Maxfield Chan, Erika Talero, Kaden Kwon

English 137H

November – December, 2023

Duties

Max: Main Scribe, maybe narrate, develop script, history and gluer

Erika: Park Ranger, supplementary scribe, develop script, pro

Kaden: Goalkeeper,  supplementary scribe, develop script, con

Unassigned role: Video editor 

Timeline

Unfortunately due to a last minute topic change, we are running behind

• ASAP: Assign more concrete focuses for each member✅
• Nov 28: complete research, generate a library of images and clips
• Nov 30: Finish Script
• Dec 1-2: Recording done, begin editing
• Dec 3: Rough draft submitted, prioritize arguments pro/against and history, transitions may have to be messy for rough draft given time
• Dec 6: Final Draft, have each member review and/or express concerns
• Dec 8: Submit final draft

Day One + Two Topic Brainstorming

Max was sick day one, so some independent brainstorming; here’s a summary:

• History of the US-Mexico border and the transition from migrants crossing through cities to enduring harsh desert crossings.
• Book Banning – LGBTQ+ / Critical Race Theory
• Auto manufacturers lobby for the interstate system and its effects on public transportation
• Decline of U.S. based manufacturing examining the policies and environment in the 1970s and 80s.
• Mistreatment of indigenous peoples in the U.S.
• Human Trafficking
  • Sof
• Childhood Obesity
  • Bogalusa study
• Capital Punishment and Death Penalty
• Electoral College and Voting Infrastructure 
• Minimum wage and tipping

Day Two

On day two, we gathered our ideas and deliberated which one to pick.  Our top choices were childhood obesity, immigration, and human trafficking, where we ended up picking the rise in childhood obesity, specifically weight loss camps.  (Switched to immigration, specifically the “prevention through deterrence” policy, see below)

Day 3: Unfortunately due to lack of clarity and size of conflict regarding weight loss camps after beginning research, we have decided to switch topics to immigration along the U.S. Mexico border, narrowing down on the concept of “prevention through deterrence,” and its horrific effects on those attempting to cross the Sonoran desert balanced with the concerns of Americans on border security.

Immigration is a big topic in any developed country, as a stable society necessitates a balance between resources and a population for them to be spread across.  This creates cases where those seeking immigration are turned away, leaving them in a situation lacking security, money, and a clear future.  Sometimes, this leads to illegal border crossings, especially concerning the US-Mexico border.  However, the US-Mexico Border has changed significantly since the late eighties to now, with benefits and drawbacks for both migrants and U.S. citizens.  As the history of the controversy outlines in more detail below, the US government has shifted approaches from a relatively relaxed border to one that, although not heavily monitored, forces migrants through unimaginable conditions through the Sonoran desert, but may technically have lowered illegal immigration figures because of death in the desert.  The controversy around this approach, dubbed “prevention through deterrence,” has two sides where some see illegal immigration as harmful to the country, and that the measures taken, although scary, are acceptable, while others note the deaths of desperate and underprivileged people, and believe their humanity should be placed above border concerns.

Focusing on the project more specifically, we plan to answer the following framing questions concerning the rise of the topic and different groups’ responses.  

1. What is the role of immigration, especially in a country as diverse as the United States?
2. How has policy affected the number of deaths resulting from illegal immigration attempts?
3. How should we prioritize the distresses of local communities on the U.S side of the border?
   1. Provide an example of a person who expresses these concerns
4. How should we prioritize the distresses of migrants, not only in their home countries, but the potentially illegal journey to the U.S? Should we concern ourselves with the safety of migrants?
   1. Provide an example of a person who knows the concerns of immigrants 
5. Examine the events following the implementation of policy, like the formation of smuggling groups.  Should we continue to use prevention through deterrence and potentially create an “arms-race” with these groups, or do we allow migration more liberally, either legally or illegally? 

Here’s a history of the controversy we’re trying to illustrate: 

• Illegal immigration prior to prevention through deterrence generally consisted of groups of migrants attempting to outrun border patrol agents near cities.  If one didn’t make it through or got caught, they would be “sent back”. 
  • However, nothing stopped them from just trying again. 
  • Border patrol was overwhelmed, once attempts were exceeding 10,000 per day

• In an attempt to combat this, some border patrol agents infringed on the rights of American citizens and harassed school children by asking for proof of citizenship/immigration status based on the color of their skin.
  • A lawsuit against this practice was successful, so a different strategy was adopted

• Operation Blockade, in 1993 consisted of a ton of border patrol agents led by Reyes, forming a human wall where fence hopping was popular, which led to outcry from human rights groups, but was supported by Americans living along the border. 
  • (We could focus a bit on opinions here, some of which want to stop illegal immigration, while others see the humanitarian problems arising from preventing immigrants from working.)
  • This could be the earliest version of prevention through deterrence in our project.

• Upon seeing the support, Attn Gen. Janet Reno allowed the blockade to continue, despite skepticism at first. 
  • In 1994, Operation Gatekeeper cemented this practice (probably our main focus)

• As a result of these blockades around relatively geographically safe regions, many were pushed into the Sonoran Desert, leading to hundreds of migrant deaths per year.  This number is probably an underestimate, since it was discovered through experimentation that bodies decay rapidly in the conditions of the desert, often due to vultures.
• Another unintended consequence of this was the formation of the human smuggling sector across the border, which often strips migrants of everything they own and sometimes results in successful passage, while sometimes it leads to death.  
• The main controversy of this is the balance of border security and immigrant humanity.  In fact, the way that the US government could detect the effectiveness of prevention through deterrence was how many deaths were present.
• How Deterrence Policies Create Border Chaos – The Atlantic
• How U.S. Policy Turned the Sonoran Desert Into a Graveyard for Migrants – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Media Usage:

• We plan to use a variety of images, but will also include video snippets of immigration, other new coverage, and video editing techniques to highlight certain aspects of images/headlines.  
• Undoubtedly, there will be some stock photo usage, mostly from unsplash
• We hope to match the photos with the emotion that each side of the argument feels by picking/adjusting color and brightness, as well as the duration of playtime.
• Depending on the time available, simple self-created graphics or diagrams will be included to illustrate overviews of concerns and any data points included. 
• Humanity and treatment of those in unfortunate situations is a big highlight of our controversy.  If we can source these, we would like to include close up images of thought evoking, yet tasteful images.

