Mr. Devil:
If you'll be patient, I'll give you about 40 or 50 good reasons not to vote for a Democrat in the next presidential election. Let's start with a simple one for now: You haven't seen a debate between the Republican and the Democrat yet. You're basing your decision on a debate where only one party's candidates were present.
Here's another thought--and this is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth--maybe you should support a candidate based on the issues, rather than which one can beat the other in a WWF Deathmatch or whose eyebrows move the most when he talks.
Stick around, Mr. Devil. There will be a lot of discussion here in the future and you just might learn something interesting.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Friday, January 23, 2004
Bias In Media: Jury Trials
This is a tough subject. It is easy to point out the various ways in which the media can taint a trial and I will share several of those. The hard part is to show that the media actually does influence jural decisions. Although there is much evidence to show that this does happen, there is also compelling evidence that it is untrue. Until jurors begin to come forward and say, "I made up my mind because of something I saw on TV" then there is no way to absolutely prove that the media is tainting juries.
The O.J. Simpson Case
This case has all the earmarks of media interference. You've got a team of high-powered attorneys who can bend public sentiment by releasing an endless stream of "news" about the case. We heard various theories about who the "real killer" might have been. They were all speculation, but they were all reported. We heard various "testimony" from "sources" who said Detective Furman was a racist. They were all unsubstantiated, but they were all reported. We had a quasi-celebrity invented for the story in the person of Kato Kaetlin. Kato didn't have a whole lot to add to the spin, but it all got reported--repeatedly.
Remember what happened? Everyone on the sequestered jury found Simpson not guilty. Some jurors have since come forth and said that once they saw the media coverage, they felt he was guilty after all. But from the carefully isolated jury box, they arrived at a different conclusion.
So what does this tell us? It indicates that a jury cut off from the media frenzy is more likely to return a verdict based on the facts presented in the courtroom. Indeed, in spite of all the spin the defense put forth, the public that had been bombarded by the "Trial of the Century" generally believed Simpson was guilty.
But wait a sec. Look at the other side of the coin. The general public, who had been privy to media reports, came to a different conclusion. They saw not only the condensed version of the information available to the jury, they also saw background from various sources. So who made the more informed decision? Did the media influence the public or did they fail to influence the sequestered jury? You decide. This is where the debate gets tough because we can't actually prove media influence either way.
The Kobe Bryant Case
Kobe is well on his way to becoming the O.J. Simpson of the 00s. Once again, we've got a high-profile defendant, a high-powered legal team, and an endless stream of spin coming from the defense. The message would seem to be that step one is to hire an attorney and step two is to hire a media consultant.
We are treated to one unattributed story after another about the condition and mental state of the alleged victim. She's crazy, she tried to kill herself, she had sex with someone prior to Kobe, she does this for attention, ad nauseum. Of course, none of this is based on fact or presented testimony. It is all based on stories leaked to the press and/or motions made by the defense in the case.
Why would someone leak/spin/report/repeat/regurgitate these snippets of "fact?" Two reasons: To create a perception of innocence in the minds of the public (before the jury is selected) and to entertain a public that is supposedly "hungry" for celebrity news. Why else would anyone leak stories about their case if it were not to influence opinion? And why else would anyone repeat and broadcast those stories if they weren't trying to garner a larger audience?
The Martha Stewart Case
Just yesterday (1/22/03) Fox News reported that "The judge in the Martha Stewart trial appears to have given up on finding 12 people completely unfamiliar with the gracious-living guru, zeroing in on those who say they can be fair despite the heavy pre-trial publicity."
Now is that the media's fault? No. They reported the story and people listened. The media cannot be held accountable for the actions of the viewing public.
Or can they? In the months leading up to the trial, two TV movies have been produced about Stewart and about the case. Endless talk shows have been devoted to the subject. At least four documentaries have been produced about Stewart in that same time, including an hour-long puff piece on A&E aired just one week before jury selection. I didn't even bother to look up the number of books written on the subject.
Doesn't the media have the right to produce and present these programs? Yes. We have free press and free media, so go for it, I say. But why can't they wait until after the trial? Why do these people fall all over themselves to present unsubstantiated, spun, unattributed "news" before the trial? Because it generates money and it gets fed to them on a plate. Does it influence the public, Mr. Reporter? "Well, that's really not our problem."
From the aforementioned Fox News article: "'I mean, it's been impossible to totally not hear about the case,' one potential juror told the judge, according to the transcript. 'It has been everywhere.'" In another story I read recently, the defense was complaining about the high number of potential jurors who were under the impression that Stewart was being tried for insider trading, not obstruction of justice.
Let's add one more thing to the Martha Stewart, Barnum & Bailey Media Circus. I saw a TV interview with actress Sybill Shepherd who played Stewart in one of last year's TV movies. Shepherd said she didn't like Stewart until she read the script. However, after portraying her, Shepherd had all sorts of sympathy and newfound respect for Stewart. Then she said--and this almost a direct quote--"Everybody is doing it. If Martha had not been a woman, she would never have been arrested."
Really now? Thanks for that bit of legal legerdemain, Sybill! Everybody is doing it? You mean everybody is obstructing justice? You mean the laws on insider trading are different for men and women? Thanks for throwing another can of gas on the media fire. And on a personal note, let me add this one comment to what Ms. Shepherd said: Nice quote, moron!
The (Second) Michael Jackson Case
This one is bad and it is going to get worse. Just within this past week, the media released a story about how the alleged victim is dying of cancer. First, no one knows if that is true. Second, it's not news. Not at all. Now if the boy should die before he testifies, then that would certainly be news. But the rest of it is just hype. It is another reason to run a Michael Jackson story and punch a headline that will sell a newspaper.
The media jackals have been hungry for Michael Jackson stories and the defense is anxious to throw them raw meat. The alleged victim's family just wants money, the mother is crazy, the father has been hospitalized, the police have been involved, they have the boy on tape saying Michael is a great guy, ad nauseum. Does any of that sound familiar? Does it sound a whole lot like the Kobe Bryant stories?
Then Jackson goes on TV. He is interviewed on a segment on 60 Minutes. The media is pissed about that one, because the 60 Minutes interview was an exclusive they didn't get. Their response? Accuse CBS of paying for the interview (as if ABC, NBC, CNN and the New York Times wouldn't have done the exact same thing). These people are hungry for stories and they get pissed if they don't get some. So if you're a defense attorney, what do you do? You throw the jackals some raw meat now and then. After all, it helps your case, right?
Sidebar
I would like to single out the Disney/ABC/A&E/ESPN/Etc. conglomerate. A&E has run specials on Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart. All were one-hour specials highlighting their careers and their cases. All were broadcast very shortly before jury selection began in those trials. All were chock full of puff and rumor and speculation. I don't think any of those programs should have been aired, let alone run repeatedly, and I think Disney/A&E should be chastised for doing that. Until someone calls them to heel, they'll keep right on doing it. It's cheap, profitable entertainment.
How Do We Fix It?
I have no idea. I can't even prove with 100% certainty that the media is actually influencing jural decisions. I fear that laws will only open the door to media censorship. That seems like an awfully big risk to take. But then again, it seems risky to me to live in a world where the rich go free because they could afford a media consultant and the poor are convicted because the public hates them based on a biased story.
One thing could help to alleviate the situation, however. The media could police itself. Editors could start checking the identities of unattributed and confidential sources. Any piece that isn't legitimate news could be ignored. Puff pieces and "informational background" pieces could be delayed until after the trial. If the media doesn't start cleaning up its own act, the government will start doing it for them. That almost scares me more than going to court without a media consultant, makeup artist and wardrobe consultant.
The O.J. Simpson Case
This case has all the earmarks of media interference. You've got a team of high-powered attorneys who can bend public sentiment by releasing an endless stream of "news" about the case. We heard various theories about who the "real killer" might have been. They were all speculation, but they were all reported. We heard various "testimony" from "sources" who said Detective Furman was a racist. They were all unsubstantiated, but they were all reported. We had a quasi-celebrity invented for the story in the person of Kato Kaetlin. Kato didn't have a whole lot to add to the spin, but it all got reported--repeatedly.
