# data[].attributes.body
The movie In Time portrays a world in which time is literally money and people die when they run out of this monetary time. This exemplifies sequential time because everyone in this world literally lives according to the clock: the time a person has is always counting down, and if they do not use it wisely, they risk running out of time and dying.
A school class schedule is an example of sequential time because it shows how certain classes occur at specific times of each day and how the classes only occur in a certain order. If a student does not go to his specific classes at the right times, he may miss out on necessary information and get behind in his studies.
Backpacking exemplifies synchronous time in that when someone is backpacking, they must adapt to the flow of events in nature. For example, they will generally wake up around the time the sun rises and go to sleep around the time the sun sets. They live according to the rhythm of their environment rather than living according to a strict, ordered schedule.
During a date, people live under synchronous time because they go with the flow of events. They take time to focus on the other person and enjoy the other's company rather than worrying about a specific order of events that must take place at certain times.

# data[].attributes.body
The United States presidency demonstrates how Americans value achievement. Anyone born a U.S. citizen can legally become president regardless of their background. And indeed, the presidency has been achieved by several individuals who had humble beginnings.
Charlie Chaplin exemplifies achievement in that his childhood was filled with poverty and hardship, yet he was able to rise out of his difficult beginnings by succeeding as an actor in the United States. In this way, he represents the American Dream and the American value of achievement.
The Kennedy brothers are an example of ascription in that, having been born into a well-to-do family with a well-established reputation, they were driven to excel. Jack, Bobby, and Ted all served in federal government, upholding their family name and making good use of their status to serve their country.
A negative example of ascription is the undeserved praise many North Koreans give to Kim Jong-un. Through propaganda and use of force, the North Korean government has turned the North Korean leader, whoever it may be, into a deity to be worshiped. As a result, people wrongfully put their faith in a corrupt man simply because he holds a special position.

# data[].attributes.body
Amazon is an example of specificity. The Amazon website is organized in such a way that online shoppers should have a specific idea of what they want. Also, Amazon has a specific set of procedures for processing orders and having them delivered in a timely manner.
Chick-fil-A Express also exemplifies specificity because it offers customers a limited set of specific items from which to choose from. Beside being able to choose what premade items they would like to eat, customers have little room to customize their meals.
The Grand Bazaar in Istanbul illustrates diffuseness in that it contains an eclectic collection of loosely organized items that fuse together to create a larger image of endless variety and choice. This big picture takes precedence over the fact that there are specific items that customers end up buying.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a Chinese film that, as a whole, creates an image of fantasy and adventure that a diffuse-thinking Chinese audience can easily appreciate. On the other hand, a specific-thinking American viewer might be surprised by the obviously unrealistic details contained in the film, e.g., flying, walking on highly flexible trees that bend in the wind, etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Portfolio 4: Specificity vs. Diffuseness

# data[].attributes.subject
Portfolio 4: Specificity vs. Diffuseness

# data[].attributes.body
During Chinese New Year celebrations, the Chinese eat certain foods that they consider lucky. This belief in luck from beyond themselves that can influence their lives reflects the outer perspective commonly held by Chinese people.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer exemplifies the inner perspective in that he risked his life standing up for something he believed in while many of those around him stood for the opposite. Despite living in Nazi Germany, he spoke out against Nazism and the evil that it caused.
Scientology is an example of the inner perspective because it teaches self-actualization, the idea that one can achieve his fullest inner potential and become who they believe they were meant to be.
Those who adhere to Christian Science believe that if they get physically ill, they should not seek human means of healing but rather should pray and depend on God to perform a miracle. This fatalistic approach to maintaining physical health corresponds to the outer perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Portfolio 3: Individualism vs. Communitarianism

# data[].attributes.subject
Portfolio 3: Individualism vs. Communitarianism

# data[].attributes.body
The car waiting at a red light when there are no other cars around is an example of universalism because the driver of the car insists on obeying traffic laws in every situation, even when they seem unnecessary.
The jaywalker is an example of particularism because he has judged that laws against jaywalking do not apply to him in his particular situation.
The New York Times article discussing Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration demonstrates Trump's universalist belief that the established naturalization process is the only way to citizenship. He makes no exceptions.
The Pew Research Center report demonstrates the particularist view held by most Americans that illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be provided a path to citizenship. That is, Americans want to make an exception to laws against illegal immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Obama says success is not a result of someone working hard or being smart and that if you started your own business, you didn't build it yourself. (July 13, 2012).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
60% of Public Opposes Ending 'Birthright Citizenship'

As immigration emerges as a key issue in the presidential campaign, there is little common ground between Republicans and Democrats in views of several immigration policy proposals. But partisan disagreements are much more pronounced on some issues than others.

Overall, the public continues to be divided over building a fence along the entire U.S.-Mexican border: 46% favor erecting a fence, while 48% are opposed, little changed from 2011.

