# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Piktochart | Piktochart Visual Editor

# data[].attributes.body
The identity of America has changed throughout time due to the cultural Identity of America. As in early times people would have an image of America as only white people. But now it has changed to a diverse perspective of America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
american identity: who is us? - cnn video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Identity: Who is us? - CNN Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eric Liu, author of "A Chinaman's Chance," discusses cultural identity in America today and how the debate over "who is us" has grown.

# data[].attributes.body
It is hard for Hispanics and blacks to be able to attain the American Dream due to racial inequality. This problem is very relevant in society today due to discrimination of people with other color. It is harder for them to have a normal life with advantages everyone else has.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite improvements in education, social mobility and many critical areas, large racial and ethnic disparities still exist - and are sometimes even increasing - for other important outcomes, according to a recently published Stanford report that examined racial and ethnic disparities in the United States.

The Center on Poverty and Inequality's "State of the Union," an annual report examining key trends in poverty and inequality outcomes, detailed the "profound racial and ethnic inequalities that persist in many domains," notably in housing, employment and health.

The American Dream?

The continuing disparities in home ownership in the United States may best illustrate some of the inequities faced by black and Hispanic families.

Less than half of black families (41 percent) and Hispanic families (45 percent) live in owner-occupied housing, as of 2014. For white families, that figure is 71 percent.

Home ownership helps families accumulate wealth and take advantage of sizable tax savings. By contrast, being forced into the rental market can set off a domino effect of events that then make it more difficult to exit from poverty, the report said. Roughly 1 in 6 black and Hispanic households spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing, leaving them with fewer resources to devote to their children's education, health care and other basic needs.

This fundamental disparity, the report said, can be traced back to the home-mortgage expansion that accompanied President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal," which was enacted some 80 years ago. Families of color were, in effect, excluded from receiving these mortgages. While white families took advantage of them and prospered, other families were left behind and are still trying to catch up.

"We typically look to policy as a vehicle for equalizing," said David Grusky, a professor of sociology and director of the Center on Poverty and Inequality. "But here our policy has fallen short by that standard. The very policies designed to be equalizing, like the commitment to making mortgages widely available, in fact worked to introduce inequalities."

The persisting earnings gap has made it even more difficult for African Americans and Hispanics to catch up. In 2010, median earnings for black males were 32 percent lower than median earnings for their white counterparts. The earnings gap between white and Hispanic men grew from 29 to 42 percent between 1970 and 2010.

The earnings gap between black and white males has narrowed by only 7 percentage points in four decades.

'Two Americas'

Since 1980, racial and ethnic disparities in poverty in the U.S. have remained largely unchanged, resulting in what the researchers characterize as "two Americas."

Whereas blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans are more likely to experience the high-poverty America, Asians and whites are more likely to experience the low-poverty America. One in four blacks, one in four Native Americans and one in five Hispanics are classified as poor. By contrast, only 1 in 10 whites and 1 in 10 Asians are poor. The authors note that whites make up most of the nation's poor, but that is because there are more whites in the total population.

This disparity arises in part because of racial and ethnic gaps in employment, health and wealth:

Employment: The employment rate for African American men has been 11 to 15 percentage points lower than that for whites in every month since January 2000. During the Great Recession, African American men's employment rates fell further and recovered more slowly than did white men's employment.

Health: There are also profound racial disparities in illness and death. For example, blacks are two to three times more likely than whites to suffer from hypertension and diabetes, leading in turn to higher rates of cardiovascular disease.

Wealth: In 2013, a white family's median wealth was $141,900. The study states that, "for every dollar of wealth held by the median white family, the median African American family had less than 8 cents in wealth, and the median Hispanic family had less than 10 cents."

Addressing inequality early

The report argues that many fewer disparities would develop later in life by "equalizing starting conditions."

The deck is stacked against blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans because they are dealt, as the report states, an immediate "one-two punch" at the very moment of birth. They are not just more likely to be born into families with less wealth, education and income, but they are also more likely to live in poor neighborhoods where high-quality schools are more difficult to find, crime is high and other amenities are unavailable.

The report states that simply equalizing starting conditions wouldn't eliminate racial and ethnic inequalities, but would at least help reduce them. It is not enough to equalize starting conditions because blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans are exposed later in their life to "educational, labor market and criminal justice institutions riddled with discriminatory practices."

"It is nonetheless especially attractive to cut off at the source those processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage that convert smaller differences early in life to larger ones in adulthood," the report states.

"A distinctly American commitment," said Grusky, "is that, when the race begins, everyone should be lined up at the same starting place. This commitment is not being honored. We don't even come close to living up to what we claim matters to us."