Remember what happened? Everyone on the sequestered jury found Simpson not guilty. Some jurors have since come forth and said that once they saw the media coverage, they felt he was guilty after all. But from the carefully isolated jury box, they arrived at a different conclusion.
So what does this tell us? It indicates that a jury cut off from the media frenzy is more likely to return a verdict based on the facts presented in the courtroom. Indeed, in spite of all the spin the defense put forth, the public that had been bombarded by the "Trial of the Century" generally believed Simpson was guilty.
But wait a sec. Look at the other side of the coin. The general public, who had been privy to media reports, came to a different conclusion. They saw not only the condensed version of the information available to the jury, they also saw background from various sources. So who made the more informed decision? Did the media influence the public or did they fail to influence the sequestered jury? You decide. This is where the debate gets tough because we can't actually prove media influence either way.
The Kobe Bryant Case
Kobe is well on his way to becoming the O.J. Simpson of the 00s. Once again, we've got a high-profile defendant, a high-powered legal team, and an endless stream of spin coming from the defense. The message would seem to be that step one is to hire an attorney and step two is to hire a media consultant.
We are treated to one unattributed story after another about the condition and mental state of the alleged victim. She's crazy, she tried to kill herself, she had sex with someone prior to Kobe, she does this for attention, ad nauseum. Of course, none of this is based on fact or presented testimony. It is all based on stories leaked to the press and/or motions made by the defense in the case.
Why would someone leak/spin/report/repeat/regurgitate these snippets of "fact?" Two reasons: To create a perception of innocence in the minds of the public (before the jury is selected) and to entertain a public that is supposedly "hungry" for celebrity news. Why else would anyone leak stories about their case if it were not to influence opinion? And why else would anyone repeat and broadcast those stories if they weren't trying to garner a larger audience?
The Martha Stewart Case
Just yesterday (1/22/03) Fox News reported that "The judge in the Martha Stewart trial appears to have given up on finding 12 people completely unfamiliar with the gracious-living guru, zeroing in on those who say they can be fair despite the heavy pre-trial publicity."
Now is that the media's fault? No. They reported the story and people listened. The media cannot be held accountable for the actions of the viewing public.
Or can they? In the months leading up to the trial, two TV movies have been produced about Stewart and about the case. Endless talk shows have been devoted to the subject. At least four documentaries have been produced about Stewart in that same time, including an hour-long puff piece on A&E aired just one week before jury selection. I didn't even bother to look up the number of books written on the subject.
Doesn't the media have the right to produce and present these programs? Yes. We have free press and free media, so go for it, I say. But why can't they wait until after the trial? Why do these people fall all over themselves to present unsubstantiated, spun, unattributed "news" before the trial? Because it generates money and it gets fed to them on a plate. Does it influence the public, Mr. Reporter? "Well, that's really not our problem."
From the aforementioned Fox News article: "'I mean, it's been impossible to totally not hear about the case,' one potential juror told the judge, according to the transcript. 'It has been everywhere.'" In another story I read recently, the defense was complaining about the high number of potential jurors who were under the impression that Stewart was being tried for insider trading, not obstruction of justice.
Let's add one more thing to the Martha Stewart, Barnum & Bailey Media Circus. I saw a TV interview with actress Sybill Shepherd who played Stewart in one of last year's TV movies. Shepherd said she didn't like Stewart until she read the script. However, after portraying her, Shepherd had all sorts of sympathy and newfound respect for Stewart. Then she said--and this almost a direct quote--"Everybody is doing it. If Martha had not been a woman, she would never have been arrested."
Really now? Thanks for that bit of legal legerdemain, Sybill! Everybody is doing it? You mean everybody is obstructing justice? You mean the laws on insider trading are different for men and women? Thanks for throwing another can of gas on the media fire. And on a personal note, let me add this one comment to what Ms. Shepherd said: Nice quote, moron!
The (Second) Michael Jackson Case
This one is bad and it is going to get worse. Just within this past week, the media released a story about how the alleged victim is dying of cancer. First, no one knows if that is true. Second, it's not news. Not at all. Now if the boy should die before he testifies, then that would certainly be news. But the rest of it is just hype. It is another reason to run a Michael Jackson story and punch a headline that will sell a newspaper.
The media jackals have been hungry for Michael Jackson stories and the defense is anxious to throw them raw meat. The alleged victim's family just wants money, the mother is crazy, the father has been hospitalized, the police have been involved, they have the boy on tape saying Michael is a great guy, ad nauseum. Does any of that sound familiar? Does it sound a whole lot like the Kobe Bryant stories?
Then Jackson goes on TV. He is interviewed on a segment on 60 Minutes. The media is pissed about that one, because the 60 Minutes interview was an exclusive they didn't get. Their response? Accuse CBS of paying for the interview (as if ABC, NBC, CNN and the New York Times wouldn't have done the exact same thing). These people are hungry for stories and they get pissed if they don't get some. So if you're a defense attorney, what do you do? You throw the jackals some raw meat now and then. After all, it helps your case, right?
Sidebar
I would like to single out the Disney/ABC/A&E/ESPN/Etc. conglomerate. A&E has run specials on Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart. All were one-hour specials highlighting their careers and their cases. All were broadcast very shortly before jury selection began in those trials. All were chock full of puff and rumor and speculation. I don't think any of those programs should have been aired, let alone run repeatedly, and I think Disney/A&E should be chastised for doing that. Until someone calls them to heel, they'll keep right on doing it. It's cheap, profitable entertainment.
How Do We Fix It?
I have no idea. I can't even prove with 100% certainty that the media is actually influencing jural decisions. I fear that laws will only open the door to media censorship. That seems like an awfully big risk to take. But then again, it seems risky to me to live in a world where the rich go free because they could afford a media consultant and the poor are convicted because the public hates them based on a biased story.
One thing could help to alleviate the situation, however. The media could police itself. Editors could start checking the identities of unattributed and confidential sources. Any piece that isn't legitimate news could be ignored. Puff pieces and "informational background" pieces could be delayed until after the trial. If the media doesn't start cleaning up its own act, the government will start doing it for them. That almost scares me more than going to court without a media consultant, makeup artist and wardrobe consultant.
Somebody stop me or I swear I'm going to vote for a democrat.
I'm not kidding, this is no joke.
I sat up until 1:00 A.M. last night watching the debates on FNC, which was wierd in itself, and I'm voting for John Kerry. Mostly because of his resemblence to others from out past. But that's not all. I also found myself thinking of Gen. Wesley Clark and how I thought that he also could beat our current president in a fight. I was not terribly impressed with any of the other canidates, Howard Dean doesn't move the top 2/3ds of his head when he speaks, just his bottom lip; Al Sharpton is a joke and couldn't keep the questions strait to save his life, and the rest just kept rolling. But after last nights debate, depending on who gets the nomination, I'm going to vote for a democrat. Someone give me a reason not to.
I sat up until 1:00 A.M. last night watching the debates on FNC, which was wierd in itself, and I'm voting for John Kerry. Mostly because of his resemblence to others from out past. But that's not all. I also found myself thinking of Gen. Wesley Clark and how I thought that he also could beat our current president in a fight. I was not terribly impressed with any of the other canidates, Howard Dean doesn't move the top 2/3ds of his head when he speaks, just his bottom lip; Al Sharpton is a joke and couldn't keep the questions strait to save his life, and the rest just kept rolling. But after last nights debate, depending on who gets the nomination, I'm going to vote for a democrat. Someone give me a reason not to.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
The impact of media on jury trials.
Well, I must say it was yet another disappointing week for the discussion group. Not a single person came in swinging on this one (and this was the one I thought had the most potential to start a fight) but I guess we can't have everything. If there are no posts within two days of a new topic (starting next week) I will change it to a new topic. The new topic is posted so lets see what we come up with.
Monday, January 12, 2004
New Topic.
From now on I will be making a new topic every week and it will start on Monday morning most weeks. Our first topic was diverted slightly off course so that we could discuss an item that was fresh in the news. I have saved this so that we can really get into some deep conversation. The topic is:
Why is the public in general treating Jessica Lynch like a national treasure when soldiers like Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany are treated (and charged) like a traitor and coward?