A large majority of Republicans (73%) support a border fence, while 23% are opposed. Democrats oppose building a border fence, 66% to 23%. Among independents, 43% favor a border fence, while 52% oppose this idea.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 22-27 among 1,502 adults, finds that most Americans (60%) oppose the idea of changing the U.S. Constitution to prohibit children of those who are not legal residents from becoming citizens; 37% favor changing the Constitution to end "birthright citizenship."

Again, Republicans and Democrats are far apart on this issue: By 75% to 23%, Democrats oppose changing the Constitution to ban birthright citizenship. Republicans are evenly divided: About half (53%) favor amending the Constitution, while 44% are opposed.

By contrast, large majorities in both parties continue to favor a way for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally, if certain requirements are met. About two-thirds of Republicans (66%) say people in the U.S. illegally should be allowed to stay if they meet certain requirements, while 32% say they should not be allowed to stay legally. By nearly a factor of five-to-one (80% to 17%), Democrats say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally, provided certain requirements are met.

Little Overall Change Since 2007 in Views of a Border Fence

Public opinion about building a fence along the entire U.S.-Mexican border has shown virtually no change since 2007 or 2o11. But age and partisan differences in opinions about a proposed border fence have widened, with Republicans becoming more supportive and Democrats less so over the past four years.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans (73%) now favor building a fence across the entire border with Mexico, up from 62% in 2011. Since then, support for a fence has increased 17 percentage points among moderate and liberal Republicans (from 54% to 71%) and eight points among conservative Republicans (66% then, 74% now).

Over the same period, the share of Democrats who favor building a border fence has declined 10 points (from 39% to 29%). Independents' views (43% favor) are unchanged since 2011 (44%) or 2007 (43%).

Today, adults 50 and older are 18 points more likely than those under 30 to favor building a fence across the entire border (52% vs. 34%). In 2011, there was a seven-point difference in support for building a fence (48% of those 50 and older vs. 41% of those younger than 30). In 2007, identical percentages of older and younger people favored building a fence.

Most Favor Continued Birthright Citizenship

There is broad awareness of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in the United States: 90% say they are aware that these children are automatically citizens. About four-in-ten (37%) favor changing the Constitution so that parents must be legal residents of the U.S. in order for their newborn children to be citizens; 60% favor leaving the Constitution as it is.

Large majorities of those under 30 (71%) and those ages 30-49 (66%) oppose limiting birthright citizenship. Older age groups are more divided: Among those ages 50-64 as many favor (47%) as oppose (48%) this change to the Constitution. Among those 65 and older, 43% favor changing the Constitution, while 52% are opposed.

Whites are far more supportive (44% favor) of changing the Constitution to end birthright citizenship than are blacks (26%) or Hispanics (17%). There are only slight differences in opinions among those of differing levels of education.

Opinions about birthright citizenship have changed only modestly among most sub-groups since the Pew Research Center began asking the question in 2006. But partisan differences have widened over the last four years: In 2011, 47% of Republicans and 32% of Democrats favored changing the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. Today, the gap is 30 percentage points (53% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats).

Broad Support for Providing Legal Status to Undocumented Immigrants

The public's views on how to handle undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has changed little since May. Currently, 74% say there should be a way for them to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met. About a quarter (24%) say undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally.

Most of those who favor providing legal status to people living in the U.S. illegally say they should be allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship (47% of the public), while 24% say they should be able to apply for permanent residency, but not citizenship.

As in the past, majorities across all demographic and partisan groups favor providing legal status to undocumented immigrants. Republicans (66%) continue to be less likely than independents (74%) or Democrats (80%) to support a path to legal status for those in the U.S. illegally.

However, Republican support for finding a way to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they meet certain requirements has increased 10 percentage points since May, from 56% to 66%. There has been virtually no change in opinion among Democrats or independents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On Immigration Policy, Wider Partisan Divide Over Border Fence Than Path to Legal Status

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
60% of Public Opposes Ending 'Birthright Citizenship' As immigration emerges as a key issue in the presidential campaign, there is little common ground between Republicans and Democrats in views of several immigration policy proposals. But partisan disagreements are much more pronounced on some issues than others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump's plan to deport millions of people appears to be underway. Last week, federal immigration officials arrested more than 600 people at their homes and workplaces in at least 11 states, sending terror through immigrant communities.

The abruptness of the raids provoked criticism from local officials, including Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, who vowed to " stand with " immigrant communities. But mass deportation under President Trump will also happen through a more routine policy that is in the mayor's control: endless, unnecessary arrests for low-level offenses, which end up feeding immigrants into the federal government's deportation machine.

It's not enough for cities like New York to declare themselves "sanctuaries," which simply means that the local police won't detain noncitizens on the federal government's behalf. If cities really want to protect immigrants, they must also end the quota-driven style of policing that makes immigrants the victims of unnecessary arrests and disproportionate punishment.

