The topic for my group is
immigration. My stakeholder that I have chosen is the legislators. Now, I chose
them, because they have a major stake in this topic. Immigration is a national
function. It may be a problem to some, but to others it is a way of escaping
their old live or assimilating into a new culture. Again, the legislators have
many views on the subject and now all of them have the same opinion about
specific resolutions or ideas towards immigration. The legislators have made
their stances clear in the bills and representative states that they are from
generally accept these immigration bills.
From a
research analysis and data collection of up to 2012, I have discovered that
many states do not generally accept immigrants. This is due to the legislators
passing bills which are carried over into their states. For instance, in 35
states, as according to The NCSL, bills were passed to penalize businesses that
employ unauthorized immigrants or they would require electronic employment
verification to ensure that their employees were legal.
The
analysis continues to address many points and topics of immigrants and their
condition, but another high point is that of health and healthcare. Again, the
NCSL stated that 25 states accepted bills that would require identification or
verification of citizenship to be enrolled in health programs or even be
admitted into a hospital. This is highly valuable, because if there are people
being denied healthcare or even hospitalization, what are we to even do about
it? How would this affect the hospitals, the families of the ill, and
especially the immigrants needing assistance?
The analysis
continues to talk about voting, public benefits, and a broad spectrum of life
that Americans generally overlook because they are natives.
Reference:
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2012
Immigration-Related Laws, Bills, and Resolutions in the States: Jan. 1-March 31, 2012. NCSL, 2012.
Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Matthew--nice start to this research. I think that legislators are a great stakeholder for this topic. There are just two things that I would like to mention for your consideration. One: don't be afraid to narrow your stakeholder if you find that you won't be able to adequately cover the arguments of this stakeholder group in a 3-5 minute speech. For instance, you might choose to narrow yourself to those who support immigration or those who do not. That is perfectly ok. Or it is perfectly ok to show that the group is split--just make sure to give as much time to each side to keep an equal weight in representation.
ReplyDeleteTwo: While this is a great source, it is not a source that counts as one of your three for the stakeholder speech. This is because, as you say in your blog post, it is an analysis. If you click to the "About" page, it becomes unclear whether the legislators themselves wrote this analysis, or whether it merely takes a look at the information that they produced and synthesizes it for their future use. If it is the second, then it is a great document for pointing you in the direction of sources that they wrote themselves for their direct arguments; however, it is not their arguments. They are members of this organization, but it seems to be so that they can receive background information to help them craft future legislation? What might be useful on this site is the Research tab, which features a database, including the legislation that has been passed in individual states--these would be direct documents crafted by the legislators themselves. Does that make sense?
If you have any questions or want to talk further about these things, just let me know!