Angela Hurtado

Humanities

Guerrero

04-03-09

Communism: The Possible Impossible

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines communism as “a theory advocating the elimination of private property”. It’s funny because to me that sounds just like stealing. Image having your home, your car, your family and living a comfortable life only to have that taken by the government. In the movie Doctor Zhivago as the news of civil war broke out and Lenin, the leader of the Soviets was in the capital, an old man says “This Lenin, will he be the new tsar then?” Another man grabs him by the shoulder, looks him straight in the eye, and answers “Listen Daddy, no more tsars, no more masters, only workers in a worker state!” The regular everyday person in Russia was starving and freezing, the people had no where else to turn and Communism itself is not bad. The Russian people turned to the Bolsheviks (or Soviets) to put into action the revolutionary program that was supposed to change their lives. Instead, Lenin and the Bolsheviks applied their own version of revolution. The paper will prove how communism does not take into account a world of imperfect people and will also prove that an unindustrialized Russia was not ready for communism. The paper will also discuss how the Russian people were desperate and therefore Russia was a breeding ground for a working class revolution of some from. During the revolution the power switched from one class to another having absolute power. Then there is a question of why didn’t communism work in Russia? A good case in point was Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago. As shown in Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, Communism could not live up to its political ideals in Russia.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx is widely considered to be the father of communism even though Marx co-authored the manifest of this political ideology with his friend and colleague, Friedrich Engels. Their works included the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Both pieces of writing inspired the revolutionary thinker and leaders of the Russian Revolution (like Lenin). Karl Marx believed in a classless system of government. Marx was born in 1818 in Prussia. He began his revolutionary thinking when he was at the University of Berlin. After gradation he could not get a teaching job because of his radical views, and so he started writing. His writings got him in trouble due to their revolution idealism and so Marx was forced to flee to France. Not such a bad thing because that is where he met Friedrich Engels and together they wrote many articles and books, like the Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifesto laid an extreme strategy for altering the government. The Manifesto called for change, that there is no need for government after socialist reeducation, that everyone would have a good life. But after publishing of the Manifesto, Marx could not find a country to live in that welcomed him. Finally he settled in England and began writing again but none of his writing sold, so he was poor. Engels believed so much in Marx and his writing that he took a job in Germany working for his father in order to support Marx. In 1867 Marx published the first volume of Das Kapital. But by the time volume one Das Kapital published, Karl Marx was old and sick. He died in 1883 but before he died he got a lot of work done on volume two and three of Das Kapital. Engels completed and published the last volumes. (Whiting, 17)

If Karl Marx is the father of communism then his children would be his books. There would have been no communism if not for Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifesto is broken up into four parts. In the first part, it talks about the Communists' view of history and the relationship between proletarians (working class) and bourgeoisie (exploitative middle class). The next part describes Marx’s view of the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third part talks about the error in past socialist text. The final part talks about the relationship between the Communists and other parties. According to Judith Edwards in her book Lenin and the Russian Revolution in World History: “Karl Marx believed that in a fully equal communist society, people would produce as much food and other necessities as they were able to and would consume only what they needed. The community or state would be in charge of distributing goods to the people” (29). It sounds great but, that is all theory. If this was a world of perfect people who always did the right thing then we would never have crime or theft. The truth of the matter is that the world is full of very imperfect people that will not want to work extraordinarily hard for a very ordinary reward. The other problem with this is that it leaves too much power in the hands of the government and as the common phrase goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The point of communism is to make all people equal, “the community or state” (as stated above) will boil down to an elite upper class; the elite would be above the “others” therefore making people unequal and the whole point of communism is a classless society. Communism as a system of governing people is hypocritical in nature and there for unsuitable for any country with imperfect people.

Russia

The history of the Russian Revolution reads like a classic novel about the underprivileged trying to get the upper hand. The Russian Revolution had two main parts. Both of them took place in 1917. The first was the February Revolution. The second part was the October Revolution where Civil War broke out. Reds (Soviets) led by Lenin verses the Whites (Russian Conservatives) (Smele).

