. An important thing that destroys anything war-related. A great factor that helps in building up a society free from conflict. It improves, promotes and helps in the growth of a place. It is peace.

Peace, according to Oxford English Dictionary can be simply defined as the freedom from war or disturbance. It also means the freedom from hostile aggression. Albert Einstein said, that peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding.

It is everyone’s right as a citizen of a country to experience peace. This is a right that is constitutionally allowed and like the other human rights, the government must make sure it is enjoyed by every citizen. It has great importance on both the well-being of the people and the country itself.

The right to peace determines if all other rights will be enjoyed by the citizens. Peace is the climate of freedom. People living in a non-peaceful society can’t enjoy the freedom of movement, speech and even the right to life. They might get killed at any time thereby breaching the right to life.

However, the health status of a person can be determined from how peaceful the environment he/she lives is. A person living in a place where there is war can have hypertension or even mental illness. Fear will definitely find a place in the heart of the person. Both the northern and southern parts of this country, Nigeria, have not being experiencing peace. The northern part has turned to the abode of the Boko Haram insurgency. Though, some measures have been taken by the government, but it was after a lot of havoc has been caused. The herdsmen are also saying ‘No’ to peace by disturbing the farmers in the southern part, thereby bringing about death and illness to some of the farmers.

Similarly, the level of migration of people and even companies into the country or out of the country can only be determined by how peaceful the country is. A country that hasn’t experienced war in more than five years will be the settlement of a lot of people and the country will develop. Countries like Iraq, Syria and a lot of other countries that are not very peaceful are decreasing in population.

Moreover, some factors are reasons why citizens are been deprived of their right to peace. Military government doesn’t give chance for peace at all. Military leaders punish the citizens without doing anything. They make sure there is fear in the heart of the citizens. They kill the citizens sometimes if they fail to obey their bad rules.

Similarly, corruption among the political leaders has brought about the citizens been deprived of their right to peace. A lot of citizens fear every time an election is to be conducted. A free and fair election has become war. Kidnapping and killing of people during election and even after has turned to a routine for the bloody politicians thereby depriving the citizens of their rights.

Nevertheless, if the right to peace of the people is to be properly enjoyed, there should be peaceful co-existence between everybody in the society. Everybody should love his/her neighbor as his/herself. If this is done by all the people, peace will definitely reign. The rest is up to the government to execute. Anybody caught disrupting the peaceful environment should be properly dealt with, military government should not be allowed and corruption among the political leaders should be eradicated completely. It’s my right, it’s your right, we want peace.

This paper will explain the power that companies and the government has over the citizenry of the United States within the influence(s) and confines of the cyber world, and how our introduced bill will stop, punish, and dismantle the easy ability that corporations and the government have in violating privacy for monetary and political gain(s). With the rise of the Internet, Companies and the government have committed numerous privacy invasions. This paper will explain the negative Informational Scandals, intrusive marketing tactics, and online espionage that have happened to American Citizens and create a bill surrounding the above grievances to create a more private and secure world for said citizens.

The basis of our bill is to create a more private and protected world for people here in the United States. In the twenty-first century with the rise of the Internet, however, we’ve seen an exponential rise of privacy invasions. Internet Scandals, intrusive marketing tactics, and online espionage have all become mainstays in the world due to the globalization of the internet. All of which confirms why we need a national privacy law. This paper will explain what our privacy bill will look like, why it’s necessary, and the changes the United States is likely to see under its protections.

The Constitution of the United States contains no expressed right to privacy. –although within the Bill of rights there’s an argued assumed right to privacy — In the age of the internet there exists no national protections against harms that befell individual consumers through their experiences in using the internet. This bill seeks the garnering of expanded and expressed rights of privacy for all U.S. citizens in regards to internet usage. Its necessary adoption will serve to greater protect people from companies and the government harmfully using the internet against citizens for monetary or political gain.

For example, in 2018 it was revealed through a whistleblower that Facebook had subcontracted British Firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest users’ data without their consent. The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, as it’s now known revealed that Cambridge Analytica used the data for political advertising purposes.

“The saga is significant because of the way the harvested data might have been used. It was allegedly utilized to direct messages for political campaigns supported by Cambridge Analytica, most notably Trump’s election victory and the Brexit vote… 50 million Facebook profiles were mined for data … which allowed the firm to build a software solution to help influence choices in elections” (Meredith)

This, of course, is bad because it undermines the free thought and free election process. One company (Facebook) harmfully utilized data from its customers to peddle ads that were specifically targeted to create negative discourse and discernment around the 2016 elections in the United States and the Brexit referendum to leave the European Union. The controversial outcomes of both have been lambasted by the media and the citizenry of both the U.S. and the U.K.

Our bill will put sanctions on companies in the form of fines to prevent their harmful usage of customer information. There will be additional fines if the data is proven to of been sold/processed by a second party (i.e. a subsidiary company or group) as that is the transfer of sensitive and personal user information from one company to another without the individual’s consent. Facebook and other companies caught harmfully utilizing data will be liable to class action and federal lawsuits.

Furthermore, there are other harmful invasions of privacy and security on the internet perpetrated by companies on consumers. Intrusive marketing, as its name suggests, is invasive and disregards privacy. Whether it be through personalized advertising created from a user’s search history, telemarketing calls from companies people have ordered from, or email campaigns that clog people’s virtual mailboxes with catered/influential spam, all are forms of intrusive marketing and violate personal privacy.

“Consumer resistance is a term that describes the lengths to which some people go to shield themselves from advertising they deem intrusive. consumers might record television programs so they can skip commercials, or they might provide secondary email addresses so they can limit the amount of spam they receive at their primary email address” (Mack)

If consumers are so upset enough with companies’ actions, that they warrant resistance. Then it is clear that the companies are in the wrong. Our bill will make companies mandatorily ask consumers for permission to create ads for them If a company creates a new email campaign they must ask permission/create an opt-in policy for consumers to receive electronic information. They must also allow an easy opt-out option if the consumer decides later that they are no longer interested. Companies must also maintain consumers’ personal information with sensitivity.

This bill also makes companies liable to lawsuits should they not allow for the proposed above changes. [asking the consumer for permission to advertise with ads catered specifically to them, easy opt-in policies, easy opt-out policies, and maintain consumers sensitive information]

Currently, our bill will protect user’s securities and give all of them the freedom to make their own choices in terms of product consumption. However, there exist other threats that are bill will tackle, most importantly the issue(s) of data mining. Specifically unethical data mining.

