Conclusion

Sarah Menlove’s Conclusion
I think that the editorial cartoons regarding illegal immigration will definitely have an impact on people who are questioning their own opinion of the issue. I think that the cartoons could convince people to adopt an anti-immigration attitude because of the way the cartoons are framed.

Overall the cartoons seemed to encourage viewers to think about illegal immigrants as a negative addition to our country. The cartoons also illustrated the controversy surrounding Arizona’s SB 1070. The law was mostly depicted as being harsh and unfair which may make Americans question the motives behind Arizona and federal authorities.

It was interesting how frequent racial profiling was present in the cartoons as well as in Arizona’s immigration policies. I found it fascinating to learn more about Arizona’s proposed law and the implications it has had on immigrants residing in that state.

It was interesting to compare domestic cartoons to international cartoons. The international ones depicted the harshness of Arizona’s law and one cartoon (#56669) showed immigration from Mexico’s perspective. It showed Americans immigrating illegally into Mexico to find work. I thought this was interesting to see a different perspective on the issue. Different cartoonists framed immigration in varying ways; the main difference was that some were more anti-immigration than others. However overall, most of the cartoonists framed immigration as being a negative aspect to our nation.

Jessica Hoskin’s Conclusion 
By analyzing the editorial cartoons on illegal immigration has helped opened up my eyes. Many of the cartoon were framed as immigrates were a negative addition to our country. The cartoons also illustrated the law Arizona’s SB 1070 which was a harsh enforcement immigration law that made it difficult for illegal immigrates to live in the U.S.

Many of the cartoons really framed racist. In Cartoon #77714, Anglozona Tan block has a negative framing that suggest that if you don’t look like an American then you aren’t considered to be one. Many of the cartoons expressed this concern of what illegal immigrates look like. Anyone that looked different then U.S citizen had to show I.D. It labels each illegal immigrate before they even got into the U.S.

American was known as the “ the land of opportunities.”  Which gave American people the chance to work and succeed. To gain a citizenship in American has evolved into a process that is long and tedious. Which in the long run has cause more illegal immigrates. Many American people frown upon immigration in America. Fearing that many will threaten their jobs and security. A stereotype of an immigrate is often described as lazy, inept and irresponsible. In cartoon #77686, Illegal Immigration. Is showed a Federal boarder control officer is sleeping under a sign that reads US/ Mexico Boarder.  It implies that not all illegal immigrates are lazy, inept and irresponsible.  Many immigrates have came to American and helped with the progress of American’s technology.

The editorial cartoons helped me realize personally that not all immigrates are the stereotype that us as Americans label them as. A lot have came to U.S. the right way by getting a citizenship to live in American. Many though have been illustrated as you can see in these cartoons as a negative aspect to our nation.

Paul Christiansen’s Conclusion
Immigration issues, both policies and discriminations, are definitive problems facing the United States.

Prejudices can be found on both sides of the argument, whether against those who seek to enforce the laws (most heavily presented here by Arizona) or against the immigrants who want to enter the U.S. Through these cartoons that we, Team 13, analyzed and interpreted, these artists can be found using these prejudices to stir a reaction among their respective audiences.

In Christopher Weyant’s cartoon “To Suspect Serve” (Cartoon# 114121) the tone is set to show Arizona law officers as using racial profiling to apprehend suspects that are of Hispanic decent. Weyant pokes fun at the whole situation by showing that the officer, reading the arrested man his rights, says that the suspect has the right to remain silent and anything he says that is not in English can be used against him. This keeps the mood light but also enforces the tone that racism seems to be at work in the Arizona law system.

Weyant’s cartoon could easily “fire up” any person who was against the Arizona laws to begin with and also anyone who is anti-racial prejudice.

On the other side of the debate, Nate Beeler’s “Arizona and Obama COLOR” (Cartoon# 114181) shows that President Barack Obama will actively go against the Supreme Court’s ruling on and uphold of Arizona immigration laws.

Beeler provides a conservative’s political view of Obama, showing him as going against the Supreme Court who had the “supreme” ruling. This would likely “fuel the fire” for members of the far-right who feel that Obama oversteps his authority and someone who is more concerned with the welfare of illegal immigrants than U.S. citizens.

This project gave me a chance to see how international people view our laws as opposed to U.S. citizens.

The overall tone set by international cartoonists casts immigrants as victims of suppression from an unjust law system.

