The Largest Brazilian Community in the United States: An Overview

 Choice-sensitive measures of resource distribution can be like, totally talked about in terms of accommodation practices to see who can flex and absorb some of the cost of others' free, morally relevant choices. Seana Shiffrin is like, all about accommodation, which is basically when people take on the costs of other people's actions, even if those actions are totally optional and the cost-taking isn't needed to be fair (Shiffrin, 2004:275). A choice-sensitive criterion ain't the only vibe of egalitarianism, fam. Egalitarianism also requires resource distribution to be designed according to luck-insensitive vibes, suggesting morally arbitrary factors like luck shouldn't flex on the distribution scheme and therefore people shouldn't be held accountable for dealing with the Ls they didn't choose or the bad luck that comes their way. Yet, like, some egalitarians are like, yo, does equality mean we gotta be totally unbothered by people's natural misfortunes, like being born with disabilities and stuff? (Rawls, 1971; Wolf, 1998, Anderson, 1999; Cohen, 1989; Dworkin, 2000). 

Like, there's more beef about what features should be part of the choice criteria, you know?

I wanna flex here that the vibes of migrant workers aren't just about luck, so they totally fall under the luck-insensitive vibe. Migrant workers as minority squad members of a community deserve mad props for their cultural flex and protection of their own culture as a lit context of choice. They didn't choose to be the minority, so they shouldn't have to do all the work to fit in with the majority and prove they belong. If a cost-internalization criterion as choice sensitivity guide applies to the design of resource distribution, it'll totally obstruct meaningful freedom, fam. Cuz there gonna be mad restrictions that ain't vibin' with the chance to flex your rights, desires, and stuff. We may totally not vibe with or straight up sleep on the cultural clout of migrant workers. The decision that devalues farm workers' cultural capital is, like, so not cool and they totally have a right to be bummed about it. Farm workers may feel hella vulnerable to haters dissing their cultural clout that's legit important to them. Shiffrin (2004) has like totally pointed out a sitch like this when peeps are hella vulnerable to internalizing the costs of their efforts. As she's like, "They'll be shook in ways that are way out of proportion to the social cost or disapproval" (2004:291).

When someone's hustle gets slept on, they gotta have equal access to the vibe of freedom to be able to clap back and bounce back from the haters. 

This freedom that egalitarianism is totally chill with may serve as a legit reason for accommodating and respecting farm workers' cultural vibes. I wanna flex here that this kinda lit freedom can't be well protected and maintained under egalitarian vibes associated with strict cost-internalization criteria unless choice-sensitivity measures of resource distribution are made less intense with accommodation to absorb some of the costs of farm worker's hustle. Freedom that can either be flexed or not supported by strict choice-sensitivity can be hella facilitated or supported by accommodation practices, ya feel me? If u do it right, accommodation can totally slay in stopping the non-recognition of migrants' education, skills, and qualifications as a way to discriminate and justify race or any other stuff that can protect their right to equality from cultural capital. OMG, like Courts and Tribunals are totally slaying it by making sure migrant workers are treated equally by their employers. They're like, "Hey, you can't discriminate based on their identity or nationality, okay?" It's all about recognizing their needs and abilities, fam. Yo, peep the recent tea of a lit ruling by a Scottish court as an example. The tea is that this farmer from Perthshire in Scotland got busted by Dundee Court for being the first UK employer to get convicted of gang master offenses. Like, 250 Bulgarians were found working illegally on his land, can you believe it? (The Daily Record, 2 April 2010).

ConcluZion

So like, in a nutshell, the stuff I just mentioned - equality, cultural and social capital, citizenship and accommodation - they all help us peeps understand how individuals are valued based on their cultural capital, ya know? They also help us learn about how much citizenship status of members of the majority applies to migrant farm workers, to what degree social capital contributes to equality of cultural clout for them and to what extent appropriate vibes or tools apply to the design of resource distribution to accommodate their cultural clout. The flex and equal clout of cultural capital lowkey depends on this lit convo. Such discussion provides a lit framework for understanding what I've put forward under my framework, ya know? If equal recognitions of cultural capital aren't actively ensured, this is like, hella gonna produce more claims to equality, you know? The ruling be like, it's all about making sure migrant farm workers' employment rights and cultural capital are just as protected as those of native/resident workers. Periodt. The English court case like totally shows how this gang was like so savage and shady, treating migrant farm workers harvesting leeks like trash, scamming them out of their money, and forcing them to live in cramped, dirty, and straight-up inhumane conditions. It's like messed up, you know? This totally exposes the straight-up unfairness and exploitation that workers can be dealing with (BBC News, 7 December, 2010).