Encouraging signs

For all these problems, the report also stressed that there are some encouraging signs.

Academic performance for all students improved between 1990 and 2015, and black and Hispanic students experienced the fastest improvement. The researchers attributed this result to early-education initiatives that equalized opportunities in early childhood, but they also cautioned that such success is still only partial, noting that "Hispanic students lag almost two grade levels, and black students lag roughly two to two-and-a-half grade levels behind whites."

The report also found a declining gap in social mobility. Although "the persistence of affluence is stronger for whites, while the persistence of poverty is stronger for blacks," the black-white gap in the persistence of poverty has "closed significantly."

For white children born into the 20th percentile of household income, the probability of moving upward is about 75 percent - a figure that hasn't changed much since 1945.

Black children in that same 20th percentile now have about a 70 percent probability of moving up. In 1945, this probability was less than 50 percent. The study attributes policies such as Head Start, school desegregation and school finance reform as contributors to this change.
Stanford scholars contributing to the report were Marybeth Mattingly, research consultant at the Center on Poverty and Inequality; Juan Pedroza, doctoral student in sociology; Mark Duggan, professor of economics; Valerie Scimeca, research assistant at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research; Sean Reardon, professor of education; Erin Fahle, doctoral student in education; Colin Peterson, doctoral student in sociology; C. Matthew Snipp, professor of sociology; Florencia Torche, professor of sociology; and Charles Varner, associate director of the Center on Poverty and Inequality. The report also included research from scholars at Brandeis University, Cardiff University (Wales), Duke University, Harvard University, New York University, University of Texas, UC Berkeley and UC Irvine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report finds significant racial and ethnic disparities | Stanford News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite improvements in education, social mobility and many critical areas, large racial and ethnic disparities still exist - and are sometimes even increasing - for other important outcomes, according to a recently published Stanford report that examined racial and ethnic disparities in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Good leaders are hard to find now in America. As Trump is now President, the next leaders are going to follow in his foot steps. This will cause a down hill effect of leaders in America. It will not only effect the United States but it will involve other internationally around the word causing more problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As in the past, the day will be cold. Melania will hold the Bible. The kids will stand by proudly. The new President will recite his lines carefully, smile broadly and change history. And American international leadership, a constant since 1945, will end with the presidential inauguration of Donald J. Trump on Jan. 20, 2017.

That's not because Trump is bound to fail where his predecessors have succeeded. Given the rise of other countries with enough power to shrug off U.S. pressure--and other factors, like the ability of smaller powers to punch above their weight in cyberspace--this moment was inevitable. America will remain the sole superpower for the foreseeable future--only the U.S. can project military muscle, economic clout and cultural influence into every region of the world. But Trump's election marks an irreversible break with the past, one with global implications.

For at least the next four years, America's interactions with other nations will be guided not by the conviction that U.S. leadership is good for America and the world but by Trump's transactional approach. This will force friends and foes alike to question every assumption they've made about what Washington will and will not do. Add a more assertive China and Russia to the greater willingness of traditional U.S. allies to hedge their bets on American plans and it's clear that we've reached a turning point. Trump is not an isolationist, but he's certainly a unilateralist, and a proudly selfish one. Even if he wanted to engage the G-7 or G-8 or G-20 to get things done--and he doesn't--it has become unavoidably obvious that the transition toward a leaderless world is now complete. The G-zero era I first predicted nearly six years ago is now fully upon us. No matter how long Trump remains in the White House, a crucial line has been crossed. The fallout will outlive his presidency, because Trump has proved that tens of millions of Americans like this idea.

Trump's "America first" approach fundamentally changes the U.S. role in the world. Trump agrees with leaders of both political parties that the U.S. is an exceptional nation, but he insists that the country can't remain exceptional if it keeps stumbling down the path that former Presidents, including Republicans and Democrats, have followed since the end of World War II. Washington's ambition to play the role of indispensable power allows both allies and rivals to treat U.S. taxpayers like chumps, he argues. Better to build a "What's in it for us?" approach to the rest of the world. This is a complete break with a foreign policy establishment that Trump has worked hard to delegitimize--and which he continues to ostracize by waving off charges of Russian interference in the election and by refusing the daily intelligence briefings offered to all Presidents-elect. American power, once a trump card, is now a wild card. Instead of a superpower that wants to impose stability and values on a fractious and valueless global order, the U.S. has become the single biggest source of international uncertainty.