“Data mining, or knowledge discovery from data (KDD), is the process of uncovering trends, common themes or patterns in “big data” … Data mining is primarily used by industries that cater to the consumer, like retail, financial, and marketing companies.” (Glen) All of this seems fine and ethical, using mathematics to gauge a market and then utilizing the results to better cater to a consumer base. Data mining becomes an ethical issue when the mined data is re-used for purposes other than what was originally intended. Users by shopping gave consent to learn what they were shopping for by making purchases [they had a choice to shop or not to shop]. The data of what has been purchased is fair game for companies to collect.

For instance, if a mother buys children’s Advil for her child than that data can be used by a store to analyze for trends. Stores can make observations such as what time of year that purchase was made and can see that there might be a trend in colds or allergies (colds in the fall and winter. Allergy flare-ups in the spring) and can be sure to stock extra medication in advance to make sure the supply is there for the foreseen demand. There is no ethical fault in this, the problem arises when the data from the store is then sold for reuse.

A prime example of this is Insurance companies. They’re known to collect data from many different sources. They then calculate risk and follow up by calculating premiums based on that risk. The more data they have the better they can price the risk and the more they can manage their profits. They should not be allowed to raise prices based on known seasonal sickness levels of American children. Within this example the stores’ actions in stocking medication in advance were smart, however, the secondary selling of the information for further analysis to insurance companies violates the public’s privacy as they have no informed consent. Our bill will allow for ethical data mining for the betterment of society, however, it will impose fines for the redistribution of data without first making it known to consumers that that is what they’re collecting data for. There will be additional fines based on the severity of privacy infringements and the amount of data repurposed.

Finally, and perhaps the most important reasoning behind a need for a privacy bill is to protect citizens from governmental invasions into their personal lives. The United States does have an assumed right to privacy given in the Bill of rights. The First Amendment gives one the privacy of belief, the third amendment gives one the right to a private home — through its barring of soldiers from using a home without the owner’s consent–. The fourth amendment gives one privacy against unreasonable searches, and the fifth Amendment gives one the right against self-incrimination and provides [some] privacy of personal information. All of these rights are incredibly important however they’ve protected little to no one’s privacy in the internet age.

The United States government has even worked around these rights. Stemming from congress’s attempts to secure America following 9/11 they passed the Patriot Act (2001).

“The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools” (ODNI) while well-intentioned, the Patriot Act has kept Americans inconclusively safe with its passage, controversially at the cost of freedom. It has been criticized for its allowing for the indefinite detention of foreign immigrants (particularly in and around the southern border). The expansion of law enforcement and permission is given to police to search homes and businesses without a warrant or the owner’s knowledge or consent. The Patriot Act has also expanded the use of National Security Letters, which allows for the FBI to search email, telephone, and financial records without restriction.

Edward Snowden, an NSA analyst discovered in 2013 that the government had issued surveillance programs on its citizens, and a mass warrantless collection of data showing the intimate details of people’s lives and the private communications between millions of Americans.

The Patriot Act is an egregious example of what has destroyed portions of the rights guarantees within the U.S. constitution. For these reasons of federal online espionage [spying] against the citizens of the United States this bill will repeal all aspects of the Patriot Act and by its order ask for the destruction of all data obtained in the previous twenty years through it. Retroactively annulling it and its privacy violations against Americans.

Finally, our bill Seeks to protect privacy within the same vein as other privacy granting acts. HIPPA and FERPA are federal laws already in place to protect Patients’ and Students’ rights to privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Mandates standards for sensitive health care information and Requires the protection and confidentiality in handling said information. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that affords parents the right to access children’s education records, the right to seek to have the records amended, and the right to have control over the disclosure of personal information from the records. When a student turns 18 years old, the rights transfer from the parents to the student. HIPPA and FERPA exist to protect one’s health and educational privacy, our bill will protect all other privacies in regards to combating companies and the government from exploiting our usage of the internet.

This bill will expand the expressed rights of privacy for all U.S. citizens in regards to internet usage. Its necessary adoption will serve to greater protect people from companies and the government using the internet against citizens for monetary or political gain.

Our bill will put sanctions on companies in the form of fines to prevent their harmful usage of customer information. The severity of such fines is determinable by the extent of which privacies have been violated and how many consumers have been exploited. Companies caught harmfully utilizing data for gain(s) will also be liable to class action and federal lawsuits.

This Bill will also dismantle the Patriot Act, its annulment will restore the loopholes it created, ensuring individuals’ liberties and securities from the governments prying eyes.

1. Glen, S. (2019, June 3). Data Mining: Simple Definition, Uses & Techniques. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/data-mining/.
2. Mack, Stan. (n.d.). What Is Intrusive Marketing? Small Business – Chron.com. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/intrusive-marketing-21481.html
3. Meredith, S. (2018, March 23). Here’s everything you need to know about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/facebook-cambridge-analytica-scandal-everything-you-need-to-know.html.
4. USA PATRIOT ACT. ODNI Home. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2019, from https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we-are/organizations/ise/ise-archive/ise-additional-resources/2116-usa-patriot-act.

Introduction

Traditionally, France has always shown a controversial relationship with its minorities. Although the French revolution was based on the three principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the constitution of France interprets the meaning of equality as an exclusion of minority rights (Gilbert, J. & Keane, D. Equality versus fraternity, (2016). Didier Fassin, a French anthropologist and sociologist, conducted a thorough survey of the suburban areas or banlieus of Paris in his 2013 book ‘Enforcing Order’. Throughout Fassin’s findings he details how the Frence police prioritize enforcing an unequal social order rather than enforcing the law. This essay will examine the study of Fassin in context with the relation between violence and citizenship in France.