Many of these unnecessary arrests stem from the discredited idea that a draconian crackdown on the most minor offenses - littering, selling loose cigarettes, biking on the sidewalk - will prevent more serious crimes. This model of policing, known as broken windows or zero tolerance, helped to drive mass incarceration. Its next cost could be mass deportation.

While the federal government runs immigration courts and prisons, local police departments are its eyes and ears. Across the country, whenever they arrest someone, city departments send fingerprints and other identifying information to federal officials. Whether the offense is as trivial as selling mango slices on the street without a license or taking a shortcut through a park after dark, federal agents are notified of an immigrant's name and how to find him or her.

President Trump has announced his plans for all those names. Each week, the White House will publish a list of crimes that immigrants have been accused of, and the government will prioritize the deportation of anyone "charged with any criminal offense," even if it never leads to a conviction.

Undocumented immigrants are not the only ones at risk. Any noncitizen can be thrown out of the country for minor offenses like simple marijuana possession or any "crime involving moral turpitude," a broad term that covers everything from jumping a subway turnstile to selling counterfeit T-shirts.

Even if cities stop sharing arrest information, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been known to send plainclothes agents to local courts, where they wait for immigrants to appear for misdemeanor charges. In his first week, President Trump ordered the immigration agency to triple its number of agents.

The Yale law professor Issa Kohler-Hausmann has observed that New York's conviction rates plummeted even as broken windows policing drove up misdemeanor arrests. She argues that these constant arrests aren't meant to prove or punish guilt. Rather, they simply "track and sort people" over time. The process is itself the punishment. Tracking and sorting millions of people is precisely where Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs local help.

For those who are worried about going back to the old days of high crime rates, policing reform isn't a retreat from law and order. It just means smarter solutions. For example, subway fare evasion and public urination are problems that could be dealt with through civil fines - or better yet, fare subsidies and public restrooms. But they're often punished as crimes.

Some cities are already taking steps to ease draconian policing. Last month, Los Angeles vowed to stop arresting street vendors who lack a license. That offense had long been a misdemeanor but will now be punished with a fine. Last summer, New York City similarly decriminalized a handful of offenses like littering and spitting. Mayor de Blasio must continue to retreat from his predecessor's overly aggressive enforcement of so-called quality-of-life offenses; other cities should do the same.

New York has also shown leadership with its Immigrant Family Unity Project, which provides lawyers to low-income people in immigration detention. The lawyers help ensure that New Yorkers aren't exiled from their communities to countries they left as children or where they might face persecution. Having an immigration lawyer can multiply a person's chance of winning a deportation case 10-fold. This is the first such program in the nation, and the presidential election underscores its importance.

States also should try to undo damage. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York recently asked the legislature to decriminalize minor marijuana possession (which can be used to deport even green-card holders), citing a "dramatic shift in public opinion" on the issue. The governor should invite pardon applications from immigrants, to make sure no one is deported just because he was arrested before the public shifted its views.

President Trump's plans to deport millions of immigrants can't happen without boots on the ground. Until cities reject the failed thinking that led to mass incarceration, local police and prosecutors will be doing the legwork for mass deportation.

Shakeer Rahman will be a Skadden fellow at the Bronx Defenders, a nonprofit legal services organization, of which Robin Steinberg is the founder and executive director.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump's plan to deport millions of people appears to be underway. Last week, federal immigration officials arrested more than 600 people at their homes and workplaces in at least 11 states, sending terror through immigrant communities.

# data[].attributes.body
"The nail that sticks out gets hammered down" is a Japanese proverb expressing the communitarian belief that no individual should rise above the rest of his community. In Japan, the community always comes before the individual.
Obama holds the communitarian view that no individual can claim to have accomplished something on his own. He claims that businesses are products of the community, not the individual.
The Lone Ranger exemplifies individualism. This character, defending the West almost completely by himself, appeals to many Americans because he embodies the daring and self-reliance that they value.
Andrew Carnegie, who rose from humble beginnings to become one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs of all time, is praised by many individualists as someone who achieved success through his own hard work and ingenuity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Portfolio 2: Universalism vs. Particularism

# data[].attributes.subject
Portfolio 2: Universalism vs. Particularism

# data[].attributes.body
Born and raised in the suburbs of Dallas, I have been a Texan all my life. I have a diverse family with my father from Minnesota, mother from Bolivia, and two younger sisters, one of whom is from China. Growing up, I spent much of my time in the outdoors as a Boy Scout and avid camper. Today, I still enjoy backpacking through mountainous terrain in my free time. Another hobby of mine is music. Throughout middle school and high school, I played the violin, performing in a variety of musical contexts ranging from large symphony orchestras to small chamber ensembles (my favorite). Currently, my instrument of choice is the ukulele. As far as my academic interests go, I have always been fascinated by math, science, and problem solving. Now I find myself pursuing those interests as an electrical and computer engineering student here at the University of Texas at Austin.