When the Revolution broke out, Russia was also fighting in World War I with England and France in order to support Siberia. From 1917 to 1918 Russia was fighting a war on two fronts. The supplies, money and food were running out and leaving nothing for the working class, again (Edwards). In Russia the working class was exploited with no regard for their well being. A Revolution like this had taken place one before in 1905. It took place after the Russians lost the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. The working class, who were already struggling to survive, was taxed heavily in order to compensate for the financial loss of the war. (Clements) Russia was a breeding ground for a working class revolution of some form. Due to the treatment of the people the question of a revolution changed from if a revolution could take place, to when a revolution would take place.

Stroke of Literary Genius

In Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago he describes the life of the main character in revolutionary Russia; in addition to Russia’s challenged political and social limits. As a consequence it was banned in the Soviet Union for thirty years. How could one book have been such a threat? The answer is that the novel really questioned the reality of the communist system as it developed in Russia. In the literary world, this stroke of literary genius broke the mold of the writers of the time by speaking the truth of the author’s experience. Pasternak had lived through the early years of the Soviet system. The novel was defiant in nature and, intended by the author or not, has become a political declaration.

How a country cannot survive, let alone thrive, when the people have nothing and when they do try to have something, they are considered to be criminals? This novel shows cannot be. This is illustrated in the book when Dr. Zhivago says “Our use of the land is illegal. We have taken the law into our own hands, and conceal what we are doing from the state.”(Pasternak, 249). This quote explains that although communism creates a worker’s state for the workers, nothing is truly the workers. All land is the private property of the state. That is the reality of communism. It is in human nature to try to achieve. Not allowing one to achieve, whatever the goal may be, is like asking someone to stop breathing. They can do it for a period of time but not for very long. What the Russian government asked of the people was not fair and so the people themselves were forced to break the law in order to survive. Another example of this in the novel is when Dr. Zhivago writes in his journal “The wood we cut is stolen, it is no excuse that we steal from the state or that the property once belonged to Krueger” (Pasternak, 278). This quote explains that everything is the states

Should Have, Could Have, Would Not Work

The paper has already established that the Russian people were ready for a revolution of some form. So, simply put, why wasn’t communism able to live up to its political ideology? It should have been able to succeed in Russia and it would have been able to if only the country was completely industrialized. When Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto he had written it for countries that were completely industrialized like England. Although Russia had some industrialized components, it was a long way from being completely industrialized. According to Business Day Online “in the case of the Soviet Union when in February 1931, Stalin predicted and warned his people: "We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in 10 years. Either we do it or they crush us." And he drove his people with the proverbial whip and scorpion, and forced them to industrialize at a desperate pace. And Russia industrialized in 10 years flat!” (Chinweizu). Russia did not become industrialized until 1941; twenty four years after the start of the revolution. To ask a country, that had yet to be industrialized, to follow a plan for an industrialized nation is similar to ask an elementary school science team to perform a collegiate level experiment. It could be done but the experiment would probably not go as well as if the same science team had waited until they were in college. The elementary school science team is Russia unindustrialized trying to perform the college level experiment of becoming a classless society. Russia did not meet the entire requirement for a country to become communist. One of the reasons Communism could not live up to its political ideals in Russia was because Russia was unindustrialized.

Conclusion

The idea of Communism is not “bad” or cruel in fact it is very fair. In theory, the concept of providing for all and equality among men is beautiful. While we are all created equal, we are not all the same. We are individuals with infinite diversity. Communism does not take this into account and use diversity as strength. Rather it is viewed as a threat. Additionally, there is always an elite class that rules the masses. Communism sets up a comparably similar socio-economic structure to that which it is supposed to replace or defeat. The theory of communism has exquisite ideals, the problem stems not from its purpose or intent to make all equal; the problem is communism is a theory, a well thought out concept, and nothing more, once variables are added like the stamina of the human spirit, the determination of the mind, the love one feels for their family, the need to find a better life for them and the pride one feels for their country. Any idea about political reform, no matter how well thought out by its knowledgeable author, stands a chance to fail if it doesn’t take these things into account; Communism could not live up to its political ideals because it did not take into account the needs and the diversity of the people it aimed to serve.

Works Cited

Chinweizu “Marcus Garvey and the Black Power movement: Legacies and lessons for

contemporary Black Africa (5)”

Business Day Online13 March, 09

< http://www.businessdayonline.com/olddmp/listdetails.php?recordID=17458 >

Clements, Joe; Corridor, Shawn .ed Encyclopedia of Russian History

Vol.1 New York City, New York:

Macmillan References, 2004.