Need for the Study

In 2005, a group of ten teenagers in the Parisian suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois were intercepted by the police. It was a common practice by the police to take youth from suburban areas for interrogation and routine identity check (p. 17). The youth in such areas mostly belong to Parisian ethnic and religious minorities. To avoid the interrogation, the teenagers fled the scene only to be chased by the police. Out of the teenagers who fled the scene, three sought asylum in an electricity substation where unfortunately, they were electrocuted. Two of them died on the spot while the third sustained serious injuries. This sparked a nation-wide riot in the banlieus of urban areas and led to multiple clashes between the police and the rioters. Fassin conducted a study in these areas and found out the ground realities and the reasons behind the violence (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

What Fassin Saw

As depicted by Fassin, these teenagers fled to escape the police because the interrogations involved two-way harassment for them. On one hand was the embarrassment that they had to face during the check as they were subjected to shameful frisking that often turned violent. Fassin calls frisking by the French police a humiliating routine which comprises of placing one’s hands on the police car, emptying all pockets and having one’s body searched while keeping the legs apart. There are also an ample number of cases wherein frisking has gone violent and the police has indulged in slapping and shoving of the youth. Fassin terms this insensitive approach taken by the police as ‘moral violence’ and requests the readers to look at it from the point of view of those people who are being subjected to it. The dignity of the individual is at stake and since the ritual is almost always performed in public, it is followed by comments from the onlookers who comprise of local residents (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

The other part of harassment is that the youth do not find sufficient support at home. Friends of the boys who were electrocuted at the unfortunate event have complained that in spite of being innocent, their parents question them that why were they caught by the police if they didn’t do anything (p. 17). This lack of trust makes them turn hostile to such interrogations and they try their best to avoid being held up by the police. Thus, the teenagers are caught between dual torture of family and society and develop resistance to the social set-up (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

The Concept of Citizenship in France

Ever since the French revolution took place, the world has looked at France as the torch-bearer of equality among the masses. The general perception is that France is clean of all forms of racial discrimination. However, this myth was shattered after the riots of 2005. The world witnessed the story of the underprivileged as they raised arms against the very institution that was supposed to protect them, thereby raising questions about the concept of citizenship in France (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

In a study conducted by William Safran, the democratic structure of France has shown clear deviations from the Jacobian model of the Renaissance era. Safran has identified several reasons for this including departure from democratic patterns, development of supranationalism, claims made by infranational communities and mass immigration from Africa and other continents (Safran, W. State, Nation, National Identity and Citizenship, (1991). The 2005 riots and its aftermath have shown that France practices ethnic democracy to some extent, though covertly. The police and other law enforcement forces have repeatedly practiced dual behavior while dealing with minorities not to mention the reaction of Sarkozy to the riots that outraged most right-wing politicians at the time. Fassin’s study of the ethnography of the urban suburbs shows that citizen rights are denied to the underprivileged and they live in constant sense of distrust and insecurity (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Fassin spent 15 months observing the behavior of the police, especially the anti-crime squads. He observed that instead of providing security and assurance, these squads were responsible for creating a marginalized society in which the low-income households were required to bow down to the aggressive tactics of the police. The police officers mostly originated from rural backgrounds and had little to no knowledge about the urban realities. Therefore, they posed a negative attitude towards the minorities calling them “bâtards” (bastards) and “criminals”. Thus, there was evident duality of behavior that the police showed towards the citizens of France based upon their race, financial status and religion (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Citizenship in France becomes a questionable entity which is granted only to the privileged members. Leland Ware’s research indicates that for those who seek to immigrate here, equal rights are only a myth. French laws ‘discourage the assertion of separate ethnic identities’ and an immigrant seeking to integrate into the French society needs to renounce his ‘origins, faith, and customs’ completely (Ware, L. Color-blind Racism in France (2015). The methods of policing described in Enforcing Order written by Fassin also point out to a similar situation. He shows how the police deal with an unpleasant heavy-handedness with the poorest sections of the cities. To add to it, the law officers are not even open to acceptance as they are trying to create an image of transparency rather than showing their own lack of ability to win the trust of the minority community. Fassin has called out such treatment as savage and completely unsuitable to any French citizen. While birth and residence transform any French national into a citizen, the lack of dignified treatment, reduced employment opportunities and widespread poverty have made the minorities a socially marginalized society giving them little to no benefits of their citizenship (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Incidents of Police Violence

Police violence has been reported by several groups and individuals from the ethnic minorities. Fassin describes such an event in detail on pages 20-21 of his book. Two young boys are arrested and detained for hours on New Year’s Eve only because they were found in close vicinity to the place where a case of vandalism was reported. The eyewitness could barely identify the criminal as it was too dark. After being unable to prove their crime, the police chief calls the parents of the teens and leaves them with a strict warning (p 19-21). This unapologetic behavior on the part of the police is equivalent to mental harassment.

Police violence is the major cause of the vacillating image of citizenship in France. When the guardians themselves turn hostile, radicalization is an unavoidable consequence. Fassin reports that the police went so far as to brandish a Flash-Ball which is only done in case of extreme violence wherein the police is exposed to physical injury (p 20). The unrestricted misuse of resources intimidates teenagers as they are completely conscious of the fact that they are being subjected to such a humiliation only because they belong to certain ethnic groups (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Distorted View of Law and Order

After studying the ever tougher and more brutal behavior demonstrated by the police, Fassin questioned the reasons behind the widespread misuse of power and the authority responsible for perpetuating this misappropriation. Like every democracy, the people’s representatives in the parliament of France are the ones who make and break legislations. In case of France, extremism displayed by politicians like Nicholas Sarkozy seeps down to the law forces and converts them into puppets of power-seeking vortices. Much like UK or US, the ‘search and frisk’ tactics are reduced to mere display of power and control assumption instead of being a purposeful activity. Fassin named this ‘moral violence’ as it attacked the dignity of those subjected to it (p 130). This distorted use of law emanates from the distorted view of law and order and every crime committed by the police in the name of law will somewhere find the fingerprints of Sarkozy on it (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Fassin shows that the anti-crime squad found entertainment in doing something new in the form of frisking, searching and torturing the underprivileged youth. He argued that the police were given underlying freedom to ‘bend the rules’. Sensitive policing is an unknown concept among the French BAC. The monopoly with which the Ministry of the Interior manages the police staff goes a long way in depicting extreme dictatorship and concentration of power in the hands of a few. Police services are difficult to access in Paris and it was a mere stroke of luck along with his adamancy that Fassin was able to complete his work. What irks the readers most is that the police is obstinately justifying its stand. Fassin found out that though the police was visibly concerned over its poor public image, they were quite sure that it was no fault of theirs and that the public was solely to blame for their hostility. Furthermore, he also came to know that the officers had no conscience of their own and followed blindly whatever orders were given to them. As long as the ‘top brass’ ordered it, they had no issues to anything (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Fassin’s account of the barriers that the French state has put in the way of research will come as something of a shock. The shift – essentially giving the Ministry of the Interior something close to a monopoly over policing research – took place when Fassin was a little over half way through his fieldwork and it was only through a combination of persistence, and no little good fortune, that he was able to come anywhere close to completing his work. It is clearly evident that the police are more interested in enforcing unequal social order under the guise of security (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Violation of Citizenship and Resultant Violence