I would like to throw some info out there before anyone makes any comments.
Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany is currently awaiting trial for dereliction of duty (it was cowardice until a week or two ago, a charge punishable with death in a military court) after asking for therapy (mental) because he had seen the body of an Iraqi man cut in half by gunfire. After being sent away with a couple sleeping pills he had physical reactions (vomiting, sweating, headaches, lack of sleep) to the stress he was under. He was then told he was relieved of duty and charged with cowardice. Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany was a highly trained soldier of the U.S. Special Forces for 5 years.
Private First Class Jessica Lynch is currently enjoying her $1,000,000 check she received for her autobiographical book deal. She was rescued after she was captured in Iraq because her convoy took a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers. After her M16 jammed (the Army does teach their soldiers how to re-cycle their weapon when it jams) she threw it down and prayed to God to save her. She was taken to an Iraqi hospital where she received medical attention for her injuries until she was rescued. She has been charged with nothing but she has received multiple medals including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and POW medal.
Why is the public in general treating Jessica Lynch like a national treasure when soldiers like Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany are treated (and charged) like a traitor and coward?
I would like to throw some info out there before anyone makes any comments.
Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany is currently awaiting trial for dereliction of duty (it was cowardice until a week or two ago, a charge punishable with death in a military court) after asking for therapy (mental) because he had seen the body of an Iraqi man cut in half by gunfire. After being sent away with a couple sleeping pills he had physical reactions (vomiting, sweating, headaches, lack of sleep) to the stress he was under. He was then told he was relieved of duty and charged with cowardice. Staff Sergeant Georg Pogany was a highly trained soldier of the U.S. Special Forces for 5 years.
Private First Class Jessica Lynch is currently enjoying her $1,000,000 check she received for her autobiographical book deal. She was rescued after she was captured in Iraq because her convoy took a wrong turn and was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers. After her M16 jammed (the Army does teach their soldiers how to re-cycle their weapon when it jams) she threw it down and prayed to God to save her. She was taken to an Iraqi hospital where she received medical attention for her injuries until she was rescued. She has been charged with nothing but she has received multiple medals including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and POW medal.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
A Few More Thoughts on Immigration
Jason, thanks for looking into the Posse Comitatus Act. I did not know the bit about the homeland security laws. It sure sounds to me like the military now has the power to patrol our borders. I think that's a great idea. If we're going to burn up gasoline flying AWACS training missions anyway, then we might as well fly them along the border with Mexico.
I forgot to include one thing in the "How Do We Fix It?" section. Increase the fines on businesses that hire undocumented workers. I don't mean a $200 fine per occurrence or anything that lame. Fine the sons of bitches $20,000 per occurence and create criminal penalties for the persons responsible for hiring them without the proper documentation. Put some real nasty sting in the law for those who break it.
In doing some reading, I found the following quote that supports my feelings about multiculturalism:
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The only absolute way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
The speaker was President Theodore Roosevelt and the year was 1915.
I forgot to include one thing in the "How Do We Fix It?" section. Increase the fines on businesses that hire undocumented workers. I don't mean a $200 fine per occurrence or anything that lame. Fine the sons of bitches $20,000 per occurence and create criminal penalties for the persons responsible for hiring them without the proper documentation. Put some real nasty sting in the law for those who break it.
In doing some reading, I found the following quote that supports my feelings about multiculturalism:
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The only absolute way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
The speaker was President Theodore Roosevelt and the year was 1915.
Posse Comitatus Act.
I like most of the points you are throwing out there, Mike, except I have a loophole on the Posse Comitatus Act.
1) The Act reads "A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation."
Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). I think we can do something along the same lines with the INS. Granted we have not had the best of luck with the war on drugs, but it is easier (and more profitable) to smuggle (via airplane) 1,000 Kg of cocaine from wherever than five illegals from Mexico. I don't see smugglers using airplanes anytime soon but if they do that's why we have a extremely well trained and well equipped Air Force.
2) Many of this Act has essentially been gotten rid of, or ignored in this case, since 9/11. Since the Homeland Security laws were passed (not sure if they are laws or more acts, I've got an idea, let's stop acting and start doing) the military (primarily Coast Guard) has been charged with:
a) Protect ports, the flow of commerce, and the marine transportation system from terrorism.
b) Maintain maritime border security against illegal drugs, illegal aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction.
c) Ensure that we can rapidly deploy and resupply our military assets, both by keeping Coast Guard units at a high state of readiness, and by keeping marine transportation open for the transit assets and personnel from other branches of the armed forces.
d) Protect against illegal fishing and indiscriminate destruction of living marine resources, prevention and response to oil and hazardous material spills--both accidental and intentional.
e) Coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies.
Because of the wording of all this lets just focus on a couple of them, primarily b and e. B says that we can use the Coast Guard to keep out "illegal drugs, illegal aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction." Looky there. Says we can use the Coast Guard to keep out illegal aliens. Well, let's start shall we. The Coast Guard also works closely with the Navy so why can't we have them work with the other branches as well. According to the Posse Comitatus Act no military unit can enact civilian law unless enacted by Congress or the Constitution but due to the Homeland Security laws (or acts) the military (Coast Guard) can help with keeping illegal aliens out of America. My original plan says to have the military patrol the border. I'll amend that to be in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act by stating that while we have the military patrolling the border we must have INS agents and Coast Guard officials overseeing this and making the arrests. We are merely getting support from the other branches of the military. Intercooperation of the military branches has been going on for some time. This would just require more cooperation on a smaller scale for this mission (should we call it Operation: American Commercialized Freedom or would that be too corny.) That brings us to e) that says the Coast Guard shall coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies. Waitaminute. The INS is a federal agency. That means they have to coordinate efforts and intelligence. No arguments from me on this point. I believe we have to do something to stop this problem even if it means we need to change some laws (or acts in this case.) Let's do it and do it Now.
1) The Act reads "A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation."
Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). I think we can do something along the same lines with the INS. Granted we have not had the best of luck with the war on drugs, but it is easier (and more profitable) to smuggle (via airplane) 1,000 Kg of cocaine from wherever than five illegals from Mexico. I don't see smugglers using airplanes anytime soon but if they do that's why we have a extremely well trained and well equipped Air Force.
2) Many of this Act has essentially been gotten rid of, or ignored in this case, since 9/11. Since the Homeland Security laws were passed (not sure if they are laws or more acts, I've got an idea, let's stop acting and start doing) the military (primarily Coast Guard) has been charged with:
a) Protect ports, the flow of commerce, and the marine transportation system from terrorism.
b) Maintain maritime border security against illegal drugs, illegal aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction.
c) Ensure that we can rapidly deploy and resupply our military assets, both by keeping Coast Guard units at a high state of readiness, and by keeping marine transportation open for the transit assets and personnel from other branches of the armed forces.
d) Protect against illegal fishing and indiscriminate destruction of living marine resources, prevention and response to oil and hazardous material spills--both accidental and intentional.
e) Coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies.
Because of the wording of all this lets just focus on a couple of them, primarily b and e. B says that we can use the Coast Guard to keep out "illegal drugs, illegal aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction." Looky there. Says we can use the Coast Guard to keep out illegal aliens. Well, let's start shall we. The Coast Guard also works closely with the Navy so why can't we have them work with the other branches as well. According to the Posse Comitatus Act no military unit can enact civilian law unless enacted by Congress or the Constitution but due to the Homeland Security laws (or acts) the military (Coast Guard) can help with keeping illegal aliens out of America. My original plan says to have the military patrol the border. I'll amend that to be in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act by stating that while we have the military patrolling the border we must have INS agents and Coast Guard officials overseeing this and making the arrests. We are merely getting support from the other branches of the military. Intercooperation of the military branches has been going on for some time. This would just require more cooperation on a smaller scale for this mission (should we call it Operation: American Commercialized Freedom or would that be too corny.) That brings us to e) that says the Coast Guard shall coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies. Waitaminute. The INS is a federal agency. That means they have to coordinate efforts and intelligence. No arguments from me on this point. I believe we have to do something to stop this problem even if it means we need to change some laws (or acts in this case.) Let's do it and do it Now.