"Communism" Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.

Merriam-Webster Online. 7 March 2009
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism>

Dr Zhivago. David Leal. Turner Entertainment and Time Warner Company,

2001

Edwards Judith. Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Berkley Heights, New Jersey. Enslow

Publishers. Inc 2001

“Karl Marx: the manifesto of the communist party”

8 March 2009 Spark Notes 20 feb.09

<http://www.sparknotes.com/philosphy/marx/section2.rhtml>

Sherrow, Victoria. Life during the Russian Revolution. San Diego, California, Lucent

Books, 1998
Smele, Jonathan “War and Revolution in Russia 1914 - 1921” 2 March, 2009

British Broadcasting Company. 2004-04-28

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/eastern_front_01.shtml >

“Timeline: Russia”

British Broadcasting Company 2 march 2009

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1113655.stm>

Whitting, Jim. The Russian Revolution 1917. United States. Mitchell Lane Publishers.

Inc, 2008

Angela Hurtado
Guerrero
Humanities
February 25, 2009
Communism: the Possible Impossible
I. Thesis: As shown in Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago communism cannot live up to its political ideals
II. Communism
a. The father of communism: Karl Marx (The Russian revolution, 1917: 17)
i. Das Kapital (9)
ii. Communist manifesto (8)
b. Manifesto
i. Quote from manifesto
ii. Communism ideals
III. The history of the Russian revolution reads like a classic novel about the underprivileged trying to get the upper hand
a. Russia was a breeding ground a working class revolution of some form.
b. Problem is one group having absolute power
IV. In Boris Pasternak’s symbolic autobiography Doctor Zhivago, describes the life of two people with intertwining lives post revolutionary Russia in this time honored tale.
a. The book(once Yuri comes home from the war )
b. Post revolutionary
V. Analysis: why didn’t communism work in Russia
a. Russia was not completely industrialized
b. Manifesto was for industrialized countries
VI. Conclusion
a. Restate thesis

thesis

In Dr. Zhivago the author explores whether or not communism can truely meet its political ideals.

Annotated Biography

Russian Revolution of 1917." World Book Student. 2009. San Diego. 13 Feb. 2009
.

We found this website very helpful because it gave all the information in a way that wasn't unapproachable. It gave detailed information of what happened in Russia like the October revolution, the February revolution and what was happening outside of Russia like World War One. We like that a section of the article was on the aftermath. It was very helpful in understanding the effects of the war.

Research Questions

Dr. Zhivago- Boris Pasternak

Right now I am at page 144 of a 493 page book. so far in the book the plot that has followed two main characters and there lives and how they were effected by it. the unique thing that the plot takes place in war torn Russia during its pre- to post revolution life. The two main characters are Lara Guishar and Yuri Zhivago. Lara, who father had died, moved to a town with her mother and brother. She was about 15 and soon after moving she had an affair with Victor a man who was in his fifties. to break the relationship she runs away and works very hard as a nanny. she works very hard and one day decides to shoot the man that had made her so miserable. she misses and ends up married to Pasha and has a child. Yuri parents both dies and he end up studying to be a doctor and marries to Tonia and had a son. When war breaks out Dr. Zhivago goes to work and Pasha is killed in war so Lara becomes a nurse. They meet in a small town and that's as far as I am right now.

The Russian Revolution is two revolutions in Russia, and the events surrounding them, which led to the switch of the old Tsarist Autocracy to the Soviet Union in 1917. The two revolutions were The October Revolution and The February Revolution.

1. What effect does food and money have on the progression of a revolution?
2. What effect did the Russian revolution have on the different social classes of the time?
3. How did the railroad effect the events leading up to, the revolutions, and after?

FOOD CRISIS

Currently there is a food crisis going on in the world do to the rising cost of food. Although in the US where the average person spends only 10% of there income on food is not affected as much as countries like Haiti where there are riots because people are not able to eat enough food.

I was asked the question that if I lived in Haiti would resort to violence to get food. I think that I would. Normally I am not a violent person and I truly believe that violence is not the best answer but sometimes it is the only answer. In Egypt for example there was a peaceful mach and the police used hoses and other things to control the crowd and that was peaceful march.

So when something that really does make the difference between life and death is at stake. Maybe violence is the only answer.