And don't expect lawmakers to provide the traditional set of checks and balances. It's not just that the Constitution gives the President great power to conduct foreign policy. It's also that Trump has succeeded politically where his party's establishment has continually failed, and as long as he remains popular with the party's voters, many junior Republican lawmakers will answer to their President rather than to their leaders on Capitol Hill. Expect Trump to use the bully pulpit with a vengeance, often at 140 characters or less, to try to set new rules and rally the faithful to follow his lead.

As for special interests, Trump isn't much beholden to Wall Street, Silicon Valley or Big Business, since most didn't support him. Those in the tech class, in particular, are the most liberal of the U.S. business elite, and Trump's intense criticism of Apple for resisting FBI efforts to hack into the cell phones used by the attackers in San Bernardino, Calif., previews plenty of fights to come between the Trump White House and Silicon Valley. Trump has essentially charged Big Business with treason and threatens to punish--individually--those companies that ship jobs overseas.

He hasn't yet taken the oath of office, but Trump (and Trumpism) have already begun to create turmoil abroad. In Europe, the new President's full embrace of Brexit sets teeth on edge in many capitals, and his friendly approach to Russia leaves European governments scrambling for security alternatives to NATO. Transatlantic relations have reached their lowest point since the 1930s. In Asia, his confrontational attitude toward China will bolster U.S. ties with allies like Japan and India that have long-term reasons to resist China's rise, but it has already made it that much harder to manage Washington's relations with Beijing, the most important relationship for the future of the global economy. It will also complicate any bid by the U.S. and China to work together, or at least in parallel, when North Korea finally becomes a red-alert-level emergency--which it almost certainly will.

But the election of Donald Trump is just the latest source of G-zero uncertainty and turmoil. Few leaders in today's world, particularly in Europe, have enough popularity to get anything done, and the current wave of populism sweeping through many E.U. countries calls into question the legitimacy of institutions and governing principles in the world's most advanced industrial democracies. France will head to the polls in 2017, led by a President too weak to stand in an election in which a leading contender wants to pull the country out of the E.U. In Britain, with European negotiators and members of her own party intent on driving exceptionally hard bargains, it's far from clear that Prime Minister Theresa May can navigate her divided country through (at least) two years of Brexit negotiations.

In Germany, the lack of any appealing alternative will probably keep Angela Merkel as Chancellor, but domestic backlash against her open-door policy for Middle East migrants will leave her much weakened. In Italy, the failure of Matteo Renzi's political-reform referendum has upended politics, dooming the country's 64th government in 70 years. Greece's financial problems are far from finished. The E.U. is in for a rough ride in 2017, even if its deal with Turkey to sharply limit the surge of Syrian refugees into Europe holds, helping avoid a repeat of the tidal wave of desperate people that roiled E.U. politics.

While there are places where the risk is overblown, the outlook isn't much brighter in the developing world. The latest round of tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has made headlines, but both governments want to avoid an escalation of violence that might hurt them at home. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, the capital city's Christian governor has aroused Muslim fury, but President Joko Widodo continues to promote economic reform and much-needed investment in the country's infrastructure.

China's top leaders have become increasingly confident in their ability to maintain their monopoly on domestic political power and to develop stronger international relationships with willing partners. But a scheduled leadership transition next fall might create much higher levels of stress in Beijing and a more belligerent attitude from its leaders--particularly if China's economy begins to show unexpected vulnerability. With that backdrop, Trump's hostile approach, including treating U.S. policy on Taiwan as a card to play, will generate anxiety.

Vladimir Putin remains firmly in charge in Moscow, and Trump's win provides an unexpected bonus in better relations with the White House. We might even see an easing, if not an end, of Western sanctions in 2017. But oil prices won't reach the heights that boosted the Russian economy a decade ago, which exposes a longer-term vulnerability for which Putin has no credible answer. He has more than enough political and financial capital to avoid serious trouble in 2017, but the long-term erosion of Russia's power and financial reserves will eventually give Putin good reasons to create international distractions. In Mexico, hostility toward (and from) Trump is already stirring up trouble. And economic crisis and political confrontation are headed toward a potentially violent climax in Venezuela.

Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a would-be Putin bent on expanding his authority, has expressed growing hostility toward E.U. leaders who depend on his goodwill to limit migrant flows. South Africa's scandal-plagued President continues to ignite partisan passions. Protests, a staple of the country's political culture, have again turned violent.

No region feels the G-zero pressure more acutely than the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, low oil prices, Iran's release from sanctions, a lack of reliable friends and rivalries within the royal family are creating ever higher levels of stress. The killing continues in Yemen and in Syria, where Bashar Assad has all but conquered Aleppo. Finally, the military defeat of ISIS will scatter surviving fighters across the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe, Russia and elsewhere in search of opportunities to wage jihad on new battlefields.

