Funnel 40/2, Inhalt - Fulbright-Kommission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS On strike, immigrant workers wave the stars and stripes as if to say, we too are part of America. ACTION AT ALL LEVELS A broad variety of federal, state, and local initiatives has emerged to advocate for an improvement of the legal and social situation of non-documented immigrants and has gained significant momentum. The situation of that part of American society is clearly on the agenda of top policymakers. The most recent indicator for this development is President George W. Bush’s proposal to grant non-documented immigrants a limited legal residency. The most discussed proposal on the federal level is the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This legal initiative, introduced both in the Senate and in the House, and supported by Democratic as well as Republican members of Congress, would give children of illegal immigrants the possibility to gain legal residency by obtaining a college education. The proposal is currently pending, but overcame, with restricting amendments, important obstacles like the Senate Judiciary committee. A similar bill passed last year in Illinois, which allows non-documented Illinois residents to pay significantly lower “in-state” tuition for state colleges and universities. Additionally, as I detailed above, Illinois legislators are discussing an initiative that would provide non-documented residents with the possibility to obtain a driver’s license. In the U.S., drivers’ licenses are issued at the state level. Each state has different rules. Proponents of this initiative frame the proposal as a measure to increase road safety, since a driver’s license is a prerequisite for car insurance. Undoubtedly, this bill would also provide de facto legal documentation for this population, since driver’s licenses are central identification devices in the U.S. As I was writing these lines, I received an email informing me that yesterday this proposal passed the Executive Committee of the Illinois General Assembly, again in this case with bipartisan support. One might argue about the legal consistency and efficiency of these proposals. And indeed, I fear that these legal policies do not give this disadvantaged population the options to exit their current place at the lowest levels of society. The Dream Act might be an important political issue to win, however, it remains unclear how many children of non-documented immigrants really will be able to benefit from the current version of this proposal since it bans these students from applying for federal education grants. It also seems inconsistent to concede on the state THE FUNNEL • VOLUME <strong>40</strong> • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 2004 level a quasi-documentation (driver’s license) to a population whose members are at the same time threatened to be deported by a federal agency (the USCIS). Bush’s proposal—interestingly commented on positively by the Chairwoman of the German Green Party—has been rejected by most immigrant rights groups as an insufficient measure that only meets the interests of parts of the economy (e.g. large agro-corporations in the South) in cheap labor. Many critics of the above mentioned policies interpret them in exactly this sense: Give the non-documented immigrants enough to be quiet but keep them from gaining significant power by keeping their legal situation unstable! CENTRALIZED VERSUS AD HOC One could argue that the German idea of having consistent legal regulation over all the federal administrative structures is preferable to this more ad-hoc style of immigration policy. However, as Jörg Alt, immigration expert with the German immigration organization Jesuiten-Flüchtlingsdienst, remarks, overall the United States are more experienced in dealing in a pragmatic way with the situation of non-documented immigrants (Schmitt in taz, 1/9/2004). Especially what appears to be the fragmented and inconsistent responsibilities of many different public and private entities (immigration authorities, police, public schools, universities, employers, hospitals, etc.) reduces the risk of an individual non-documented immigrant being “detected” and might weaken his or her fear of being trapped in an inescapable system of public authorities. As a senior administrator of a large public U.S. university told me in an interview: “We just don’t care if our students are legally documented or not. We don’t keep lists of that. We are not the INS!” As long as German policymakers refuse to acknowledge that, according to the Catholic Church, around one million people (around 1.2% of the population) live in Germany without proper documentation (Kuepper in FAZ, 12/24/2003) (the situation of non-documented immigrants is not mentioned in the pending proposal for a new German immigration law) and contribute to the economy through their low-wage labor, I am inclined to see advantages in the pragmatic and more realistic approach U.S. policymakers and interest groups are taking towards this situation.
FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS 33 Sorting Trash to Save the World A look at the effect of personal responsibility and government legislation on environmentalism in Germany by Nicole Harkin Though many Americans, when polled, express concern with preserving the environment, the average American complicitly promotes the environment’s further degradation. I consider myself an average American. I once drove a Chevrolet Suburban daily, and to be perfectly honest, I would enjoy another one even though I know that SUVs guzzle gas and pollute the air with hydrocarbons. The inner struggle between the desire to save the environment and the appeal of over consumption brought me to Germany, because even though I study environmental law, I still lack an understanding of how to behave in a way that is more conscious of my environmental impact. Germans, on the other hand, separate their trash into five different categories and one out of every eight belongs to an environmental organization or nature group. I hoped Germany would be a type of environmental haven after having been disillusioned while studying environmental law. I attend arguably the best environmental law school in the United States, Pace University School of Law in New York. One would expect that a school committed to churning out environmental lawyers charged with saving the world would set an example of environmental friendliness for its students. This is not the case. For example, when I first visited Pace the number of recycling bins on campus greatly impressed me. After starting school we learned that the school recycles nothing. The bins are there merely for show. However, I can hardly find fault with the Pace administration for their lack of environmental friendliness because our culture and economy are not conducive to making environmentally responsible choices. In Germany I research how Germany as a nation actively improves the environment. I look at recycling and urban sprawl control techniques, two areas in which Germany has played a pioneering role. In 1991 Germany passed the Packaging Ordnance (Verpackungsverordnung) requiring manufacturers to dispose of containers, bottles, and similar products at the end of the useful life of the packaging. Rather than stipulating how the law would be implemented, the German government allowed the packaging industry to regulate itself, leading to a system in which producers purchase a percentage of the recycled waste from the recycling companies. This percentage should theoretically correspond to the amount of packaging waste produced thus encouraging manufacturers to generate less waste. Not only has the amount of waste packaging produced been reduced by 18% but Germany also goes a step further and recycles 70% of all paper, 75% of all glass, and 60% of all aluminum. In existence for a much longer time than the recycling laws, Germany’s land use system hails from the turn of the 20th century. In fact, Germany founded modern urban planning and continues as a vanguard through the federally organized land use law (Bundesraumordnungsgesetz). The German Constitution stipulates that each state or Bundesland formulates a state-wide land use plan. Within each state different land areas are designated for growth or preservation. Each municipality must then formulate a growth plan with these designations in mind. The preservation of undeveloped land on the edge of cities (Außenbereich) is of the utmost importance and explicitly supports the public policy of preserving as much undeveloped land in Germany as possible. Germany’s dense population (82 million people in a country slightly smaller than the state of Montana) may partially explain the strong public policy position in favor of non-development even at the expense of the economy. Empirical studies in the U.S. show convenience and cost as the main indicators as to whether a person will participate in environmentally aware activities. I would argue that these factors provide the key to German environmental friendliness. Germans may or may not be more disposed to protecting the environment than Americans, but being environmentally friendly is easier and substantially more cost-effective in Germany. For example, in Germany owning a car creates many more inconveniences than in the U.S. The smaller German cities contain comparably fewer parking spaces. The cost of gasoline is high- THE FUNNEL • VOLUME <strong>40</strong> • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 2004
Page 1: NEWSMAGAZINE OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN
Page 4 and 5: 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEPARTMENTS On
Page 6 and 7: 6 DEPARTMENTS Commission News DR. R
Page 8 and 9: 8 DEPARTMENTS Prizes & Awards Profe
Page 10 and 11: 10 DEPARTMENTS Catching Up With Our
Page 12 and 13: 12 DEPARTMENTS “Now,” a photogr
Page 14 and 15: 14 TITLE TOPIC Where Continents Mee
Page 16 and 17: 16 TITLE TOPIC Fulbrighters Daniell
Page 18 and 19: 18 TITLE TOPIC Alumni Oliver and Pe
Page 20 and 21: 20 TITLE TOPIC Dr. Heidi Wedel of t
Page 22 and 23: 22 NEWS & EVENTS „Das Berliner Tr
Page 24 and 25: 24 NEWS & EVENTS Health as Foreign
Page 26 and 27: 26 ALUMNI PROFILES Lucian Kim The F
Page 28 and 29: 28 CITYSCAPES steckt unter dem feuc
Page 30 and 31: 30 FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS “Si, se
Page 34 and 35: 34 FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS er: 0.89
Page 36 and 37: 36 FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS Devora (ce
Page 38 and 39: 38 FROM OUR FULBRIGHTERS The Multic
Page 40 and 41: 40 CONTRIBUTORS CLAIRE ADAMSICK, wh
Page 42: 42 IMPRINT The Funnel is published

Funnel 40/2, Inhalt - Fulbright-Kommission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?