Andrew Nguyen A07, https://ftmttsa.tumblr.com/
James’ pecansglazedmix is an investigative zine that focuses primarily on the 1995 “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” immigration policy and its impact on today’s political discourse surrounding immigration. President Obama, before the end of his office, chose to end this policy that allowed Cuban refugees citizenship if they reached the shores of the United States. Obama explained that this bill was outdated, and gave Cubans an unfair advantage over other immigrants, and James go on to explain how the bill is rooted in unfair ideas of race and class. Cubans, who are mostly white, middle/upper class, and educated. Therefore, to Republican legislators who supported this bill, Cubans represented potential voters and are essentially classified as white. Comparatively, Mexican and other minorities (due to class, race, religion) are classified as other non-whites, and generally denied immigration.
"They [Cubans] have never seen themselves as anything other than added value to this country. It's part of the Cuban exceptionalism narrative that is just as strong as the American exceptionalism narrative." - Guillermo Grenier, a Cuban-American Sociologist
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/01/15/509895837/end-of-wet-foot-dry-foot-means-cubans-can-join-ranks-of-the-undocumented
I believe this is a compelling quote because a sociologist who comes from the same background as Cuban immigrants who supports the idea that Cuban-Americans often have advantages other immigrant groups do not.
Compelling anecdotes, stories, facts, and content.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2c75a99ceefc41348c255553b2ce98b1/680-cubans-returned-home-end-wet-foot-dry-foot
Apparently, since the implementation of this policy (or rescinding of), 680 Cubans have returned to Cuba, while dozens more have been stuck mid-transit to the United States. I think this is a compelling story because it adds another dimension to the story and gives more real-life, human perspective to be considered.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/12/ap_1973351793231-e78cfcf83c3fd9666e719384a72ad04c224f8502-s1500-c85.jpg
I think this image of Cuban refugees in 1994 is especially compelling because they are looking directly at the (fairly close) camera of a boat. There’s a clear juxtaposition that is acknowledged by the refugees - their own dangling existence in the ocean, and the safe, legal existence of the boat and people that captured them.
There are many reasons the racial formation of Mexicans and Cubans differed. For one, the anti-Mexican sentiment could stem from the fact that as Mexicans continue to grow their presence in the Southwest, it may seem like a rejection of the American land grab following the Mexican-American War. Aside from the Southwest and West Coast, American cities do little to welcome Mexican-Americans, and therefore cultural enclaves ensue and assimilation does not. On the other hand, Cuban immigrants fleeing from the Soviet-affiliated Fidel Castro were seen more as “poor refugees” and less of illegal aliens. Furthermore, political aspirations further separated these two groups. While Democrats are pro-immigration (of all groups), Republicans historically only supported Cuban immigration. This was due to the fact that Cubans resembled possible future Republican voters; they were almost entirely white, educated, and middle or upper class. Ironically Cuban refugees were mostly white because the indigenous population had been killed centuries ago by the spanish. In all, Cubans are accepted by the master narrative in the United States because they are considered to be white, and therefore are allowed into the higher ranks of the social hierarchy, complete with citizenship.
I believed this was a powerful analysis because James clearly and concisely went from thought to thought to explain exactly how the racial formation differed between Mexicans and Cubans. It was easy to read and understand. The distinctions he made with class worked especially well, because he brought up points about Cubans that many of his readers may not know already which helped establish his argument more firmly.
The suggestions I would give are simply nitpicks about word flow and sentence structure. I believe the analysis is already strong, and personal writing style is all subjective.