While America's withdrawal will create uncertainty, no one is rushing in to fill the vacuum. China's investments in Asia, Africa and Latin America boost Beijing's influence in dozens of countries, and Trump's renunciation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous trade deal, gives China an excellent opportunity to expand its web of regional trade ties. But Beijing can't match Washington's military reach or cultural appeal. It's not a major producer of energy, food or the latest advanced technology. And China's leaders have their hands full at home. They must ensure that the nation's economy continues to develop and modernize to maintain their monopoly of domestic political power. The reality is that there is no emerging power ready, willing and able to take the leadership role the U.S. will no longer play.

Around the world, populism will decentralize power away from central state actors toward local officials, at the expense of international cooperation. This anger undermines the authority of supranational organizations--the E.U., NATO, the U.N. The pace of technological change threatens the ability of governments to govern. An ever growing number of major decisions are taken by nonstate actors--data-hungry companies, hackers, political interest groups and terrorists.

The international order itself is unraveling. In the past eight years alone, the world has seen the worst financial crisis in decades, a global recession, a historic debt crisis in the euro zone, a wave of unrest across North Africa and the Middle East, civil war in Syria, a migrant crisis that calls into question the future of Europe's open borders, war between Russia and Ukraine, Brexit, an explosion of cyber aggression and the election as U.S. President of one Donald Trump. Call it geopolitical creative destruction or just the sound of things falling apart, but the grinding of G-zero gears has become too loud to ignore.

In the short term, 2017 will have more than its share of decisive political moments. France will stage the most anticipated presidential election in years this spring, with the country's future as a European pillar at stake. Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Front hopes to ride Europe's populist wave toward victory--and sound the death knell for the entire E.U. project. In the fall, Merkel, the last-standing champion of Western liberal values, seeks re-election as Germany's Chancellor. Both countries fear that Russian hackers will try to disrupt their elections, just as Moscow is suspected of having done in the U.S.

There will also be a presidential election in Iran that might well bring tensions between reformers and hard-liners in that country to a head. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and others will continue to seek solutions to the existential threat posed to their economies by persistently low oil prices. Angry words between Europe and Turkey will threaten a new surge of migrants across E.U. borders. China's leadership transition will make Beijing a more unpredictable player in regional and international politics.

And President Donald Trump will lead the United States of America into uncharted waters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Era of American Global Leadership Is Over. Here's What Comes Next

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As in the past, the day will be cold. Melania will hold the Bible. The kids will stand by proudly. The new President will recite his lines carefully, smile broadly and change history. And American international leadership, a constant since 1945, will end with the presidential inauguration of Donald J.

# data[].attributes.body
Soldiers over the years have lost motivation to fight. As people don't know why, it has been concerning to many and they want to try and fix the problem. People who are drafted is obvious they do not want to fight because they didn't want to be there. But people who wanted to be in the Army still do not have motivation. Realizing this, maybe they are not prepared for what is going to happen and second guess there decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout American history, soldiers have taken up arms, some to protect their country and democracy, others for different reasons. Princeton University history professor James McPherson offers thoughts on why soldiers fight. He's the author of For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought In The Civil War.

LIANE HANSEN, host:

On this Memorial Day weekend, millions of Americans will remember loved ones who served their country in the armed forces. From the ragtag farmer soldiers of the American Revolution to the highly trained and equipped troops currently deployed, men and some women have come from widely divergent backgrounds to fight for the United States. Some enlisted; others were drafted. Some were motivated by love of country; others had different reasons for serving.

Princeton University history Professor James McPherson has written about the motivations of Civil War soldiers in his most recent book, "For Cause and Comrades," and he's with us to talk about why soldiers throughout American history have taken up arms.

Welcome back to the program, Professor McPherson.

Professor JAMES McPHERSON (History Professor, Princeton University): Well, thanks for having me again.

HANSEN: Let's start with the Civil War. At the beginning, in 1861, President Lincoln declared the North was fighting to preserve the Union. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, said the South was fighting to establish their right to secede from the Union and govern themselves without Northern interference. Is this what the regular men in the field were fighting for?

Prof. McPHERSON: Pretty much, yes. I think so. And that was the meaning of the word `Cause' in my book "For Cause and Comrades." Northern soldiers enlisted to defend the United States from the attempt to break it up. They also rushed to enlist to defend the flag, which had been fired on by the Confederate forces at Ft. Sumter. So they were fighting for flag and country. And I think the same thing would be true of the Confederate soldiers because once the Confederacy was a going concern, the Southern soldiers who enlisted to fight in its defense were fighting for their country and for their flag, as well.

HANSEN: How do you know that?