Immigration--Round 2
I had thought to post another article on the nature and condition and fallout from the current immigration situation. I can still do that if you like. However, there are a few key points that keep sticking in my mind that I wanted to get out before the topic changes.
1. The So-Called Labor Shortage:
"We can't find Americans to take these jobs. Americans don't want these low paying jobs. This is the kind of hard, dangerous work that American workers don't want to do."
Does any of that sound familiar? We've been hearing it in the media this past week. It's not true at all.
Do you want to find an American worker to pick strawberries in your fields? Fine, pay them a living wage. Do you want to find American workers to scrub toilets in your hotels? Fine, pay them a living wage. Do you want to find American workers to do construction work? Fine, pay them a living wage.
But the truth is that businesses don't want to find American workers to do this "work that no one else wants." They don't want American workers because they would have to pay them a competitive wage, give them health benefits, and pay the associated payroll taxes. It is far easier and cheaper to hire an illegal alien off a street corner, pay him in cash and kiss him off at the end of the day. Morally speaking, what is the difference between that and slavery?
In the 1930s, when we had a surplus of workers and a shortage of jobs, immigration was curtailed. Labor costs were down and people took whatever work they could get. Now we have many more high paying jobs and not enough minimum wage workers. Between a higher paying job market and the failure of the government to increase the minimum wage, we have a "shortage" of people willing to work for less. The answer is simple: If you want people to work crappy jobs, pay them a decent wage. If being a custodian at Wal-Mart paid $15.00 an hour, you'd have no shortage of applicants.
Beyond all that, I'm sick of hearing that Americans don't want to work. This country was built by people who broke their backs day after day. I feel sorry that some of them are still around to see what a mess we've made of it today.
2. The High Cost of Open Immigration:
We could spend a great deal of time on this item, but let's hit the high points:
A. Illegal aliens make health care costs skyrocket. It is illegal for hospitals to ask whether an applicant for care is a U.S. citizen. It is also illegal for them to turn away people who can't pay.
Do we want heartless hospitals that turn away people who can't afford care? Of course not. But the rest of us should not have to pay higher insurance premiums because of handouts to illegals. If the patient can't prove citizenship, treat him, fix him up, and have him wait quietly for the INS to arrive and take him into custody. Then send the big, fat, bloated bill to the federal government. When we get a few billion dollars in medical bills, Congress might start paying attention.
B. Illegal aliens are strangling education. It is illegal for public schools to refuse children, regardless of their immigration status. The consequences are school overcrowding, budget shortfalls, and an even lower quality of public education (as if that was possible).
The state of California--by itself--spends nearly $3 billion a year providing services to illegal aliens. Since about half their state budget is devoted to education, we can estimate that California spends $1.5 billion per year on "educating" illegals. Think that estimate is too high? Ok, let's call it a billion bucks even. No? Ok, its $500 million then. And that's just one state.
Couldn't we find a better way to spend half a billion dollars on education? How many billions of dollars are we spending on educating the citizens of other countries? Probably more than Mexico spends educating all of its children.
C. Illegal aliens are crowding our jails. No, I'm not a racist. Fact: Nationwide, 1 in 5 federal prisoners is an illegal alien. (That's 20% for those of you educated in California public schools.) In California, 15% of all prisoners are illegal aliens.
Open borders allow these people to swarm across and commit crimes. No, not all illegal aliens commit crimes. No, not all the people in Castro's Mariel Boat Lift were Scarface. On the contrary, most illegals are hard working people. But apparently, at least 20% are up to no good. A conservative estimate places the cost of this at $500 million per year. We might as well just seal the borders and give Mexico a check for half a billion each year. We'd be better off.
3. Multiculturalism:
Millions of people stepped off the boat at Ellis Island and didn't know a word of English. They taught each other, they worked hard to learn, they got help from others, they banded together, they learned the language and meshed into our society. Indeed, their culture became a part of our shared culture. That's how this country was built and it has been an enriching thing for us.
Today, we tell them not to bother. We give them Spanish speaking TV stations, newspapers, books, even street signs and ATM machines. If the businesses they frequent (including the federal government) have a large Hispanic customer base, we will even pay more to hire Spanish speaking employees. We'll even send their kids to special schools so they can be taught in Spanish.
Stop it! We are doing immigrants and illegal aliens no favors by isolating their cultures. We keep corralling them into smaller and smaller social pockets. Now that's great for the Democrats--they thrive on "helping" the "downtrodden" and mollycoddling them. But it does nothing to help those people integrate themselves into our society. All it does is guarantee they will always be different and lock them into an isolated, low-income, low-education life.
Stop calling them "African-Americans" and "Hispanic-Americans" and "Asian-Americans." Every single time you do that, you lock these people into an isolated subculture. We should focus on making our immigrants full-fledged Americans (and sending the illegals home). Instead, we tiptoe around these people in an effort to make them different. Instead of showing them respect, which is the intent of most people, we condemn them to a life as Different-Americans.
4. How do we fix our immigration problems?
A. Enforce existing immigration laws. Marshal the manpower and forces necessary to comply with the laws we already have on the books. Write to your Senators and Congressmen, as I plan to do, and express your support for enforcement of existing law.
B. Stem the flow of illegal immigration. Use whatever technologies are required to monitor our borders. If we can find terrorist camps with satellites, then surely we can stop a truck load of Mexican border jumpers. [Sorry, Jason, but we can't use the military without a huge change in some very old and fundamental laws. Go look up the Posse Comitatus Act.]
C. Throw out the illegal aliens we catch. When you catch illegal aliens, don't let them go until their next court appearance. Put them on a bus, drive across the border into Mexico (or wherever), unload the bus, drive back with an empty bus. The end. We have 355,000 people to whom we have issued final deportation orders who never showed up to be deported. Imagine that!
D. Start treating our naturalized citizens like Americans. They worked hard, followed the rules and now they have earned the right to be Americans. Isolating them into a Whatever-American culture not only does them a disservice, it just guarantees that our own culture will take a backseat and will fade away. Have special language education for them, if you must, but make English their primary language. Pass a law saying that English is our national language and tell the "You're a racist!" crowd to piss off.
E. Do these things now! We've got half a million illegals coming into this country every year. The situation is going to spiral out of control if we don't do something to fix the problem. Today we've only got a President who wants amnesty for illegals. Think how wretched the problem will become with the Democrats in charge of the White House and Congress. We'll be raising taxes to pay for open borders then, you watch.
1. The So-Called Labor Shortage:
"We can't find Americans to take these jobs. Americans don't want these low paying jobs. This is the kind of hard, dangerous work that American workers don't want to do."
Does any of that sound familiar? We've been hearing it in the media this past week. It's not true at all.
Do you want to find an American worker to pick strawberries in your fields? Fine, pay them a living wage. Do you want to find American workers to scrub toilets in your hotels? Fine, pay them a living wage. Do you want to find American workers to do construction work? Fine, pay them a living wage.
But the truth is that businesses don't want to find American workers to do this "work that no one else wants." They don't want American workers because they would have to pay them a competitive wage, give them health benefits, and pay the associated payroll taxes. It is far easier and cheaper to hire an illegal alien off a street corner, pay him in cash and kiss him off at the end of the day. Morally speaking, what is the difference between that and slavery?
In the 1930s, when we had a surplus of workers and a shortage of jobs, immigration was curtailed. Labor costs were down and people took whatever work they could get. Now we have many more high paying jobs and not enough minimum wage workers. Between a higher paying job market and the failure of the government to increase the minimum wage, we have a "shortage" of people willing to work for less. The answer is simple: If you want people to work crappy jobs, pay them a decent wage. If being a custodian at Wal-Mart paid $15.00 an hour, you'd have no shortage of applicants.
Beyond all that, I'm sick of hearing that Americans don't want to work. This country was built by people who broke their backs day after day. I feel sorry that some of them are still around to see what a mess we've made of it today.
2. The High Cost of Open Immigration:
We could spend a great deal of time on this item, but let's hit the high points:
A. Illegal aliens make health care costs skyrocket. It is illegal for hospitals to ask whether an applicant for care is a U.S. citizen. It is also illegal for them to turn away people who can't pay.