The U.S. view is split. On one side I found those who feel that immigrants have no rights, especially when it comes to being in the country. On the other side of the spectrum I found those who advocate for immigration reform and rights for those affected, at times advocating for amnesty and acceptance.

The large focus found in these cartoons centered on the controversial Arizona law SB1070. The law itself was illustrated as being harsh and often containing tones of racism. However, those cartoonists who framed immigrants as something that didn’t belong or something that could harm the U.S. showed their support for certain aspects of the law itself.

Group Conclusion
The challenge of this project brought us together as a group and took us past our initial conceptions and misconceptions of immigration laws and enforcement within the United States.

We found that the key material used within the cartoonists’ visions relied
heavily on racial prejudices. With cartoons that focused on Arizona law SB
1070, aspects of racism and racial profiling were depicted. In RJ Matson’s “Anglozona
Tan Block” (Cartoon# 77714) the message is show outright: What good is it being
American if you don’t look legal?

Matson shows the prejudices against anyone who isn’t Caucasian by showing a tan
block that is SPF 12,000 — guaranteed to keep anyone who is white from being confused with anyone
with hints of toned skin.

With SB 1070, the issue of racial profiling was at center. SB 1070’s provision
of the “show-me-your-papers” legislation forced the issue into the public’s
eye, and cartoonists were there to show their audiences how they viewed things
and, more importantly, perhaps point them in a direction of thinking as well.

David Fitzimmons, cartoonist for The Arizona Star, erred in favor of SB 1070
being unethical and full of racial prejudice. In “Arizona is in the court”
Fitzimmons pokes fun at Arizona law enforcement being authorized to ask any
suspect in question to prove that they were legal. In the cartoon, a
representative arguing on behalf of SB 1070 is shown asking for Justice
Sotomayor’s citizenship papers. This kept the mood light-hearted but it also
made the audience question whether or not the law would eventually come to a
time where enforcement would be questioning everyone and anyone that didn’t look
to be “white enough” to pass.

Christopher Weyant of The Hill depicted racial issues prominently in his
cartoons. In “To Suspect Serve,” Weyant frames the issues as being completely
about race as an Arizona officer tells a Hispanic man that anything he says
that isn’t in English will be held against him. Basically, Arizona had no
regards for whether or not a person was a legal citizen. They focused primarily
on what race the suspect was.

Weyant also framed the Latino vote, a concern for the Arizona GOP
representatives, as being something that could be isolated and “deported”
through the racist legislation. In “GOP Voter Deportation,” Weyant shows an
Arizona officer telling another (represented by the Republican symbol of the
elephant) they will have to “deport” an immigrant, labeled as “Latino Vote.”

Weyant kept things humorous but he had a clear message in all of his cartoons:
racial profiling was being used against Latinos in order to serve those in
political power.

There was a clear split between U.S. cartoonists. Some framed immigration as a
problem that needed to be dealt with in order to best preserve the sanctity of
the country and the welfare of legal citizens. Other cartoonists depicted
immigrants as victims of racial prejudice. These particular artists didn’t
speak out against the need for immigration enforcement and reform but they did
showcase immigrants as generally being treated poorly.

International cartoonists tended to frame U.S. immigration policies and
enforcement as the negative force, painting them as the villain in their art.
Immigrant officers, sheriffs, government officials and symbols are framed as evil
forces that prey on the immigrants, using them when it’s convenient and then
quickly tossing them aside. Immigrants were generally shown as hardworking
individuals who only wanted to find a better life and take advantage of the
American dream.

The cartoonists worked mostly with truth, according to several fact checks that
we found. They used humor, politics, race issues and cleverly-veiled content in
order to get their audiences thinking about the real issues at hand.

Fact Checks
Most Hispanics support the DREAM Act
Republicans oppose DREAM Act although it was written by both major political parties
Few Hispanics support Arizona immigration law
Not all Arizona law enforcement support the immigration laws
Immigrants are not mostly drug mules
About 64 percent of U.S. citizens support Arizona immigration law
If having reason other than race, officers can question suspects on immigration status
Arizona law bans racial profiling unless found to pass constitutional muster
Under Arizona law, barking dogs and overgrown lawns can trigger status questioning
Illegal immigrants occupied 8 million jobs in 2009
U.S. not only major country to grant automatic citizenship to those born here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s