Prof. McPHERSON: I know that from the letters of the soldiers that I read, thousands of letters from hundreds of soldiers over the entire four years of the war. And they're filled with patriotic affirmations, and in some cases highly ideological motivation, especially in the case of Northern soldiers. In the case of the Confederate soldiers, as the war went on, there was another very powerful motive added: And that was to defend their nation, their country, their state, their home and hearth from invasion by enemy troops, because most of the war was fought in the South.

HANSEN: Did motivations change after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863?

Prof. McPHERSON: Well, they did change, although that change was coming from almost the beginning of the war. They were convinced--most Northerners were convinced that while they were fighting to defend the Union and not necessarily to abolish slavery, the initial reason for the secession of the Southern states and the creation of the Confederate States of America was to defend slavery from the anticipated threat to the survival of that institution by Lincoln's election.

HANSEN: What about other wars of the 19th and 20th century. Are there times when soldiers seem to be fighting for something other than what their leadership said they were fighting for?

Prof. McPHERSON: Well, I think that once soldiers are in the Army and are facing combat, there's another kind of motive that becomes added onto whatever ideological or patriotic motives brought them into the Army in the first place, and that is indicated by second word in the title of my book, `Comrades.' There's a kind of bonding that takes place within military units, especially that when they face a common danger, that motivates soldiers to fight so--because they don't want to let their buddies down, and they don't want to lose face in the eyes of their buddies. If they run away, if they abandon their buddies, if they prove themselves to be a coward, they will never be able to hold up their heads again. So that there's kind of a bonding and unity within the unit that is a powerful factor I think for soldiers in all wars.

HANSEN: Are historians now looking at the current conflict in Iraq and doing that same sort of study on motivation?

Prof. McPHERSON: Well, I think it's probably too soon for historians to be looking at that, but certainly the Army itself is concerned about this. Army psychologists, Army officers are intensely concerned about soldier motivation in a war like Iraq, especially since that's being fought several thousand miles away from American shores for reasons that may not be clear to many of the soldiers, so there's a real problem.

There was a problem in Vietnam. And that really caused an intense re-examination of soldier motivation. Of course, most of the men who fought in Vietnam were draftees. They didn't want to be there. They didn't understand, in many cases, why they were there. The normal term was a year, and then replacements would come in individually, and they wouldn't have this kind of bonding with the rest of the men in the unit because they didn't even know the rest of the men in the unit. And so Army officers and Army psychologists are intensely concerned about this. I think it'll take a few years' perspective for historians, who might then have access to some of the letters or e-mails. I'm not sure how you're going to study when people don't write letters so much, but make telephone calls and send e-mails.

HANSEN: James McPherson is a professor of history at Princeton University and the author of many books, including "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War." Thanks a lot for joining us.

Prof. McPHERSON: You're welcome. Thank you.

Copyright © 2005 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout American history, soldiers have taken up arms, some to protect their country and democracy, others for different reasons. Princeton University history professor James McPherson offers thoughts on why soldiers fight. He's the author of For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought In The Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
Franklin D. Roosevelt created a radio talk for the people of America. He wanted to comfort people in times of tragedy while they could stay in there homes. He possessed great leadership skills creating a good foot print for the next leader. He was determined and mindful to help all Americans and that's why he was respected so much.

# data[].attributes.body
All Americans have different ways of living and going about life. But one advantage we all have is doing it "freely" or so we hope. Although the United States is a country of freedom, people still are not treated fairly and are discriminated against. I disagree with what it means to be an American because it doesn't live up to its true definition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today's Fourth of July holiday, our country's birthday, marks a new beginning for undocumented Americans like me.

Last month, TIME magazine featured an unprecedented photograph of 36 undocumented young people, myself included, on the cover of its U.S. and international editions. "We are Americans," the headline declared. "Just not legally." Shortly after, President Obama, in the most significant step in the fight for immigrant rights since President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, issued a directive to stop the deportation of an estimated 1 million DREAM Act-eligible undocumented youth and welcome them to our workforce. America, in turn, embraced 1 million dreams. And in last week's Supreme Court decision on Arizona's immigration law, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for the highest court in the land: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States."

As we celebrate America's Independence Day -- as we explore what it means to be American on the most American of all days -- I also celebrate my independence from the word "illegal."

Academics and lawyers will be quick to point out that I, in fact, was never a "criminal." Being in the U.S. without authorization is not a crime, but rather a civil offense for the country's estimated 12 million undocumented residents. Yet for too long, the rhetoric around immigration has been shrouded in and synonymous with criminality. As a cable news producer on Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom" tells a colleague in the show's most recent episode, we've grown accustomed to talking about human beings as if "we're talking about scraping gum off our shoes."