It is clear that the riots of 2005 were solely incited by the discriminatory behavior shown by the police towards the minorities. The younger generation has grown up with pent up feelings against constant repressions and all of it came out in the form of extreme riots. Nearly ten thousand vehicles were burnt proving that the fire was building up from within. It should be remembered that arson is a particular characteristic of French rioting. Although the police made more than three thousand arrests, the stability of the country was still teetering so much that President Chirac had to declare a national emergency (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Works like Enforcing Order not only provide the causes behind the riots but also put forth a question before their readers – Does violence beget violence? History has shown multiple incidents of civil unrest and it is a tried and tested condition that civil violence is a result of violation of citizen rights by the government. Fassin’s ethnography proves that the disadvantaged communities are Number One targets of police aggression. An aggressive guard force becomes disconnected from the public. Additionally, the language used by the police was also highly racist and French terms equivalent to English ‘nigger’ were more than often used to address the African minorities. Fassin argues that the lethal interactions between the youth and the police during the riots were a result of the everyday activities of urban policing (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

The Other Side

Very early on in his work Fassin noted that the daily life of a typical police officer is far from the exciting portrayal on multimedia. It is monotonous and involves much more than mere facing criminals or solving crimes leaving the officers the often doubtful about the importance and value of their own positions. A recognized and accepted form of discrimination, segregation and marginalization both socially and economically runs in the system and anyone seeking to break the bonds is stigmatized. The fact that the very people they serve actually despise them is psychologically demotivating for any new officer who has joined the BAC. They are hardly backed up by the bureaucracy and constantly obtain orders from the top brass on the completion of which, they hardly receive any appreciation. This, along with the characteristic monotony and inactivity of the day-to-day routine, police work can often be thought of in a negative and sometimes even detestable light.

Fassin has also mentioned the humorous part of illegal police practices. He tells stories of ‘comic epiphanies’ in which officers have made glaring errors. At times, they have arrived at the wrong address after receiving an SOS call for a crime in progress and at other times, they have discovered that the caller had overtly exaggerated the crime giving hazy details. Although Fassin’s attitude towards these incidents was sarcastic, the reader can sympathize with the condition of the law enforcers and understand why the trench between the police and the citizens has widened. Another fear dangling like a naked sword is the widespread availability of cellphone cameras. Anything that the police does or says goes viral immediately and while it may not be a formal complaint against them, it sure goes a long way in discrediting their efforts and portraying them in a bad light (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

Conclusion

In summary, the fundamental argument that Fassin has made is that the French police are more intent on ‘enforcing order’ than on ‘maintaining peace’. This attitude has lent a new meaning to citizenship roles in the country. Citizens have become more vigilant of the police instead of focusing on criminals as they have lost trust in their guardians, additionally to this, citizens are becoming more violent as they seek to take the laws in their own hands.

Exploring newer citizenship roles is as important as enforcing the traditional laws. Whether in France or outside, more researchers should come forth and find out why the citizens of the country are dissatisfied with the workings of their local law-enforcing authorities. Fassin’s work can serve as a beacon of hope for those social anthropologists who are seeking answers to the disappointment of the general public. In spite of being promised democracy and freedom, a new form of slavery and tyranny exist in the modern nations in the form of uniformed officers (Fassin, D. Enforcing Order, (2013).

A student’s perceptions of civic involvement from both a charity or social justice perspective, have a relationship amongst six dimensions of civic involvement Knowledge, Skill, Efficacy, Value, Responsibility, and Commitment for growing a charity or social justice perspective. Pre- and post-course analysis confirmed that the charitable view of civic involvement was once dominant and the six dimensions had been awesome constructs in describing civic involvement. (Jackson 2005)

A broad range of researchers probing complicated learning processes have set up sustained investigations of education centered on descriptions of study room climate. This evaluation provides an overview of the theoretical grounding and instrumentation used in regular research of lecture room climate; explores the development of social research study room climate research; severely examines how study room climate has been described and measured in looking at the local weather of secondary social research classes; and presents pointers to improve school room climate constructs thru an integration of social studies literature and the standard techniques to the learn about of classrooms. Suggestions for enhancing future research are presented. (Hardwood, 1992)

According to High School Journal (Chapel Hill, NC) 96 (1), 20, 2012, Socialization into the dominant civic and political discourse lies at the heart of social studies. As they become proficient in the discourse of home and school, Latino immigrant youth demonstrate the potential to uniquely benefit from this socialization. This qualitative study explores ten Latino immigrant young adults’ perceptions of how their social studies experiences shaped their young adult civic selves. Participants internalized not only their parents’ high expectations for them but also those of their teachers, highlighting the potentially instrumental role of schools in the civic fabric of the nation. In addition, the Latino young adults felt empowered by their social studies teachers via civic expectations and academic encouragement and perceived this empowerment to have facilitated the skill development necessary for later civic leadership. In closing, we reflect on immigrant students’ incorporation of the discourse of the dominant culture with that of the home to develop their own civic voices.

The merchandising of imperative thinking is an essential however elusive purpose in history, social studies, and civic education. Teachers often struggle to translate established definitions of critical thinking into particular pedagogical tools to format learning activities and to observe and interpret pupil work in these subjects. They additionally fight to distinguish between ‘teaching vital content’ and ‘teaching college students to think critically.’ In this paper, I draw upon scholarship on necessary thinking, history education, moral education, and fundamental pedagogy to suggest four pieces of equipment for quintessential inquiry in the social domain: Problem-posing, Reflective skepticism, Multi-perspectivity, and Systemic thinking. I describe how each tool works, discussing how they combine the epistemic reason of fostering a desirable grasp with the social cause of cultivating thoughtful, responsible, pluralist, and non-violent citizens. (Bermudez, 2015)

Many scholars, teachers, parents, as well as others, are concerned with the decline of civility in public discourse and public schools. The sharp variations among a range of ideological groups, exacerbated via media incivility, are contributing elements to rising incivility. This ideological divide currently manifests itself in bitter partisan politics, non-public attacks, and an excessive degree of incivility that poisons the public discourse and serves as a negative instance to K-12 students. Social research classes, while instructing about political variations and controversial issues, must be characterized via civility virtue that should be inculcated through education and practice. It is difficult for students to internalize this advantage if they no longer see it in our politicians, the media, and other institutions. (Moore, 2012)