Movie Review- Minority Report

THIS WEEKEND I WATCHED A MOVIE CALLDED MINORITY REPORT It is set in Washington, D.C. in the year 2054, where a special police department called "pre-crime" apprehends criminals based on what is shown by three psychics called"pre-cogs".

The main characters are John Anderton, a pre-crime officer, Danny Witwer, WHO is sent to observe the process, a pre-cog named Agatha, and Lamar Burgess Anderton's superior.
The world in the movie doesn’t differ a lot from the world in real life because it is a movie that is set only 46 years in the future.

I think that world was created to protect the people from being murdered. This movie made me think that may be there is no way to have a world without murder because the system to make it happen would never be one hundred percent.

Movie Review- Mulan

Mulan is a Disney movie based on the legend of Hua Mu Lan. Mulan was the first Disney movie I ever saw where a princess isn’t in a huge ball gown and waiting for Mr. Right to came round and save them from the evil doer. Mulan is all about one girl trying to save all that she holds most important. Her values defiantly shine though the value of family, being ones self, and honor are all present. I think that when a writer is writing something there biases which includes there values will always shine though so I think that the who created Mulan valued family, being ones self, and honor and he may have gotten them from his family. I don’t think this movie is completely true or completely false. I think that it is a movie and most movies have to change the story a bit to make it more relatable or more interesting. In the end I love this movie because it shows that women don’t have to be saved they can themselves and others.

If you were the supreme ruler of the world, what would you do to change the relationship between Mexico and the United States?

If I was the supreme ruler of the world and I had to change the relationship between México and the United States of America and they had to do what I say I would have any bad feeling between the Mexican people and the American people go away. No one would hate any one or have a problem with them. After that I would remove all borders and ban fighting then get rid of all nuclear weapons. The only thing wrong with my plan is that, one its impossible, two there is no way to change thousands of peoples opinion, three I am not supreme ruler of the world, and four no one NO ONE on this earth has that much power. The best we can do is trust the people in power and vote when given the choice. If I was in power I would strongly recommend more talking with México. Also I would say that we should try and mix our cultures and more learn from each other then we already do. In the end it is up to people to make the change. Today I end my blog with a quote one of my favorites by Margaret Mead "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

What can High Tech High Chula Vista do to benefit the border region?

Charity is defined in the dictionary as generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. We are all told that doing charity is good thing and that we should do to as often as possible. In the end it is up us as a people to do charity. A then I was asked the question what can my school and me do to help the U.S.-Mexico border region. High Tech High Chula Vista can help the border region by donating toy and/or sending thing that they need like cash or something that can be useful. This is a great thing to do because as a school we are so lucky because you have a some what constant supply of a large number of the same people and most of them can help with a reminder that will happen more then once to that same people. This is not some thing you can get at a mall or any where else besides a work space. so as school we are really in a unique position. As a student I can volunteer my free time which my be the most important part to any charity because you can have all the money in world but no one to help with the charity you are no where. People are power if you have people behind you, you can do anything.

what are stereotypes and where do they come from?

Stereotypes are is a instant judgment of someone for the way they look, talk, act, etc. Stereotypes come from three places, in my opinion, the first one is you have one bad encounter with a certain type of person and everybody else that looks like him or her is automatically like that person so lets say a old person cuts you off on the highway so for a while at least you must think that all old people are bad drivers that is a stereotype. The second is one that your parents teach you, if a parent teach as a child to hate black people or Jewish people or white people or what ever kind of people they hate that child will hate that group of people too until they can think for themselves and even then it doesn’t always happen, that they stop hating I mean that is a stereotype of hate. The third way is those know one s that you are force fed when you watch television or tthe ones like all blondes are dumb or what about the one about all Asians being smart then the rest of the world or what about the one where all a Americans are rude cowboys or the one that all English people have bad teeth or what about this new one that started September 11, 2001 that all people that look middle eastern and that are at airports must be a terrorist. That is why I hate stereotypes they start playful and silly and get serious and stupid fast. Not one of those stereotypes that I mentioned before are true. I am a firm believer in people are people and you have smart people and not so smart people in any country, culture, whatever same goes for looks and manners and everything. Who are we as a people to judge any one on what they look but then again we are all guilty of it in some way. Why blame someone for what they look like and not get to know the person on the inside? I think people do it because its easier not to care, easier not to care about that person who is so rude or that person is so loud everyday you wonder why do they have to be so loud or that person who cuts you off in traffic you say to yourself how did the person ever get a license or the person that act dumb to fit in and you wonder why they do it or the person who is so cocky you just wonder what there hiding.