Do we want heartless hospitals that turn away people who can't afford care? Of course not. But the rest of us should not have to pay higher insurance premiums because of handouts to illegals. If the patient can't prove citizenship, treat him, fix him up, and have him wait quietly for the INS to arrive and take him into custody. Then send the big, fat, bloated bill to the federal government. When we get a few billion dollars in medical bills, Congress might start paying attention.
B. Illegal aliens are strangling education. It is illegal for public schools to refuse children, regardless of their immigration status. The consequences are school overcrowding, budget shortfalls, and an even lower quality of public education (as if that was possible).
The state of California--by itself--spends nearly $3 billion a year providing services to illegal aliens. Since about half their state budget is devoted to education, we can estimate that California spends $1.5 billion per year on "educating" illegals. Think that estimate is too high? Ok, let's call it a billion bucks even. No? Ok, its $500 million then. And that's just one state.
Couldn't we find a better way to spend half a billion dollars on education? How many billions of dollars are we spending on educating the citizens of other countries? Probably more than Mexico spends educating all of its children.
C. Illegal aliens are crowding our jails. No, I'm not a racist. Fact: Nationwide, 1 in 5 federal prisoners is an illegal alien. (That's 20% for those of you educated in California public schools.) In California, 15% of all prisoners are illegal aliens.
Open borders allow these people to swarm across and commit crimes. No, not all illegal aliens commit crimes. No, not all the people in Castro's Mariel Boat Lift were Scarface. On the contrary, most illegals are hard working people. But apparently, at least 20% are up to no good. A conservative estimate places the cost of this at $500 million per year. We might as well just seal the borders and give Mexico a check for half a billion each year. We'd be better off.
3. Multiculturalism:
Millions of people stepped off the boat at Ellis Island and didn't know a word of English. They taught each other, they worked hard to learn, they got help from others, they banded together, they learned the language and meshed into our society. Indeed, their culture became a part of our shared culture. That's how this country was built and it has been an enriching thing for us.
Today, we tell them not to bother. We give them Spanish speaking TV stations, newspapers, books, even street signs and ATM machines. If the businesses they frequent (including the federal government) have a large Hispanic customer base, we will even pay more to hire Spanish speaking employees. We'll even send their kids to special schools so they can be taught in Spanish.
Stop it! We are doing immigrants and illegal aliens no favors by isolating their cultures. We keep corralling them into smaller and smaller social pockets. Now that's great for the Democrats--they thrive on "helping" the "downtrodden" and mollycoddling them. But it does nothing to help those people integrate themselves into our society. All it does is guarantee they will always be different and lock them into an isolated, low-income, low-education life.
Stop calling them "African-Americans" and "Hispanic-Americans" and "Asian-Americans." Every single time you do that, you lock these people into an isolated subculture. We should focus on making our immigrants full-fledged Americans (and sending the illegals home). Instead, we tiptoe around these people in an effort to make them different. Instead of showing them respect, which is the intent of most people, we condemn them to a life as Different-Americans.
4. How do we fix our immigration problems?
A. Enforce existing immigration laws. Marshal the manpower and forces necessary to comply with the laws we already have on the books. Write to your Senators and Congressmen, as I plan to do, and express your support for enforcement of existing law.
B. Stem the flow of illegal immigration. Use whatever technologies are required to monitor our borders. If we can find terrorist camps with satellites, then surely we can stop a truck load of Mexican border jumpers. [Sorry, Jason, but we can't use the military without a huge change in some very old and fundamental laws. Go look up the Posse Comitatus Act.]
C. Throw out the illegal aliens we catch. When you catch illegal aliens, don't let them go until their next court appearance. Put them on a bus, drive across the border into Mexico (or wherever), unload the bus, drive back with an empty bus. The end. We have 355,000 people to whom we have issued final deportation orders who never showed up to be deported. Imagine that!
D. Start treating our naturalized citizens like Americans. They worked hard, followed the rules and now they have earned the right to be Americans. Isolating them into a Whatever-American culture not only does them a disservice, it just guarantees that our own culture will take a backseat and will fade away. Have special language education for them, if you must, but make English their primary language. Pass a law saying that English is our national language and tell the "You're a racist!" crowd to piss off.
E. Do these things now! We've got half a million illegals coming into this country every year. The situation is going to spiral out of control if we don't do something to fix the problem. Today we've only got a President who wants amnesty for illegals. Think how wretched the problem will become with the Democrats in charge of the White House and Congress. We'll be raising taxes to pay for open borders then, you watch.
Interesting view.
First I must say that I am very happy with the discussion so far. Second, I am kind of disappointed that more people did not decide to join in but, since this is a voluntary discussion group, it is all good. On with the ranting.
1) "This is a complex subject and probably deserves much more analysis than we can give it here."
I will have to agree with him on this. I was (unfortunately) too broad on my topic for this week but I will attempt to narrow it down a little more next time.
2) I will have to agree with Mike that I am slightly disappointed in President (his title is not Mr. contrary to what some newspapers call him) Bush for attempting to appease the Latino voters with this bill (law or whatever it is.) I have a Latino friend that is rather upset about this since his parents came here legally from the very beginning (no panel truck in the middle of the night for his family) and now this bill is saying that if his family had been living here illegally they can stay as long as they come forward and say "Hey, we've been living here illegally for 20+ years is it ok if we stay? Oh, and can we cut in line to get our Green Cards since we've been here so long? Really? Great!" The fact that we will also pay them cash if they come forward and say "We want to leave this country" is simply ludicrous. I would love for the State of Kansas to tell me that they would pay me to move back to Georgia (well, maybe not...) The fact we are going to pay these people and send them home (probably with a few hot meals in their system since it's not going to be a quick process. Ever see how fast you can get money out of the government? I rest my case) so that they can turn around and do the same thing again is an idea that I would have expected a tree-hugger to come up with, not a guy that is from a state that kills more cows every year that most third world countries combined.
3) Let's get our terms straight guys (Mike and Terry.) Illegal aliens is not a PC word but that is exactly what they are. You can't call them "illegal immigrants" because the meaning of the word immigrant means (quoted from Webster's Dic) "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence" and a alien is "relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government." If these people were immigrants they wouldn't be "illegal" they would just be immigrants. They are "illegal aliens" plain and simple. If they want to stay let them sit in line and wait for their Green Card like all the other people that want to come here and contribute to society or pack them into school busses, give them a baloney (or balogna) and government cheese sandwich and kick them back to their country.
4) Instead of spending money on this plan by upping the number of Green Cards issued every year, giving people money to go back home, guaranteeing them jobs if they stay and extending their work Visas, let's pull some of the soldiers that are in areas that don't need as many as they did 10 years ago (Japan, Australia, etc) and just make a happy little line of guys in green camos right along the border (Navy guys get to troll around in the Gulf of Mexico, sweet) and let's make sure that we don't have to deal with this problem any more. I realize that's a lot of land but guess what, we have the best trained military in the world and I think I have seen enough training exercises (I was in the Navy, Dad was in the Army, Uncles in the Army and Navy, Brother-in-law was in the Army, Grandfather in the Air Force, Grandmother in the Army, etc, etc, etc) that I think we can handle some guys trying to sneak across the border. If not, let's pull some good ol' Vietnam era techniques and have these guys coming back from Iraq (another great topic for another day) spend 3-6 months at their home base then a 1-3 month stint pulling border patrol. Hell they would probably rather walk around and make sure no one is sneaking into the country than get shot at again in Iraq.
5) Shifting gears (as the good Reverent Oatmeal put it) let's look at the number of our ancestors (I'm just a few generations off the spaghetti boat myself) that came into this country via Ellis Island. Better yet, let's not look at the number, but let's actually look at the way that we got here legally. We waited in lines, got poked and prodded by doctors to make sure that we weren't bringing some nasty illness into the country (if they were they went to a rather nasty building and were confined until they got better) and after all that we lost our names if the guy writing it in the book couldn't pronounce it (luckily Drago is an easy enough to pronounce name or I would've been Jason Smith.) What I want to know is why are we even comparing what our ancestors went through to get here to people that are sneaking into the country illegally?