"These people chose to take a huge risk to become Americans," the producer notes, "and they deserve a better descriptor than 'illegals.'"

To me, what it means to be an American goes beyond your place of birth or the documents you have, back to when throngs of Irish, Italian and Eastern Europeans crossed the Atlantic Ocean in search of a better life, no papers asked. What it means to be an American is less about who you are than what you are about-- how you live your life, how you contribute to this country, how you pledge allegiance to a flag hoping and praying it will make room for you. What it means to be an American is in the hearts of the people who, in their struggles and heartaches, in their joys and triumphs, fight for America and fight to be American every day.

A few weeks after I "came out" in June 2011 about my undocumented status in an essay in the New York Times Magazine, Washington state revoked my driver's license. Among the first people to reach out to me was Aaron Sorkin. I've interviewed Sorkin before. He told me he was working on a new show about a cable news program, and that the second episode is set on the day Gov. Jan Brewer signed the Arizona immigration bill into law. He asked for my thoughts on immigration. In an email later, I told him about the first time I watched one of his films. It was 1997, not too long after I discovered that I didn't have the proper documents to live in America. I was watching "The American President," a movie starring Michael Douglas, and toward the end of the film, Douglas, as the president, says: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight." I was 16, lost and disoriented, and I told Sorkin that hearing those words helped me realize that I had to fight -- that America was a fight and that America had to be earned.

Undocumented Americans, aspiring citizens like me, have been fighting and will continue to fight for this country we call home. And, as more and more undocumented Americans and the people who support us -- the Good Samaritans in our lives, the teachers, pastors, neighbors and friends who make up our underground railroad -- "come out" and tell our stories, America's view of immigration and the nature of citizenship itself grows increasingly more complex and nuanced. It becomes about human beings.

Together with a small group of friends, I founded a campaign called Define American, which seeks to elevate conversation on immigration. And elevating and broadening the conversation means engaging different types of audiences from all walks of life. After appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" last month, I received an email from Dennis Murphy of Omaha, Nebraska. The email reads:

"Mr. Vargas:

As founder and former state chairman of the Nebraska Minutemen, now merged with the Nebraska Tea Party, I was positively impressed by your interview with Bill O'Reilly. If I understand your situation correctly, you [were] brought into the United States by your parents when you were a young child, and they chose for whatever reason to do so in a fashion that avoided our immigration law. You now refer to yourself in your blog as "an undocumented American," which I believe is a fair and accurate assessment."

Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for considering me one of your fellow Americans. Let's keep the conversation going. Let's keep exploring what it means to be an American.

WATCH: Jose Antonio Vargas and others define 'American':

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's Fourth of July holiday, our country's birthday, marks a new beginning for undocumented Americans like me. Last month, TIME magazine featured an unprecedented photograph of 36 undocumented young people, myself included, on the cover of its U.S. and international editions. "We are Americans," the headline declared. "Just not legally."

# data[].attributes.body
Discrimination against women and race have a huge affect on America. This is what everyone lives through today and have troubles with getting to to stop. Change may happen but it is going to be in a very long time. Being an American shows struggles and living through hardships.

# data[].attributes.body
George Bush speech on 9/11 is showing how this act of terror will only make us stronger. That this happened to make us afraid and frightened, but that it will unite the nation even more. Nothing could break our freedom and united nation.

# data[].attributes.body
The Iraq war had a huge effective on the Unites States. It put us in more than 1 trillion dollars in debt. This caused many problems. People don't realize the outcomes of war and whats the reason for it. So, why do we put our selves in situations like this to only have a negative impact on the Nation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Iraq War was a military conflict that lasted seven years (2003 - 2011) and cost $1.06 trillion. The Bush Administration launched it to eliminate the threat from Iraq's Sunni leader, Saddam Hussein. President Bush announced Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq War was part of the War on Terror. That was the U.S. response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaida.

That includes increases to the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Veterans Administration (VA) base budgets. The DoD base budget grew by $193 billion during the Iraq War. The VA budget expanded by $47.7 billion. Some of those increases are attributable to the War in Afghanistan.

It also includes the $819.7 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds specifically dedicated to the Iraq War. That's more than the $738 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars spent on the Vietnam War. It's second only to the $4.1 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars spent during World War II. For more on how to determine the actual cost of defense, see the U.S. Military Budget.

Here's a timeline of what happened each year. Costs are taken from the 2014 Congressional Budget Services Report and Federal government spending reports. A table that summarizes these costs is below.

FY 2003 - $90.3 billion: On March 19, the United States invaded Iraq with "Shock and Awe." Massive bombing and a ground invasion toppled the Hussein regime the next month.