"why does the world have borders?"

Once upon a time a long, long time ago there were no borders, just people living there life with no houses, no phones, and a lot of walking. All the people of the world were nomadic. All of these nomadic people kept on moving from place to place for what they need to survive. There were no walls or weapons because everything belonged to everybody. These people who lived a long, long time ago would move place to place for water, food, and everything else. Until, one day a man look at a plot of land it had all the livestock so he and his family would ever want so they would never grow hungry, it had a stream with enough water so that he and his family would never grow thirsty, and it had everything that they would ever need for forever and ever. So they stayed but then one day many moons later another family came and left a couple of moons later but this got the man thinking “what if…what if the next family wants to stay forever like us” everyday the man worried and then one day it hit him he would put a wall round the land so that everyone knew it was his. With that act walls soon became very popular everyone got one and soon there were arguments with neighbors like “your on my land…no your on my land” people wanted to protect themselves so then weapons were created and that started what we know to day as war. Not only that but soon clusters of these fighting people with similar ideas and enemies created large wall around them and called them borders. That is why we have border.

"How does the US benefit Mexico and how does Mexico benefit the US?"

Once upon on a time there was a gated community, this gated community had a name, its name was Earth. Earth had seven houses in its gates each house had its own name South America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and Antarctica were the names. Each house had rooms; each room had a name each room also had people living in them. Some houses had more rooms then others for example Antarctica and Australia had only one room with the names Antarctica and Australia but no one lived in Antarctica. In the house of Europe and Africa there were a lot of different rooms with a lot people living in each room. But the house I want to talk about today is the house called North America, in the house of North America there were only three rooms Mexico, the United States, and Canada. United States was a very rich room, Mexico was not as rich of a room. So when people came to visit the US some times the same people would visit México because it was so close. So that it really benefited México to live next to the US. Some times the US need thing and it was expensive to get them from other house it is much easier to go to the room of México that was right next door. So that it really benefited México to live next to the US. And they lived happily ever after. The end. That was a story tale based on real events. (Believe it or not) if only if only this was how the world worked like that but it doesn’t. The things that are true about this story was that México does benefit by having the US as a neighbor because the US not only helps México out tourism it also gives México a certain amount of protection for example if North Korea tried to take over México do you think that the US would just let that happen, I doubt they would because it would put the US in a bad position and México and the US are allies. The US benefits also by living next to México not only in imports but in labor also like in WW2 when many men were off fight the in Germany they left a lot of jobs to be done by the few so the US and Mexico worked out a deal were the out of work Mexicans could come to the US and work. Hopefully nothing like that will ever happen again but if it does the US knows it can depend on México for help.

To solve a problem, you must first identify it.

In any relationship you can count on three things the good, the bad, and that the relationship will change. The United States and México have a good relationship in a sense, they are allies, have the NAFTA agreement (North American Free Trade Agreement), and there is a general consensus that they will support each other but no can tell the future and that might change. As a matter of fact the BBC reported that with the new bill that George Bush signed allowing a 700-mile fence (that would border two states) to be built, was taken negatively by the president and the high ranking officials of México because they say it will cause more Mexicans death on the border. Now México has been looking for support from other Latin-American countries to petition against the bill. So is this the beginning of a war that will forever separate the U.S. and México …probably not but this is just one example of how the US is hurting its relationship with México or if you must how the US is harming México. Then again México isn’t perfect and does harm the US in some ways like by not supplying enough jobs for its citizens so that they will do anything to get a job or make some for from of cash even if that means stealing from American tourist, mugging and terrorizing the locals, or even crossing the border illegally. That effects the US because although illegal immigrants are great for work and do the work that most Americans won’t do but they need things, like if they are hurt they need medical assistance and no ER can turn away some one that is hurt or needs help or what about there children they need to go to school and both of these things end up costing the American government money, a lot of money. So I can’t decide which country harms each other more. The way I see it is that it is give and take in the worst way. My opinion of “the illegal immigrants and the border” issue has changed so much over the years at first I was against them staying and then I was for it. Its just such controversial issue and you can see both sides of it. It is so hard just to pick a side and stick to it because every time I do I hear something and it changes my mind and makes me doubt my decision.