Proponents of community provider packages frequently declare that such programs prevail in teaching adolescents democratic citizenship where common civics practice falls short. Yet it is now not clear that all carrier applications envision such citizenship as linked to political engagement and participation. It is hypothesized that only carrier applications that the body provides within a vast political context and offer opportunities for public motion amplify political engagement as measured by emotions of civic obligation. This citizenship framework can also likewise be included in standard social studies instructions with similar effects. This hypothesis is established through the use of panel data comparing the outcomes of special excessive college career applications and social studies courses. Path analysis, examining a subsample of college students in a mainly positive service program, suggests that political socialization outcomes stay even when accounting for self-selection processes. (Riedel, 2002)

Introduction

Citizenship is a multifaceted term that evokes respective emotions and bestows certain privileges and restraints on the inhabitants of a land. The widely excepted term for citizenship is “the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen” and a citizen is defined as the “character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen” (citizenship, 2019). Citizenship also has many aspects in terms of the official reignition of belonging to a country and the much-overlooked cultural aspect of belonging. Cultural citizenship not only defines the citizenry by the right of belonging within a nation-state but also values the political and social rights of the citizens. Besides, cultural citizenship advocates for the inclusion of the state members in the state’s activities and cultures irrespective of the being an alien or citizen. Therefore, the citizens require recognition and empowerment within the cultural values (Carens & UPSO, 2000). The concept of cultural citizenship has raised concern to the public because it advocates for inclusion and exclusion in the political and social issues within society. Cultural citizenship expects that the state observes the social-political rights and the full recognition of minority groups. The aspect of inclusion and exclusion is a rising concern because society does not consider minority groups and cultures when making policies making them to suffer because their culture is eroded by nature which forcefully assimilates them consequently the heritage disappears. For instance, the United States has minority groups like the Negro Americans and African Americans who were neglected in the activities because they were considered aliens. The Cultural Citizenship concept advocated for the full and active presence in all the dimensions like religion, politics, and social life within the respective states. This paper compares, contrasts, and critiques issues of inclusion and exclusion regarding cultural citizenship. The document outlines the problems of inclusion and exclusion, and finally, the article makes comparisons, contrasts, and critiques the issues while giving an example with Europe and American societies.

Issues in inclusions in cultural citizenship

The inclusion issues are a rising concern in cultural citizenship because this is one of the significant issues addressed elaborating on cultural citizenship. Inclusion is defined as a process of serving all the interests of citizens in both the cultural, political, and social domains. Integration is essential because it plays a central role in the location of social, political, and cultural rights to minorities (Banks, 2008). The government of nation-states should work in the inclusion of all the people within the state irrespective of citizenship because today the globe stays connected through the effect of globalization. In essence, inclusion requires that the citizens get all the primary services and fundamental rights irrespective of being an aliens or a citizen. The issues in the integration are outlined as follows. First, the problem in inclusion is explained using the concept of cultural rights and multicultural citizenship as elaborated by the assimilationist, universal conception of citizenship and liberals. They argue that a citizen must outdo personal culture and first language so one to be a full civic participant of a nation-state (Banks, 2008). The nation-state develops a national culture that should befit everyone in the state so that all people are integrated into the activities of the nation. The assimilationist theory requires that the government develops policies that enhance uniformity in the rules. For instance, the United States introduced the ethnic revitalization movement in the 1960s where the schools were to use one common language that is universal to the whole state. Multicultural citizenship also elaborates inclusion in a different dimension by arguing contrary to the composition as explained by the concept of cultural rights and multicultural citizenship. Multicultural citizenship stands for an individual right instead of the group’s interests (Zapata-Barrero, 2016). The Liberalists argue that personal right should be unrestrained of primordial and cultural connections to have free choice and choices in a restructured self-governed civilization because the secure attachments to the identity groups create conflicts such that each group wants to appear superior to other groups (Krieken, 2001). The other issue in the inclusion requires that the liberal democrats provide support to the minority groups in society so that all the people become equal in society. Typically, integration is a means of bringing the people of a nation-state together through enhancing similarity in the political right, and cultural rights, and advocating for individual rights in the society.

Issues in exclusion in cultural citizenship

Social exclusion addresses the political nature of deprivation, by scrutinizing the relations between people, the deficiency of citizenship reputation and their intensities of scarcity. Citizenship is concentrated on the capacity of exercising personal, and communal privileges, as well as disparities, to produce a societal grading, constituting of first and second-class populaces (Philip, 2018). This shows that not all persons are alike before the rule, and there is no similar admittance to public properties delivered by the nation. Administrative features of exclusion can comprise of the absence of political rights like luck of political contribution and the right to form alienation from lack of self-assurance in political courses and the lack of liberty of expression and parity of prospects. The exclusion issues have affected the United States in different dimensions because minority groups were excluded in social and political issues. minority groups have ever challenged the exclusions through protests and court petitions as a means of seeking justice. The exclusion principle explains how minority groups are deprived from social and political and fundamental freedom, and on several occasions, the people are treated as aliens.

Comparison of the inclusion and exclusion

Both exclusion and inclusion examine the relationship of people in society based on their status of political and social rights. The inclusions and exclusions address the issues of inequality in society and advocate for equality. The integration requires that every member of the community should be treated fairly and not forced with cultures that one does not belong. Typically, one should seek to follow a personal lifestyle despite being a citizen or an alien. Similarly, the exclusion examines the instances that members of the minority in the society are left behind politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the concepts of inclusion and exclusions develop the means of enhancing integration and cohesion in society (Leeuw, arc, Wichelen, & Sonja, 2012). Exclusion and inclusion issues indicate that the world is global and administrations should work in creating a new culture of cohesion that would unify the whole world and hence limiting divisions in society. Additionally, exclusion and inclusion affect minority groups because the significant groups tend to alienate the minority through social and political issues, also considering them as aliens who should not demand for their rights. In essence, exclusion and inclusion issues address the causes for the infringement of the rights of minority groups in society. This explains the reasons why there is ethnicity in the United States and Europe.