• Oral content
  • Topic
    • Secularization is a factor in political polarization
    • As secularization increases, so does political polarization
    • Political polarization may reach a point where the two sides split completely, creating a civil “war”
  • Purpose
    • America may very be on its way to another civil war in the future
    • What may that look like?
  • Thesis statement
    • The increasing rates of secularization in America are increasing the nation’s political polarization, which may create division within the country
• Intro
  • Attention strategy/orienting material:
    • How will you begin this presentation in a way that appropriately garners audience attention
      • Willard preacher
        • In a sense, he’s just like any other “protestor” or public speaker that society praises for speaking up on their beliefs
        • Yet, he gets flamed and mocked simply because he’s speaking on his religious faith 
          • Same goes for many other religious speakers
        • People don’t want to hear about religion
          • Americans unaffiliated with religion 5% => 23% from 1970-2018
          • Ryan Burge, political scientist Eastern Illinois University
        • However, this isn’t just an issue of religiosity
          • Secularization affects political polarization, and the gap between the two parties is widening by the day
          • Possible civil “war”?
• Body
  • Main idea (complete sentence): political polarization is a feeding cycle
    • Support: the right grows more religious to counter secularization
      • Specific
        • Religion initially became a big part of the Right’s agenda in the 1970s in response to increased secularity in the US
      • Specific
        • As the left secularizes, the right grows more religiously aggressive to “subdue” the spread of ideas that go against religions out of hatred for those ideas

• • • Support: the left grows more secular in response to the religious right
      • Specific
        • As the right is heavily associated with religion, those who oppose the right also oppose religion
        • As the right becomes more religiously influenced, the left is growing more secular to further oppose the right out of hatred
      • Specific
        • As the right attempts to cut down fundamental ideas of the left, the left responds by doing the same to the right, one of the right’s fundamental ideas being religion

• • Main idea (complete sentence): may eventually reach the point of complete political polarization
    • Support
      • The self-feeding cycle will most likely only reach its end when the government is completely polarized and there’s no more middle ground for back and forth political growth
    • Support
      • With current rates and trends, we may reach a point where the left and right have absolutely no overlap in ideologies
        • Non-existent middle ground
  • Main idea (complete sentence): will we see a possible civil war in the future?
    • Support
      • This isn’t a matter of just politics
        • Religion is involved
      • As in history, religious matters can’t be solved politically, and they can rarely be solved peacefully
        • 43% of Americans polled by YouGov and the Economist are expecting a civil war within the next 10 years
      • Violence may be the only solution to complete political polarization if we ever get there
    • Support
      • Complete polarization leaves no opportunities for negotiation
        • “Winner-take-all”
        • Stakes are high
        • Both parties will go to extremes to push their narrative
          • Often violent
          • Could escalate to a civil war in the worst case scenario

• • Conclusion
  • Concluding remark
    • Closing statement
      • Our nation may very well be headed straight toward another civil war, but based on the nature of the issue, it seems there’s not much we can do to prevent it
      • This conflict won’t be resolved until both political parties come to acknowledge that neither side is entirely ideal, so the best, fairest way to run this country would be through the combination of the best of both worlds
    • Last words
      • at our current pace, America may very well face a civil war
      • there’s not much to be done to prevent a civil war except everyone coming to accept each other’s differences and resurfacing a middle ground to negotiate on
        • the whole nation needs to change this way

• Visual content (brief slide description & its function)
  • EX:
    • Side-by-side images of Oregon and Standing Rock protests to establish example of bias in government responses.
  • Slide 1
    • The willard preacher and a graph of religious trends side by side to make the point of secularization and provide proof
  • Slide 2
    • A visual of polarization in Congress throughout history to elaborate the reality of a completely polarized government
  • Slide 3
    • As both parties are pushed to the extremes, a civil war between the two sides may break out
  • Etc
• Reference page
  • Ahmed, Neil Monahan, Saeed. “There Are Now as Many Americans Who Claim No Religion as There Are Evangelicals and Catholics, a Survey Finds.” CNN, 13 Apr. 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/no-religion-largest-group-first-time-usa-trnd/index.html.
  • Bill Schneider, opinion contributor. “The Dangerous Paradox of the Religious Polarization of American Politics.” The Hill, 16 Oct. 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3690618-the-dangerous-paradox-of-the-religious-polarization-of-american-politics/.
  • Elving, Ron. “Imagine Another American Civil War, but This Time in Every State.” NPR, 11 Jan. 2022. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2022/01/11/1071082955/imagine-another-american-civil-war-but-this-time-in-every-state.
  • Lowry, Rich. “Opinion | A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” POLITICO, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/06/americans-national-divorse-theyre-wrong-515443.
  • Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia. “The Christian Right Is Helping Drive Liberals Away From Religion.” FiveThirtyEight, 18 Sept. 2019, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-christian-right-is-helping-drive-liberals-away-from-religion/.