FY 2004 - $90.9 billion: In April, the U.S. laid siege to the Sunni-held city of Falluja. That same month, photos of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison further incited insurgents.

In June, the U.S. appointed Shiite leader Iyad Allawi as Prime Minister. Despite this, Shia radicals turned on the United States in Najaf two months later. In November, the U.S. military launched a major offensive against Sunni insurgents in Falluja. For more on the internal politics, see Sunni-Shia Split.

FY 2005 - $105.8 billion: In April, Iraq named Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani as president, and Shiite Ibrahim Jaafari as Prime Minister. In May, Sunni insurgents killed 672 people in car bombings, double the 364 killed in April. In October, voters approved a new constitution. It aimed to create an Islamic federal democracy. In December, they elected a new Parliament.

FY 2006 - $108.3 billion: The United States responded to escalating violence between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that killed more than 34,000 civilians. In February, Sunnis bombed an important Shia shrine in Samarra. In April, newly re-elected President Talabani asked Shia candidate Nouri al-Maliki to form a new government. An al-Qaida leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in Iraq. In November, Iraq and Syria restored diplomatic relations after nearly 25 years. In the Shia area of Sadr City in Baghdad, more than 200 died in car bombings.

In December, Saddam Hussein was quietly executed.

FY 2007 - $155.9 billion: Bush announced a surge of 20,000 additional U.S. troops to help transition power to Iraq leaders. In February, more than 130 troops were killed by bombs in Baghdad's Sadriya market. In March, hundreds more were killed when Sunnis exploded three trucks filled with toxic chlorine gas in Falluja and Ramadi. In April, 200 people died from bombs in Baghdad. In August, 250 people were killed by truck and car bombs in two Kurdish villages. Shia and Kurdish leaders formed an alliance to support Prime Minister Maliki. U.S-contractors Blackwater security guards killed 17 civilians in Baghdad. By December, Britain handed over security of the Basra province to Iraqi forces.

FY 2008 - $196.8 billion: In January, the Iraqi Parliament allowed former officials from Saddam Hussein's Baath party to return to public life.

InMarch, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited. Hundreds were killed when Prime Minister Maliki cracked down on Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army in Basra. In September, the United States handed over the Sunni province of Anbar to the Shia-led government. Bush signed the Status of Force agreement which promised to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011. (Source: "Did Obama Withdraw From Iraq Too Soon?" NPR, December 19, 2015.)

FY 2009 - $132.9 billion: In January, Iraq took control of security in Baghdad's Green Zone. In June, U.S. troops withdrew from all towns and cities, handing over security duties to Iraq. In July, Masoud Barzani (KDP) was re-elected as President. InDecember, the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for suicide bombings in Baghdad that killed at least 367 people that year. Tension flared with Iran when its troops briefly occupied an oilfield in Iraqi territory. In November, President Obama agreed to pull out troops by 2011.

FY 2010 - $83.4 billion: Troops withdrew, leaving 50,000 to advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests until 2011.

FY 2011 - $50.9 billion: All U.S. troops left Iraq by end of December. The Shia government suppressed the Sunni minority. The Iraq military became weak. Both fueled the rise of the Islamic State group.

2012-2014 - $7.8 billion: The United States supported contractors who stayed in Iraq to protect U.S. interests.

2015-2016 - $38.7 billion: Troops returned to Iraq to train local soldiers to defeat the Islamic State group. (Source: " The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A1. Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014. " Iraq ProfileTimeline," BBC.)
Iraq War Costs Summary Table (in billions)
* Boots on Ground is the number of troops in Iraq. From 2003 - 2013 it's as of December of that year. 2014 is from May. From "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Table A-1. Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2014. 2015 is for the fourth quarter, and 2016 is from the second quarter. From " Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2016," Table 3. Heidi M. Peters, Congressional Research Service, August 15, 2016. OMB, Historical Tables)

Cost of the Iraq War to Veterans

The real cost of the Iraq War is more than the $1.06 trillion added to the debt. First, and most important, is the cost borne by the 4,488 U.S. troops who died, the 32,226 who suffered injuries, and their families.

More than 90 percent of soldiers wounded in Iraq survived thanks to improvements in battlefield medicine. That's up from the 86.5 percent injured who survived the Vietnam War. The higher survival rate also means many now must live with complex and grave damage. Twenty percent are being treated for Traumatic Brain Injury. Another 20 percent have either Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression. In addition, 796 suffered major limb amputation, while 235 died from self-inflicted wounds while serving in Iraq.