Construct in the issues of inclusion and exclusion

The exclusion and inclusion in cultural citizenship have differences while addressing the problems of social integration and cohesion. The primary differences that exist between inclusion and exclusion, as discussed in cultural citizenship are outlined as follows. The first difference lies in the function of each concept, as addressed in the theory of cultural citizenship. Inclusion examines the means through which people can be brought together in society while exclusion examines the factors that cause exclusion in the community (Krieken, 2001). The other contrast of issues of exclusion and inclusion exists in the view of society. The integration does not advocate for the majority, but the right of each and says that every person must not be considered; hence, it supports the voice of the minority. On the other hand, exclusion advocates the rights of the minority but through a group entity. For example, in exclusion, the minor ethnic groups of the United States or Europe should be considered while developing the policies hence covering the whole group.

Critique

The exclusion and inclusion in cultural citizenship can be critiqued both positively and negatively. The positive evaluation shows that both exclusion and inclusion issues lead to the development of a cohesive society where all the people are considered in the political and social problems. Both inclusion and exclusion requires that everyone is treated fairly when offering social and political privileges to members in society (Krieken, 2001). Conversely, there is a negative critique that exists in each of the concepts of cultural citizenship. The exclusion explains the disadvantages of segregation in society while it does not offer the solutions on the activity that one should take to rectify the situation. Inclusion requires that the individual right of each member is served in society. However, it is not practical that the power of every individual can be served. One can criticize inclusion and exclusion positively and negatively.

Conclusion

Cultural citizenship works in a globalized society where people from different nations with different cultures interact for various purposes. Cultural citizenship develops concepts that are used in building a cohesive community through the theory of inclusion and exclusion. The paper compares, contrasts, and critiques issues of inclusion and exclusion as explained in the domains of cultural citizenship. The paper first describes the problems in inclusions where the article indicates that the liberals advocate for service for the individual interest while in the exclusion, the group interest should come to limit exclusion in the society. The paper compares the concepts of inclusions and exclusions and finally criticizes them both positively and negatively.

References

1. Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. Educational Researcher, 129–139.
2. Carens, H. J., & UPSO. (2000). Culture, citizenship, and community: a contextual exploration of justice as evenhandedness / Joseph H. Carens. New York:: Oxford University Press.
3. ‘Citizenship.’ Dictionary.com. 2019. https://www.dictionary.com (30th May 2019).
4. Krieken, R. v. (2001). Reshaping Civilization: Liberalism between assimilation and cultural genocide1. Retrieved May 30th, 2019, from https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41758/3/RobertvK.
5. Leeuw, D., Marc, Wichelen, v., & Sonja. (2012). Civilizing migrants: integration, culture and citizenship.
6. Philip, H., (2018). Indigeneity and Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Epistemological Reflection. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education, 209-223.
7. Zapata-Barrero, R., (2016). Diversity and cultural policy: cultural citizenship as a tool for inclusion. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 534–552.

A student’s perceptions of civic involvement from both a charity or social justice perspective, have a relationship amongst six dimensions of civic involvement Knowledge, Skill, Efficacy, Value, Responsibility, and Commitment for growing a charity or social justice perspective. Pre- and post-course analysis confirmed that the charitable view of civic involvement was once dominant and the six dimensions had been awesome constructs in describing civic involvement. (Jackson 2005)

A broad range of researchers probing complicated learning processes have set up sustained investigations of education centered on descriptions of study room climate. This evaluation provides an overview of the theoretical grounding and instrumentation used in regular research of lecture room climate; explores the development of social research study room climate research; severely examines how study room climate has been described and measured in looking at the local weather of secondary social research classes; and presents pointers to improve school room climate constructs thru an integration of social studies literature and the standard techniques to the learn about of classrooms. Suggestions for enhancing future research are presented. (Hardwood, 1992)

According to High School Journal (Chapel Hill, NC) 96 (1), 20, 2012, Socialization into the dominant civic and political discourse lies at the heart of social studies. As they become proficient in the discourse of home and school, Latino immigrant youth demonstrate the potential to uniquely benefit from this socialization. This qualitative study explores ten Latino immigrant young adults’ perceptions of how their social studies experiences shaped their young adult civic selves. Participants internalized not only their parents’ high expectations for them but also those of their teachers, highlighting the potentially instrumental role of schools in the civic fabric of the nation. In addition, the Latino young adults felt empowered by their social studies teachers via civic expectations and academic encouragement and perceived this empowerment to have facilitated the skill development necessary for later civic leadership. In closing, we reflect on immigrant students’ incorporation of the discourse of the dominant culture with that of the home to develop their own civic voices.

The merchandising of imperative thinking is an essential however elusive purpose in history, social studies, and civic education. Teachers often struggle to translate established definitions of critical thinking into particular pedagogical tools to format learning activities and to observe and interpret pupil work in these subjects. They additionally fight to distinguish between ‘teaching vital content’ and ‘teaching college students to think critically.’ In this paper, I draw upon scholarship on necessary thinking, history education, moral education, and fundamental pedagogy to suggest four pieces of equipment for quintessential inquiry in the social domain: Problem-posing, Reflective skepticism, Multi-perspectivity, and Systemic thinking. I describe how each tool works, discussing how they combine the epistemic reason of fostering a desirable grasp with the social cause of cultivating thoughtful, responsible, pluralist, and non-violent citizens. (Bermudez, 2015)

Many scholars, teachers, parents, as well as others, are concerned with the decline of civility in public discourse and public schools. The sharp variations among a range of ideological groups, exacerbated via media incivility, are contributing elements to rising incivility. This ideological divide currently manifests itself in bitter partisan politics, non-public attacks, and an excessive degree of incivility that poisons the public discourse and serves as a negative instance to K-12 students. Social research classes, while instructing about political variations and controversial issues, must be characterized via civility virtue that should be inculcated through education and practice. It is difficult for students to internalize this advantage if they no longer see it in our politicians, the media, and other institutions. (Moore, 2012)

Proponents of community provider packages frequently declare that such programs prevail in teaching adolescents democratic citizenship where common civics practice falls short. Yet it is now not clear that all carrier applications envision such citizenship as linked to political engagement and participation. It is hypothesized that only carrier applications that the body provides within a vast political context and offer opportunities for public motion amplify political engagement as measured by emotions of civic obligation. This citizenship framework can also likewise be included in standard social studies instructions with similar effects. This hypothesis is established through the use of panel data comparing the outcomes of special excessive college career applications and social studies courses. Path analysis, examining a subsample of college students in a mainly positive service program, suggests that political socialization outcomes stay even when accounting for self-selection processes. (Riedel, 2002)