6) I am not saying that all of this is their fault. They see a hole in the fence leading to a better country and they slip through. When they get here they take a job picking fruit (not trying to be stereotypical or anything here) for X pennies a bushel and live in poverty (here it is poverty, in Mexico it's better than they had.) But making more of them "legal" is not going to get rid of those "pennies for a bushel" jobs go away. The farmers will merely have less labor to choose from when he goes looking for cheap labor.
7) I really don't think this thing will go through unless massive amounts of favors are called in. The people that vote on these things look at what the people want (er, I mean lobbyists that get paid by the big money businesses out there) and that is how they usually sway on these things. I think we will have to wait and see which way they will vote before we can start looking at what to expect for the next few years.
1) "This is a complex subject and probably deserves much more analysis than we can give it here."
I will have to agree with him on this. I was (unfortunately) too broad on my topic for this week but I will attempt to narrow it down a little more next time.
2) I will have to agree with Mike that I am slightly disappointed in President (his title is not Mr. contrary to what some newspapers call him) Bush for attempting to appease the Latino voters with this bill (law or whatever it is.) I have a Latino friend that is rather upset about this since his parents came here legally from the very beginning (no panel truck in the middle of the night for his family) and now this bill is saying that if his family had been living here illegally they can stay as long as they come forward and say "Hey, we've been living here illegally for 20+ years is it ok if we stay? Oh, and can we cut in line to get our Green Cards since we've been here so long? Really? Great!" The fact that we will also pay them cash if they come forward and say "We want to leave this country" is simply ludicrous. I would love for the State of Kansas to tell me that they would pay me to move back to Georgia (well, maybe not...) The fact we are going to pay these people and send them home (probably with a few hot meals in their system since it's not going to be a quick process. Ever see how fast you can get money out of the government? I rest my case) so that they can turn around and do the same thing again is an idea that I would have expected a tree-hugger to come up with, not a guy that is from a state that kills more cows every year that most third world countries combined.
3) Let's get our terms straight guys (Mike and Terry.) Illegal aliens is not a PC word but that is exactly what they are. You can't call them "illegal immigrants" because the meaning of the word immigrant means (quoted from Webster's Dic) "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence" and a alien is "relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government." If these people were immigrants they wouldn't be "illegal" they would just be immigrants. They are "illegal aliens" plain and simple. If they want to stay let them sit in line and wait for their Green Card like all the other people that want to come here and contribute to society or pack them into school busses, give them a baloney (or balogna) and government cheese sandwich and kick them back to their country.
4) Instead of spending money on this plan by upping the number of Green Cards issued every year, giving people money to go back home, guaranteeing them jobs if they stay and extending their work Visas, let's pull some of the soldiers that are in areas that don't need as many as they did 10 years ago (Japan, Australia, etc) and just make a happy little line of guys in green camos right along the border (Navy guys get to troll around in the Gulf of Mexico, sweet) and let's make sure that we don't have to deal with this problem any more. I realize that's a lot of land but guess what, we have the best trained military in the world and I think I have seen enough training exercises (I was in the Navy, Dad was in the Army, Uncles in the Army and Navy, Brother-in-law was in the Army, Grandfather in the Air Force, Grandmother in the Army, etc, etc, etc) that I think we can handle some guys trying to sneak across the border. If not, let's pull some good ol' Vietnam era techniques and have these guys coming back from Iraq (another great topic for another day) spend 3-6 months at their home base then a 1-3 month stint pulling border patrol. Hell they would probably rather walk around and make sure no one is sneaking into the country than get shot at again in Iraq.
5) Shifting gears (as the good Reverent Oatmeal put it) let's look at the number of our ancestors (I'm just a few generations off the spaghetti boat myself) that came into this country via Ellis Island. Better yet, let's not look at the number, but let's actually look at the way that we got here legally. We waited in lines, got poked and prodded by doctors to make sure that we weren't bringing some nasty illness into the country (if they were they went to a rather nasty building and were confined until they got better) and after all that we lost our names if the guy writing it in the book couldn't pronounce it (luckily Drago is an easy enough to pronounce name or I would've been Jason Smith.) What I want to know is why are we even comparing what our ancestors went through to get here to people that are sneaking into the country illegally?
6) I am not saying that all of this is their fault. They see a hole in the fence leading to a better country and they slip through. When they get here they take a job picking fruit (not trying to be stereotypical or anything here) for X pennies a bushel and live in poverty (here it is poverty, in Mexico it's better than they had.) But making more of them "legal" is not going to get rid of those "pennies for a bushel" jobs go away. The farmers will merely have less labor to choose from when he goes looking for cheap labor.
7) I really don't think this thing will go through unless massive amounts of favors are called in. The people that vote on these things look at what the people want (er, I mean lobbyists that get paid by the big money businesses out there) and that is how they usually sway on these things. I think we will have to wait and see which way they will vote before we can start looking at what to expect for the next few years.
The Doctor Will See You Now
Illegal immigration and naturalization of non-U citizens. Talk about a waste of good calendar time on the Hill. The only thing that subject is good for is debate and examination. Followed by re-examination and clogging up committee hearings. Simple fact of the mater, we've all heard a lot of saber rattling and a deafening silence in action. Once it comes time to muster up and commit to any progress on this matter you can't get any maxi from your friendly neighborhood political representative. I do find myself agreeing with Mike on some points. As always, let's take a look at the subject from another perspective.
Check it out. There was somewhere in the neighborhood five million and change of illegal immigrants living in the United States in the mid 1990s. Bring things back to the present, boom, now we have figures out saying there is somewhere in the ballpark of seven million. Depending on which organization you read about this number could be as high as eight or nine million. Now, 70% of this figure is made up of immigrants from our neighbors to the south, Mexico. Everybody knows that the United States/Mexico border runs from Brownsville, Texas all the way to Imperial Beach, California. For our uperwardly mobile brethren I don't need to do the math for you. That's a 1,300 area for the INS and Border Patrol to cover.
-On a lighter note for you history buffs. The immigration statute of August 8, 1882, forbade the admission of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons who might become a public charge.-
OK, back to business. Now that we have established the fact that we have a large entrance point to the U.S. and not enough muscle to handle that corridor. The answer from Mike's info packed entry, let's buy off everyone that came over illegally. Great! This is not a situation that if the game gets rained out you get another ticket. If you want the job done, you pull your (insert your choice of profanity here) together and get mad dog mean. Ah, but what is this little news blurb from Dec. 31st...INS agents busted for shredding documents in California? Say it ain't so!
Let's shift gears for a second. Here's another thought for you. In the United States, 40% of our population is made up of the descendants of twelve million immigrants that entered this country from Eillis Island. You know the drill..."Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" We all know the stories. Most of us are third or fourth generation direct off the steamer from either side of the ocean. Most of our great-greats or great-great-greats bound for a more suitable country to prosper in. Whether it was to escape religious persecution, wars, famines, or just looking to make life better for their families. Apply this nugget of history to our current topic...two thoughts. Descendants of immigrants looking down on immigrants not playing by the rules and the dictionary entry for the word irony.
-History Note #2: In 1917 both Canadians and Mexicans paid a head tax of eight dollars to immigrate into the United States. Plus they had to pass a literacy test.-
I also love the fact that one of our most beloved past times, capitalism, helps spur on the flight of illegal immigrant workers into the borders. Why pay laborers minimum wages when you can pay illegal immigrants dimes on the dollar? It's a business owners wet dream...profits are up, company spending is down, you have a large pool of labor to utilize and of that pool, everybody is expendable. So we have law breakers harboring law breakers.
In all I guess for the person that says illegal immigrants are the only source of the problem, come now. Before we all start pointing fingers let's get check both sides of the problem. Is illegal immigration into the U.S. borders a problem, yes. According to calculated projections is this problem going to increase, yes. Are we going to look at all the roots of the problem before making any solutions to this problem...well, maybe.