On average, 20 veterans commit suicide each day according to a 2016 VA study. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) found that 47 percent of its members knew of someone who had attempted suicide after returning from active duty. The group considers veteran suicide to be its number one issue. (Source: " A Guide to U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom," Congressional Research Service, Hannah Fischer, February 19, 2014. " Veterans Group to Launch Suicide Prevention Campaign," Washington Post, March 24, 2014.)

The cost of veterans' medical and disability payments over the next 40 years is more than $1 trillion. That's according to Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "The cost of caring for war veterans typically peaks 30 to 40 years or more after a conflict," Bilmes said. (Source: " Costs of War," Watson Institute at Brown University, September 2016. "Iraq War Lives on as Second-Costliest U.S. Conflict Fuels U.S. Debt," BusinessWeek, January 3, 2012. " Final U.S. Troops Leave Iraq," Bloomberg, March 19, 2013).

Cost to Economy

Most American families did not feel the cost of the Iraq War at the time. First, there was no draft as there was in the Vietnam War or World War II. Second, there was no additional tax. As a result, those who served and their families bore the brunt. They will pay at least $300 billion over the next several decades to pay for their injured family members. That doesn't include lost income from jobs they quit to care for their relative.

Future generations will also pay for the addition to the debt. Researcher Ryan Edwards estimated that the United States incurred an extra $453 billion in interest on the debt to pay for the wars in the Middle East. Over then next 40 years, these costs will add $7.9 trillion to the debt. (Source: "Costs of War," Watson Institute, September 2016.)

Companies, particularly small businesses, were disrupted by National Guard and Reserve call-ups.The economy has also been deprived of the productive contribution of the service members killed, wounded, or psychologically traumatized.

There's also the opportunity cost in terms of job creation. Every $1 billion spent on defense creates 8,555 jobs and adds $565 million to the economy. That same $1 billion in tax cuts stimulate enough demand to create 10,779 jobs. That puts $505 million into the economy as retail sales. The same $1 billion in spent on education adds $1.3 billion to the economy and creates 17,687 jobs.

Causes

The Bush Administration wanted to eliminate the terrorist threat of Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein. He was not affiliated with al-Qaida. But he was a Sunni Muslim who used violence to expand his power.

Saddam Hussein was Iraq's Sunni leader from 1979 until the U.S. invasion in 2003. The United States installed a leader from the Shiite majority. The Sunnis believe that Shiites (the majority in Iran) want to revive Persian rule over the Middle East. This Sunni-Shia split is the underlying driving force of tensions in the area. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran battle to control the Straits of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes.

The United States wanted to install a pro-U.S. government to stabilize the region. It thought that would defuse the unease between Iranian Shiites and Saudi Arabian Sunnis. It would also put pressure on Middle East kingdoms to allow more democracy. Then they would stop shielding al-Qaida and other anti-U.S. terrorist groups.

The Administration thought Hussein was a bigger threat than North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-il. He could finance his terrorism with oil revenue. Troops never did find p​roof of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons of mass destruction. But there was grave concern that Hussein was building that capacity. He had used chemical weapons on Kurds in Iraq.

Both parties in Congress, and 70 people of the American people, supported the war. Many thought we should have eliminated Hussein in the first Gulf War, after he invaded Kuwait. This concern escalated after 9/11. In addition, the War in Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban quickly. Supporters thought the Iraq War would be easily won.(Source: "Why Did We Invade Iraq?" National Review, March 26, 2013.)

Iraq After the War

The Iraq war is not over even though U.S. troops are out. Fighting between the country's Shiite majority and Sunni minority continues. Sunnis are ostracized by the Shiite-led government. These frustrations drive the conflicts in Syria and Lebanon as well.

In fact, 2013 was the deadliest since 2008, the height of the war. The war had weakened al-Qaida in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. But frustrations created a new terrorist threat. The Islamic State group promised a new homeland for Sunnis in the region. The cost to fight the Islamic State group in Iraq has spread to Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Islamic State group took its war to Brussels, Paris, California, Berlin, and many other spots throughout the world. (Source: " What's Going On in Iraq," CNN, January 6, 2014. "Recent ISIS Attacks," The New York Times, January 14, 2016.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Iraq War was a military conflict that lasted seven years (2003 - 2011) and cost $1.06 trillion. The Bush Administration launched it to eliminate the threat from Iraq's Sunni leader, Saddam Hussein. President Bush announced Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq War was part of the War on Terror.

# data[].attributes.body
As the LGBTQ community has expanded over the years, so has the fight for their rights. Their are many laws against them and they want to change that. As each year goes by, more laws are being passed to help with the equality of gays.This shows their courage and shows ability to be able to change things that you believe in.