Introduction

Citizenship is a multifaceted term that evokes respective emotions and bestows certain privileges and restraints on the inhabitants of a land. The widely excepted term for citizenship is “the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen” and a citizen is defined as the “character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen” (citizenship, 2019). Citizenship also has many aspects in terms of the official reignition of belonging to a country and the much-overlooked cultural aspect of belonging. Cultural citizenship not only defines the citizenry by the right of belonging within a nation-state but also values the political and social rights of the citizens. Besides, cultural citizenship advocates for the inclusion of the state members in the state’s activities and cultures irrespective of the being an alien or citizen. Therefore, the citizens require recognition and empowerment within the cultural values (Carens & UPSO, 2000). The concept of cultural citizenship has raised concern to the public because it advocates for inclusion and exclusion in the political and social issues within society. Cultural citizenship expects that the state observes the social-political rights and the full recognition of minority groups. The aspect of inclusion and exclusion is a rising concern because society does not consider minority groups and cultures when making policies making them to suffer because their culture is eroded by nature which forcefully assimilates them consequently the heritage disappears. For instance, the United States has minority groups like the Negro Americans and African Americans who were neglected in the activities because they were considered aliens. The Cultural Citizenship concept advocated for the full and active presence in all the dimensions like religion, politics, and social life within the respective states. This paper compares, contrasts, and critiques issues of inclusion and exclusion regarding cultural citizenship. The document outlines the problems of inclusion and exclusion, and finally, the article makes comparisons, contrasts, and critiques the issues while giving an example with Europe and American societies.

Issues in inclusions in cultural citizenship

The inclusion issues are a rising concern in cultural citizenship because this is one of the significant issues addressed elaborating on cultural citizenship. Inclusion is defined as a process of serving all the interests of citizens in both the cultural, political, and social domains. Integration is essential because it plays a central role in the location of social, political, and cultural rights to minorities (Banks, 2008). The government of nation-states should work in the inclusion of all the people within the state irrespective of citizenship because today the globe stays connected through the effect of globalization. In essence, inclusion requires that the citizens get all the primary services and fundamental rights irrespective of being an aliens or a citizen. The issues in the integration are outlined as follows. First, the problem in inclusion is explained using the concept of cultural rights and multicultural citizenship as elaborated by the assimilationist, universal conception of citizenship and liberals. They argue that a citizen must outdo personal culture and first language so one to be a full civic participant of a nation-state (Banks, 2008). The nation-state develops a national culture that should befit everyone in the state so that all people are integrated into the activities of the nation. The assimilationist theory requires that the government develops policies that enhance uniformity in the rules. For instance, the United States introduced the ethnic revitalization movement in the 1960s where the schools were to use one common language that is universal to the whole state. Multicultural citizenship also elaborates inclusion in a different dimension by arguing contrary to the composition as explained by the concept of cultural rights and multicultural citizenship. Multicultural citizenship stands for an individual right instead of the group’s interests (Zapata-Barrero, 2016). The Liberalists argue that personal right should be unrestrained of primordial and cultural connections to have free choice and choices in a restructured self-governed civilization because the secure attachments to the identity groups create conflicts such that each group wants to appear superior to other groups (Krieken, 2001). The other issue in the inclusion requires that the liberal democrats provide support to the minority groups in society so that all the people become equal in society. Typically, integration is a means of bringing the people of a nation-state together through enhancing similarity in the political right, and cultural rights, and advocating for individual rights in the society.

Issues in exclusion in cultural citizenship

Social exclusion addresses the political nature of deprivation, by scrutinizing the relations between people, the deficiency of citizenship reputation and their intensities of scarcity. Citizenship is concentrated on the capacity of exercising personal, and communal privileges, as well as disparities, to produce a societal grading, constituting of first and second-class populaces (Philip, 2018). This shows that not all persons are alike before the rule, and there is no similar admittance to public properties delivered by the nation. Administrative features of exclusion can comprise of the absence of political rights like luck of political contribution and the right to form alienation from lack of self-assurance in political courses and the lack of liberty of expression and parity of prospects. The exclusion issues have affected the United States in different dimensions because minority groups were excluded in social and political issues. minority groups have ever challenged the exclusions through protests and court petitions as a means of seeking justice. The exclusion principle explains how minority groups are deprived from social and political and fundamental freedom, and on several occasions, the people are treated as aliens.

Comparison of the inclusion and exclusion

Both exclusion and inclusion examine the relationship of people in society based on their status of political and social rights. The inclusions and exclusions address the issues of inequality in society and advocate for equality. The integration requires that every member of the community should be treated fairly and not forced with cultures that one does not belong. Typically, one should seek to follow a personal lifestyle despite being a citizen or an alien. Similarly, the exclusion examines the instances that members of the minority in the society are left behind politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the concepts of inclusion and exclusions develop the means of enhancing integration and cohesion in society (Leeuw, arc, Wichelen, & Sonja, 2012). Exclusion and inclusion issues indicate that the world is global and administrations should work in creating a new culture of cohesion that would unify the whole world and hence limiting divisions in society. Additionally, exclusion and inclusion affect minority groups because the significant groups tend to alienate the minority through social and political issues, also considering them as aliens who should not demand for their rights. In essence, exclusion and inclusion issues address the causes for the infringement of the rights of minority groups in society. This explains the reasons why there is ethnicity in the United States and Europe.

Construct in the issues of inclusion and exclusion

The exclusion and inclusion in cultural citizenship have differences while addressing the problems of social integration and cohesion. The primary differences that exist between inclusion and exclusion, as discussed in cultural citizenship are outlined as follows. The first difference lies in the function of each concept, as addressed in the theory of cultural citizenship. Inclusion examines the means through which people can be brought together in society while exclusion examines the factors that cause exclusion in the community (Krieken, 2001). The other contrast of issues of exclusion and inclusion exists in the view of society. The integration does not advocate for the majority, but the right of each and says that every person must not be considered; hence, it supports the voice of the minority. On the other hand, exclusion advocates the rights of the minority but through a group entity. For example, in exclusion, the minor ethnic groups of the United States or Europe should be considered while developing the policies hence covering the whole group.

Critique

The exclusion and inclusion in cultural citizenship can be critiqued both positively and negatively. The positive evaluation shows that both exclusion and inclusion issues lead to the development of a cohesive society where all the people are considered in the political and social problems. Both inclusion and exclusion requires that everyone is treated fairly when offering social and political privileges to members in society (Krieken, 2001). Conversely, there is a negative critique that exists in each of the concepts of cultural citizenship. The exclusion explains the disadvantages of segregation in society while it does not offer the solutions on the activity that one should take to rectify the situation. Inclusion requires that the individual right of each member is served in society. However, it is not practical that the power of every individual can be served. One can criticize inclusion and exclusion positively and negatively.