Check it out. There was somewhere in the neighborhood five million and change of illegal immigrants living in the United States in the mid 1990s. Bring things back to the present, boom, now we have figures out saying there is somewhere in the ballpark of seven million. Depending on which organization you read about this number could be as high as eight or nine million. Now, 70% of this figure is made up of immigrants from our neighbors to the south, Mexico. Everybody knows that the United States/Mexico border runs from Brownsville, Texas all the way to Imperial Beach, California. For our uperwardly mobile brethren I don't need to do the math for you. That's a 1,300 area for the INS and Border Patrol to cover.
-On a lighter note for you history buffs. The immigration statute of August 8, 1882, forbade the admission of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons who might become a public charge.-
OK, back to business. Now that we have established the fact that we have a large entrance point to the U.S. and not enough muscle to handle that corridor. The answer from Mike's info packed entry, let's buy off everyone that came over illegally. Great! This is not a situation that if the game gets rained out you get another ticket. If you want the job done, you pull your (insert your choice of profanity here) together and get mad dog mean. Ah, but what is this little news blurb from Dec. 31st...INS agents busted for shredding documents in California? Say it ain't so!
Let's shift gears for a second. Here's another thought for you. In the United States, 40% of our population is made up of the descendants of twelve million immigrants that entered this country from Eillis Island. You know the drill..."Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" We all know the stories. Most of us are third or fourth generation direct off the steamer from either side of the ocean. Most of our great-greats or great-great-greats bound for a more suitable country to prosper in. Whether it was to escape religious persecution, wars, famines, or just looking to make life better for their families. Apply this nugget of history to our current topic...two thoughts. Descendants of immigrants looking down on immigrants not playing by the rules and the dictionary entry for the word irony.
-History Note #2: In 1917 both Canadians and Mexicans paid a head tax of eight dollars to immigrate into the United States. Plus they had to pass a literacy test.-
I also love the fact that one of our most beloved past times, capitalism, helps spur on the flight of illegal immigrant workers into the borders. Why pay laborers minimum wages when you can pay illegal immigrants dimes on the dollar? It's a business owners wet dream...profits are up, company spending is down, you have a large pool of labor to utilize and of that pool, everybody is expendable. So we have law breakers harboring law breakers.
In all I guess for the person that says illegal immigrants are the only source of the problem, come now. Before we all start pointing fingers let's get check both sides of the problem. Is illegal immigration into the U.S. borders a problem, yes. According to calculated projections is this problem going to increase, yes. Are we going to look at all the roots of the problem before making any solutions to this problem...well, maybe.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Immigration Law Changes
This is a complex subject and probably deserves much more analysis than we can give it here. I have chosen to post this article about the proposed changes themselves. However, another article should be done on the immigration situation as a whole. This has become a very serious problem in America and deserves some attention. Politicians are exploiting and/or ignoring the situation and that needs to stop.
For the first time since he took office, I find myself in opposition to President Bush. The changes he proposes send a very bad message to immigrants, both legal and illegal, foreign governments, and United States citizens. So what is the proposal all about?
1. Illegal aliens will be allowed to join a temporary labor pool and will be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally for not longer than six years.
2. Illegal aliens will be offered financial incentives to return to their own countries.
3. Illegal aliens will receive guaranteed wages and employee rights. Presumably, these will be the same or similar to those granted to U.S. workers.
4. These illegal aliens will be allowed to compete for citizenship in competition with legal immigrants.
5. Congress will be asked to raise the immigration quota from 140,000 per year to an unspecified number.
You'll notice I used the politically incorrect--and in some cases illegal--term "illegal aliens." That's because that is precisely who these people are. They are citizens of other nations who have snuck into the United States illegally. And now we are proposing to invite more of them to come here.
Plank 1--Temporary labor pool. This is a way of saying that since we get a certain amount of migrant labor each year anyway, let's document it and make it legal. We'll let you come here for a period of up to three years, if you have a job, and we will give you a one-time extension visa for up to another three years if you need one. In all, temporary immigrants will be allowed to stay for up to six years without fear of deportation. I think the government may be surprised by how many applicants will want to stay for the entire six years.
In short, the President's proposal is saying that since they are coming in anyway, let's control the process and make it legal.
To me, this just throws open the doors for illegal immigrants. By doing this, we are saying, "Get in here illegally and we will subsidize you for six years. If you can get into the United States, no matter how you do it, we will welcome you, protect you and give you nearly all the rights of American citizens." That is so wrong. It encourages illegal behavior by people who can't or won't follow the established rules. What a nasty message that sends to the migrants who do come here legally each year, not to mention American workers and taxpayers. What incentive do those people have to follow the rules? None. They get to do more paperwork and pay more taxes than border jumpers. [No, border jumpers is not a racist term. Don't even go there.]
Plank 2--Financial incentives. We're really going to offer illegal aliens money to leave? Seriously? That's like saying if someone breaks into your house, you will pay them to leave after they've already stolen from you. Brilliant idea. I wish someone would pay me to break the law. The less money we offer, the more incentive they will have to stay hidden and illegal. The more money we offer, the less we will encourage legal immigration. This part of the plan needs to be reexamined at once.
Plank 3--Guaranteed wages and rights. Guaranteed to receive what wage? Minimum wage? Six, seven, eight bucks an hour? Wonderful. Here come millions of new workers who are automatically condemned into poverty. But that's ok because we'll give you free health care, free education, free legal protection, free police protection, free civil rights protection and free anything else we think you need. All you have to do is get here illegally.
"Well," say the proponents, "these folks will be wage earning, tax paying workers. Any amount we spend on them vis-a-vis free health care, etc., will be recouped through taxes." Nonsense. It doesn't take a Yale economist to figure out that one $5,000 trip to the emergency room outweighs the benefit of collecting $2,184 in taxes from someone working at $7.00 per hour. This is a just a way to justify getting a huge pool of cheap labor into America.
Plank 4--Competition for citizenship. "So you're here illegally, but you asked for temporary amnesty and now you'd like to apply for citizenship? Terrific, but you'll have to compete with everyone who migrated legally. Go get in line with the six or seven million other applicants. We'll call the first 140,000 and the rest of you can apply next year."
All this plan does is to give a slap in the face to those immigrants who have been waiting for years for their green cards. Now, instead of waiting their turn alongside their peers who applied legally for citizenship, they must now face competition from six million (some say seven million) illegal aliens. But the illegals don't go to the back of the line. They get to cut in the front and the middle and everywhere along the line. Been waiting long for citizenship? Been following the rules and filling out all the paperwork? Too bad. Your wait just got a lot longer.
Plank 5--New immigration quotas. Presently, we let 140,000 people per year become U.S. citizens. Now we are proposing to let even more come in legally. Congress doesn't have the stones to say no, so you'll probably see a quota increase this year. Watch for it.
I'm not going to debate the wisdom of increasing or decreasing immigration quotas. That is a whole other argument. I will say, however, that to encourage legal immigration at the same time you are encouraging more illegal immigration will have a dillatory effect on our country. We simply cannot open the floodgates and let everyone in. By doing so, we do a disservice to our current citizens who must bear the cost through increased taxes and more expensive services, such as health care. And we don't do migrants any favors by asking them to come here and live at or below the poverty line, even if conditions are more favorable than in their own country.
To sum up the immigration situation, let's use a few "me first" examples. More immigration means more uninsured people getting free health care, which means more cost to you and me. More immigration means more crowded classrooms for our children. More immigration means more crowded prisons. [No, that's not racist either. 20% of the prison population is made up of illegal immigrants.]
So should we stop all immigration? No, not necessarily. But we do need to quit encouraging it and start enforcing our own immigration laws and border controls. Without some checks and balances, free immigration will bring this country down hard. No kidding. It's that serious.
For the first time since he took office, I find myself in opposition to President Bush. The changes he proposes send a very bad message to immigrants, both legal and illegal, foreign governments, and United States citizens. So what is the proposal all about?
1. Illegal aliens will be allowed to join a temporary labor pool and will be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally for not longer than six years.
2. Illegal aliens will be offered financial incentives to return to their own countries.
3. Illegal aliens will receive guaranteed wages and employee rights. Presumably, these will be the same or similar to those granted to U.S. workers.
