Write critiques of the following two short essays. About 3-4 sentences for each one. 1.  There are several large differences between the immigrants of Cohen’s and Martinez’s books, even thought both cover two cultures who are very similar in their views of family. In Cohen’s Workshop to Office the Italian families have migrated as a whole to America seeking a better life for the entire family. They would stay and live together in tight knit groups and communities working tirelessly as a unit to achieve their version of the American Dream. Cohen’s book is set in the 1900s-1950s when the view on immigration was different but paints a clear picture of family involvement as a unit, “for as long as anyone could remember the daily activities of southern Italian girls involved tasks that contributed to the family economy” (Cohen, 19). Cohen very clearly illustrates that the young girls to mature females all made a very important contribution in their own to the well being of their family. The young girls would often look over their siblings as mothers worked non skilled labor factory jobs, “thirteen-year-old Michelina gets up at 5:30 every morning, prepares her father’s breakfast and crochets Irish lace before going to school, works again two hours after school and takes care of the baby” (Cohen, 50). Keeping the family intact was a very large and important difference for the two cultures because Cohen’s Italian families were able to rely on each other for support. The view towards immigration, especially Mexican immigrants, is very different in Martinez’s  Crossing Over  which was written in the late 1990’s. A time during which America was experiencing an economic boom, while Mexico was experiencing an economic depression. As more Mexican immigrants crossed the border for jobs, they were met with more violent opposition, “a videotape reminiscent of the Rodney King footage had aired on the evening news showing Riverside sheriff’s deputies beatings beating unarmed Mexican migrants, none of them visibly resisting, by the side of a Southern California freeway at rush hour” (Martinez, 7). Still more migrants crossed the border, knowing they could be met with sometimes violent opposition, because they wanted to financially support their families in Mexico. Mostly it is men who cross the border, leaving their families behind so they could do migrant labor work and send their earnings back home. Some men have the goals of obtaining an education for their own children, so they could one day have a better life “the future is in an American education for his daughter, Yeni, a nice apartment, a new car for himself, and some land here in Cheran” (Martinez, 66). Though the family in  Crossing Over  would love an apartment stateside, at the end of they day they see Mexico as their home. Having read over both texts I believe that there is a large difference between the families fractured by immigration and those who chose to stay and immigrate together. The fam.

1. Write critiques of the following two short essays. About 3-4
sentences for each one.
1.
There are several large differences between the immigrants of
Cohen’s and Martinez’s books, even thought both cover two
cultures who are very similar in their views of family. In
Cohen’s
Workshop to Office
the Italian families have migrated as a whole to America
seeking a better life for the entire family. They would stay and
live together in tight knit groups and communities working
tirelessly as a unit to achieve their version of the American
Dream. Cohen’s book is set in the 1900s-1950s when the view
on immigration was different but paints a clear picture of family
involvement as a unit, “for as long as anyone could remember
the daily activities of southern Italian girls involved tasks that
contributed to the family economy” (Cohen, 19). Cohen very
clearly illustrates that the young girls to mature females all
made a very important contribution in their own to the well
being of their family. The young girls would often look over
their siblings as mothers worked non skilled labor factory jobs,
“thirteen-year-old Michelina gets up at 5:30 every morning,
prepares her father’s breakfast and crochets Irish lace before
going to school, works again two hours after school and takes
care of the baby” (Cohen, 50). Keeping the family intact was a
very large and important difference for the two cultures because
Cohen’s Italian families were able to rely on each other for
support.
The view towards immigration, especially Mexican immigrants,
is very different in Martinez’s
Crossing Over
which was written in the late 1990’s. A time during which

2. America was experiencing an economic boom, while Mexico
was experiencing an economic depression. As more Mexican
immigrants crossed the border for jobs, they were met with
more violent opposition, “a videotape reminiscent of the
Rodney King footage had aired on the evening news showing
Riverside sheriff’s deputies beatings beating unarmed Mexican
migrants, none of them visibly resisting, by the side of a
Southern California freeway at rush hour” (Martinez, 7). Still
more migrants crossed the border, knowing they could be met
with sometimes violent opposition, because they wanted to
financially support their families in Mexico. Mostly it is men
who cross the border, leaving their families behind so they
could do migrant labor work and send their earnings back home.
Some men have the goals of obtaining an education for their
own children, so they could one day have a better life “the
future is in an American education for his daughter, Yeni, a nice
apartment, a new car for himself, and some land here in Cheran”
(Martinez, 66). Though the family in
Crossing Over
would love an apartment stateside, at the end of they day they
see Mexico as their home.
Having read over both texts I believe that there is a large
difference between the families fractured by immigration and
those who chose to stay and immigrate together. The families
in
Workshop to Office
all work together to build themselves up in the United States.
The families in
Crossing Over
split themselves thinking that the men could earn enough in the
States to support a family in Mexico. The money those men
make and send back is substantial but the rest of the family is
left dependent on the income of one person. Immigrating as a
family unit would enable more of the family to be able to seek
employment, and if financial stability is the end goal the
difference in having that entire family unit working together is

3. extremely important.
2. IMIrJ and Minuteman organizations have very different views
on immigration, and immigeration policy. The Interfaith
Movement for Immigrant Justice (formerly known as Sanctuary)
has a clear mission statement on their website, “We are
committed to lifting up the voices of our immigrant brothers
and sisters, working for just and humane immigration reform,
and the transformation of the social and economic systems that
perpetuate the poverty in immigrants’ home countries that
drives much of the migration to the US.” They very clearly state
that they are an organization whose sole purpose is to aid
immigrants. The Minuteman website is different in the way that
there is no mission statement, they do not seem to be affiliated
with any sort of religious movement, but are a news and
political group of sorts. What I have gathered from their website
is that they are very opposed to immigration, much of what I
read and watched tied into border control and specifically
Mexican migration to the US. They view immigrants as a threat
to the livelihoods of US citizens, while IMIrJ refers to
immigrants as brothers and sisters.
There is no simple answer as to why these two groups have such
fundamentally opposing views on immigration, and perhaps it
simply boils down to people. Some individuals lash out at what
they don’t understand, while others try to embrace a social
change. It’s truly interesting that while IMIrJ is fighting to aid
immigrants, the Minuteman blame them for turmoil within out
own country. In an article on the REAL ID act published by the
Minuteman organization on their website, they blame
immigrants for the legislature which will prevent New Mexicans
from being able to use their state IDs to gain access to
government buildings and next year, all airports. In the
Minuteman article, Kurt Revere ends his essay with, “so now,
law abiding citizens of the state of New Mexico will be paying
the price for the millions of illegal aliens who broke the law to
cross the border and continue to thumb their noses at

4. authorities.” In a similar article published by the Washington
Post, it is stated that the REAL ID act had an available “two-
tier” compromise which would have allowed for compliant and
noncompliant driver’s licenses but was unsupported by the
governor of New Mexico.
The difference in wording and presentation goes to show that
the Minuteman organization isn’t as interested in actual facts.
They would have the borders closed, and have an extremely
nationalist vision for America. While both groups are political,
the Minuteman are closer to extremists. They are endorsing a
presidential candidate in hopes of achieving their vision. IMIrJ,
on the other hand has no real vision aside for immigration
reform legislation in the US. They do not publish articles to
support their cause, but simply want to aid anyone and everyone
who might need assistance regardless of race, age, or sexual
orientation. They are not endorsing a presidential candidate
because though they are political in nature, they are not as
extreme in their views, though it’s hard to be extreme about
equality. For as long as this country exists there will be groups
like each of these, because as people we will always have a
difference of opinion.