Conclusion

Cultural citizenship works in a globalized society where people from different nations with different cultures interact for various purposes. Cultural citizenship develops concepts that are used in building a cohesive community through the theory of inclusion and exclusion. The paper compares, contrasts, and critiques issues of inclusion and exclusion as explained in the domains of cultural citizenship. The paper first describes the problems in inclusions where the article indicates that the liberals advocate for service for the individual interest while in the exclusion, the group interest should come to limit exclusion in the society. The paper compares the concepts of inclusions and exclusions and finally criticizes them both positively and negatively.

References

1. Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. Educational Researcher, 129–139.
2. Carens, H. J., & UPSO. (2000). Culture, citizenship, and community: a contextual exploration of justice as evenhandedness / Joseph H. Carens. New York:: Oxford University Press.
3. ‘Citizenship.’ Dictionary.com. 2019. https://www.dictionary.com (30th May 2019).
4. Krieken, R. v. (2001). Reshaping Civilization: Liberalism between assimilation and cultural genocide1. Retrieved May 30th, 2019, from https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41758/3/RobertvK.
5. Leeuw, D., Marc, Wichelen, v., & Sonja. (2012). Civilizing migrants: integration, culture and citizenship.
6. Philip, H., (2018). Indigeneity and Global Citizenship Education: A Critical Epistemological Reflection. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education, 209-223.
7. Zapata-Barrero, R., (2016). Diversity and cultural policy: cultural citizenship as a tool for inclusion. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 534–552.

Corporate citizenship is the new social identity supposing an important role in a firm’s life in the U.S. and Europe today. It is not enough for companies to generate a profit. U.S. and European citizens expect them to generate a profit and conduct themselves in an ethical and socially responsible manner. The ethical guidelines help organizations facilitate this expectation, which is vital for corporate growth and maintaining a competitive edge. Managers who deal with ethical and social responsibility problems often times are not dealing with optimal solutions. Managers often settle for solutions that suffice or cause the least harm. Managers charged with choosing the ethical or socially responsible path often face problems with no clear solution. Since the formation of the European Union, corporate social responsibility has garnered heightened attention in Europe. This is evidenced by their development of sustainability strategies. The Sustainable Development Strategy for Europe was approved in June 2001. It stated that social cohesion, environmental protection, and economic growth must coexist. This paper compares corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Europe to CSR in the United States. It also examines today’s three corporate social responsibility models: the shareholder value model, the stakeholder model and the business ethics model. This paper also addresses Wayne Visser’s (2010) five principles which he considers the future of corporate social responsibility, Aras and Crowther’s (2011) theory that an organization should be held accountable to the external environment, and the rationale for new paradigms for the future in companies worldwide.

Corporate citizenship embraces all the facets of corporate social responsibility, responsiveness and performance. Corporate citizenship is becoming increasingly important to business sustainability. It provides benefits that are both tangible—such as reducing waste and increasing energy efficiency—and intangible—such as improved employee productivity. Many firms view corporate citizenship as little more than public relations, but a minority are beginning to recognize its potential. Leading companies have moved from a do-no-harm, reactive mode to a more proactive approach. For more than a decade US firms like DuPont, 3M and SC Johnson have been showing the way, using corporate citizenship as a source of competitive advantage. In recent years they have been joined by corporations like GE and Wal-Mart. The strategy is characterized as much by a hunger for new business opportunities as by the urge to do the right thing. However, beyond a small cohort of leading companies, most US firms have yet to maximize the business benefit of corporate citizenship. They are seen as lagging behind their European counterparts. But they are catching up. There are many lessons to be learned from the leading companies. In particular, they build on four foundations: leadership at all levels, employee engagement, solid measurements and public-private partnerships:

• To be successful, corporate citizenship must be driven from the top. But leaders of this initiative are needed at all levels of the firm.
• Significant companies find ways to channel the passion of their employees into corporate citizenship activities. Such activities help firms to recruit better-quality workers and retain them.
• To convince senior executives that corporate citizenship is effective, the financial benefit must be clear. Companies must set ambitious goals, along with ways of keeping track of progress towards them.
• Companies have discovered that financial advantages can accrue from forming partnerships with nontraditional stakeholders. These include local, state and federal government, as well as activist groups and non-governmental organizations.

Based on the lessons learned, we conclude by offering practical advice for firms wishing to use corporate citizenship in order to improve their bottom line. Suggestions include making the business case, tying corporate citizenship to core objectives, identifying the challenge and setting public goals.

In the past year, starting with the Brexit vote, companies have been forced to consider — and reconsider — what it means to be a corporate citizen of a country. In both the U.K. and the U.S., serious questions are being raised about the ability of people and goods to move freely across borders — questions that haven’t been raised in a generation. The European Union went into effect in 1993, and the North American Free Trade Agreement kicked in the following year. Since then, executives at large companies in the U.S. and Europe have planned their strategies around the idea that they are operating on a global chessboard, not a local checkerboard.

As a result, a set of broadly shared assumptions have taken hold. Supply chains should extend around the world, to areas where it makes the most sense to manufacture. Because consumers live everywhere — only about 4 percent of the human population lives in the U.S. — consumer-facing businesses have to go where the action is and expand aggressively. As much as it has become a cliché, human capital really does matter to an increasing number of businesses. And because people hail from all over, study everywhere, and, increasingly, work in countries other than the one in which they were born, assembling a global team means you’re assembling a potpourri of ethnic, religious, and national diversity.

And so, having adhered to this set of rules, many of our ur-American companies aren’t really all that American any more. Reliable statistics are tough to come by, but the data suggests that for the typical S&P 500 company that breaks out revenues in U.S. and non-U.S. categories, about 44 percent of revenues comes from overseas. Google — with a cofounder who was a refugee from the Soviet Union — in its most recent quarter tallied only 47 percent of its revenues (pdf) from the U.S. In its most recent quarter, Coca-Cola said the North America unit provided only 15 percent of revenue.

You can be an American company but rely on foreign consumers for most of your sales, foreign-born workers for some of your staff and leadership — and, perhaps more significantly, foreign customers for most of your growth. The U.S. is a huge market.