The social capital in this article is declining. It's showing the down in political and voter participation, especially in regards to the Democratic party. The article goes into detail about the decline in participation by the ethnic groups of African Americans and Latinos, and women, and how these groups' numbers in voting has steadily declined since the previous election. This social capital decline is very important in regards to what happens with our political and voter lives.

The social capital here is a decline in the community. The senators are proposing an idea that would be destructive to the American community and way of life, but removing 10 million people from the country (as if they could pull it off, but let's assume so). There would obviously be a literal decline in the population itself, but the social implications would be a huge negative reaction with the huge disruption to the American way of life. Social capital will decline with the disruption of the entire population and how it interacts.

This article's social and cultural value is enthocentrism, comparing Latinos to other enthnicities and talking about how it with be the Latinos who will suffer from these laws and have their rights taken away. It is written by a Latino as well, adding to the sense of a certain group feeling attacked. The fault line here is race/ethnicity, seeking to prove the point it is the Latino race that feels under attack.

The social and cultural value in this article is enthocentrism. It is based around the comparison of Hispanics versuses virtually the rest of the community. The Hispanic enthicity group comes up against the laws banning immigrants of their ethnic group. They're also growing divided within each other. The fault line is definitely race and geography in this article, comparing the Hispanics from the US and who emigrated.

The frame on this article looks like structural. The article is discussing the structure of the college system regarding undocumented students. It talks about voting to bar illegal immigrants from the state's five most selective public schools. Georgia is the second state after South Carolina to enact this ban. The ban causes an issue of who should be granted in-state tuition. The Georgia policy was approved on a fourteen to two vote by the state's education policy makers. But immigrant groups are protesting, because they're denying education to certain people. But the ban is only the first step.

The news frame used here looks like structural. The article is fervently addressing US District Judge Susan Bolton's rulings. The article's focus is that the judge rejects a challenge to immigration laws, and continues to discuss other claims and motions (including the one that was challenged). These are not personal focuses, but are zoned into the state of Arizona and its law structure, and its response about this issue. The points made in the article are that the law is going forward, even after the challenge; the judge ruled that the motions to dismiss were insufficient; there was merit that the law may violate the 4th amendment; the request was decided moot since the there is already a stay on the law; the judge allowed ... More »

This article was full of information, all well expressed by the writer. The story was well informed, well sourced, and in depth about the issues and had recent history that applied to the story now. After reading this article I feel much better informed about this issue, especially since I had very little information on it before.

This article definitely did not explain the complexities of the issue, nor depth or understanding. It was simply an explanation of Klein's case he made. It didn't clarify anything except what he was trying to say. Public dialogue about the issue will definitely be clearer after reading this at least, with what Klein was saying completely explained. But there is little else to offer about the issue or what the public would say about it. There was no cross racial understanding, just one man's opinion about an issue. I think other opinions on this case would've made it much more insightful.

I felt this article didn't elaborate on the complexities of the issue of an actual wall being built, just the background on why the wall felt needed. I didn't feel a lot of depth, just the story of the difficulties of Latin America borders in the past. It didn't help with my questions at all, I would've liked to have read more about the reactions to the wall and the people backing the idea. It impacts the public dialogue of Latin America and its immigration issues, and affecting travel and transit there too. This article did not promote cross-cultural understanding.