Reseach

I was researching the new American passport policies, that will effect itself and the surrounding countries(Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean), and found one article that was really helpful by John Mintz a writer for the Washington Post. It was so helpful because he put the whole new policy in understandable words and got all the information in there so that I felt completely ready to give a small speech on the matter. If you want to check it out here is the URL http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28188-2005Apr5.html.

What difference does a border make?

The dictionary defines a border as an edge or part near an edge; margin the second definition of a border is a dividing line between two countries, two states, two provinces etc. I define a border as an imaginary line that causes more problems than its worth. When I was little I would go down to Tijuana with my mom. Every time I would go the same question would pop into my head and it’s the same question that I ask myself to this very day, “when you cross the border into Mexico or any border for that matter why do things look so different?” To me, things looked dirty when you first get there. Then as you went deeper in to the country there was a beat, a culture that wasn’t like the states. It wasn’t better or worse, it was just different.
Things are different; each country is different, each person in that country is different. When you cross a border into another country you will notice differences right away maybe it’s what there saying or how there saying it, but nine times out of ten what they are saying is different then what you’re used to. Sometimes the reason why thing are different is because in that country it’s the way it always has been, it’s the language they speak or the accent they have when they talk, for example when you go to Tijuana in a car through the U.S.-Mexico border and get out of the car you will probably hear Spanish which is not English, the English you do hear may have a Spanish accent on it. Sometimes the reason why things are different has more to do with the government then the people. In México there are wonderful things and there are things that are not so wonderful. In the U.S. there are good things and there are not so good things. The last time I went to México things looked better and cleaner. You could really tell that the government is trying to make México a better place for its people. I remember when things were not like that, the streets were cracked, there was trash every where, and there were tons of homeless. In America if the streets were cracked you would expect the city to send someone to repave the roads, trash is expected to be picked up by sanitary workers, and the homeless normally have a shelter to go to or at least a park bench. Mexico is a trying to make its country more tourists friendly and has made many strides in the right direction. The government is cracking down on drugs and crimes. Mexico is rich in culture, music, and it has a lot to offer. Mexico has a beat that can’t be copied. It moves at a rapid speed yet its people are friendly and loud.
There is no doubt that México and the U.S. are different. Both are very lovable and have there pros and cons to living there. Each have there own beat and there on the way of living. One country is not better then the other, they are just different. The way that I see it is that no matter where you go across the border or across the street it will be different but hopefully you can see good in it and like it or even love it then see the bad and learn how to respect it.

"Why do people immigrate?"

To immigrate is to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence. So if I lived in Mexico and wanted to come to the United States of America then I would apply for a visa if I wanted to visit. Or I could apply for a green card which is a life-long visa which would allow me to work and live in the States, green card is not citizenship it can be taken away if too many laws are broken, stop living in the States, or go traveling for too long. Or the final option if I want to stay in the States for the rest of my life I could apply for citizenship which would give me the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen. Lucky for me I am already a U.S. citizen and don’t have to worry about any of this. Some people do some people really want to leave the country that they are in and
You might be surprised to find out that to immigrate to any country you need a better reason then “I want to”. I have found ten concrete reasons to immigrate (political and religious freedom, opportunity and success, love and marriage [you have to already of found the person you want to marry], new citizens would have equality and participation, not have to bribe or submit to powerful officials in order to become successful, coming to join immediate relatives [parents, children, spouses or siblings], be a student, to do a job, to start a company, or to invest money). Most people immigrate to find a better life for themselves or/and there families. When your talking about making a better way for your children most people would do anything even break the law if it meant the slightest chance of a better life. Then there are the people who immigrate to get leave the country they are in because the government is corrupt. Again you can’t immigrate because you want to you have to have a reason. The way I see it is that “I want to” is a good enough reason, because that “I want to” is normally attached to “I want a better life and this the country that I believe will give me that opportunity”. We must remember that with out immigrates America would not be America.

machine vs. me

So I'm not the best at anything to do with a computer. It took me three times to even get to the point where I can post. so final score computer three me one but I'm catching up.