4. These illegal aliens will be allowed to compete for citizenship in competition with legal immigrants.
5. Congress will be asked to raise the immigration quota from 140,000 per year to an unspecified number.
You'll notice I used the politically incorrect--and in some cases illegal--term "illegal aliens." That's because that is precisely who these people are. They are citizens of other nations who have snuck into the United States illegally. And now we are proposing to invite more of them to come here.
Plank 1--Temporary labor pool. This is a way of saying that since we get a certain amount of migrant labor each year anyway, let's document it and make it legal. We'll let you come here for a period of up to three years, if you have a job, and we will give you a one-time extension visa for up to another three years if you need one. In all, temporary immigrants will be allowed to stay for up to six years without fear of deportation. I think the government may be surprised by how many applicants will want to stay for the entire six years.
In short, the President's proposal is saying that since they are coming in anyway, let's control the process and make it legal.
To me, this just throws open the doors for illegal immigrants. By doing this, we are saying, "Get in here illegally and we will subsidize you for six years. If you can get into the United States, no matter how you do it, we will welcome you, protect you and give you nearly all the rights of American citizens." That is so wrong. It encourages illegal behavior by people who can't or won't follow the established rules. What a nasty message that sends to the migrants who do come here legally each year, not to mention American workers and taxpayers. What incentive do those people have to follow the rules? None. They get to do more paperwork and pay more taxes than border jumpers. [No, border jumpers is not a racist term. Don't even go there.]
Plank 2--Financial incentives. We're really going to offer illegal aliens money to leave? Seriously? That's like saying if someone breaks into your house, you will pay them to leave after they've already stolen from you. Brilliant idea. I wish someone would pay me to break the law. The less money we offer, the more incentive they will have to stay hidden and illegal. The more money we offer, the less we will encourage legal immigration. This part of the plan needs to be reexamined at once.
Plank 3--Guaranteed wages and rights. Guaranteed to receive what wage? Minimum wage? Six, seven, eight bucks an hour? Wonderful. Here come millions of new workers who are automatically condemned into poverty. But that's ok because we'll give you free health care, free education, free legal protection, free police protection, free civil rights protection and free anything else we think you need. All you have to do is get here illegally.
"Well," say the proponents, "these folks will be wage earning, tax paying workers. Any amount we spend on them vis-a-vis free health care, etc., will be recouped through taxes." Nonsense. It doesn't take a Yale economist to figure out that one $5,000 trip to the emergency room outweighs the benefit of collecting $2,184 in taxes from someone working at $7.00 per hour. This is a just a way to justify getting a huge pool of cheap labor into America.
Plank 4--Competition for citizenship. "So you're here illegally, but you asked for temporary amnesty and now you'd like to apply for citizenship? Terrific, but you'll have to compete with everyone who migrated legally. Go get in line with the six or seven million other applicants. We'll call the first 140,000 and the rest of you can apply next year."
All this plan does is to give a slap in the face to those immigrants who have been waiting for years for their green cards. Now, instead of waiting their turn alongside their peers who applied legally for citizenship, they must now face competition from six million (some say seven million) illegal aliens. But the illegals don't go to the back of the line. They get to cut in the front and the middle and everywhere along the line. Been waiting long for citizenship? Been following the rules and filling out all the paperwork? Too bad. Your wait just got a lot longer.
Plank 5--New immigration quotas. Presently, we let 140,000 people per year become U.S. citizens. Now we are proposing to let even more come in legally. Congress doesn't have the stones to say no, so you'll probably see a quota increase this year. Watch for it.
I'm not going to debate the wisdom of increasing or decreasing immigration quotas. That is a whole other argument. I will say, however, that to encourage legal immigration at the same time you are encouraging more illegal immigration will have a dillatory effect on our country. We simply cannot open the floodgates and let everyone in. By doing so, we do a disservice to our current citizens who must bear the cost through increased taxes and more expensive services, such as health care. And we don't do migrants any favors by asking them to come here and live at or below the poverty line, even if conditions are more favorable than in their own country.
To sum up the immigration situation, let's use a few "me first" examples. More immigration means more uninsured people getting free health care, which means more cost to you and me. More immigration means more crowded classrooms for our children. More immigration means more crowded prisons. [No, that's not racist either. 20% of the prison population is made up of illegal immigrants.]
So should we stop all immigration? No, not necessarily. But we do need to quit encouraging it and start enforcing our own immigration laws and border controls. Without some checks and balances, free immigration will bring this country down hard. No kidding. It's that serious.
Topic for 1/8/04
Here is the topic for the next two days. I decided to delay the original topic because of something I saw on the news this afternoon. The new topic is: Bush's overhaul of America's immigration system, what do you think it will mean to the American job market and will it help or further create an immigration problem?
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Starting tomorrow I will be throwing out topics every couple days and inviting anyone to comment on them. The comment will probably arrive shortly after midnight and you will have a couple days to comment. The same rules apply (no excessive profanity, no name calling and be somewhat constructive) and I hope to get a wide array of opinions. I will be starting with a real doozy that I hope will get a couple peoples hackles up (I know it does mine) and I will comment last after everyone is done and before I post a new topic. I want to thank Mike for suggesting this idea and I hope everyone will have fun with the next (and upcoming) discussions.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Thanks for inviting me, Jason. Since I'm new here, I thought I might start with a few words on decorum, not only in this forum, but also in the national debate.
I strongly resist the temptation to call the Democrats names. It is an easy habit to fall into and does nothing to advance the discussion. We've all done it, but in my mind, you lose the debate when you start calling people names. To say that something/someone/some Democrat is stupid means you couldn't articulate the obvious reason why.
Now, having said that, start paying attention to what the Democrats say. Invariably, they start name calling when engaged in political debate: Bush is evil, tax cuts are stupid, the Republicans are Nazis, etc. As author Ann Coulter wrote, "The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. Someday we will turn to the New York Times editorial page and find the Newspaper of Record denouncing President Bush for being a 'penis-head.'"
Democrats do this because they have no logical arguments. Why? First and most obvious, because they are just plain wrong--factually, morally and intellectually wrong. More than that, however, nearly all Democrat arguments are based on feelings. They excel at appealing to our baser instincts, in particular, fear and outrage.
As an example of stirring up outrage, look at how the Democrats have exploited--and indeed reinvented--class warfare. For 70-plus years now, they have tried very hard to recreate a caste system in America. Back in the 1930s you heard phrases like "the working man" or "soak the rich" or something similar. Today, look for the oft-repeated phrase "the richest 1% of Americans." This is a way to play up the "it's us against them" tactic that enrages millions of upwardly mobile, prospering Americans without being overtly offensive. After all, no one could be offended by such attacks other than the "richest 1% of Americans" or their "puppets" and "stooges" in the Republican party. Sound familiar?
The Democrats really excel when it comes to scaring the hell out of people. To cite but one example, look at Social Security. We can't even begin the debate on the privatization of Social Security without the Dems terrifying senior citizens. Managing your own Social Security account--like you do with your 401(k) account--morphs into a media barrage of screaming about how you will most certainly lose all your retirement money in the stock market. They have to scare people into submission in order to keep taking their money away. That's just awful, not to mention being bad public policy.
Need another example of how the Democrats scare old ladies and little children? Terrorism. Just this morning, former Senator Bill Bradley endorsed former Governor Howard Dean for president (there's a reason these guys are "former" whatevers). Bradley said, "As a Democrat, I wanted him [President Bush] to lose against Gore, but as an American I desperately wanted him to win against al Qaeda. Sadly, he still has not." Well, Bill, you're right. The job isn't done yet. But it might have been more constructive to have said something like, "The war on terrorism continues but has not yet been won. I can think of no one with greater courage or intelligence or strength to fight this war than Howard Dean." That is a positive, constructive, reassuring statement. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it doesn't scare people (other than the people who know it isn't true).
Is there a time to introduce name calling into the public debate? I've been struggling with this lately. Recently, Howard Dean said, "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." Well, you're absolutely right Gov. Dean (that's Dr. Dean if you read the New York Times). We live in a land where the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You're quite correct. But you're also an absolute dumbass for saying that in the national press. Why would any candidate willingly step in front of that bus? In my mind, that brings his effectiveness as a president and as a communicator into doubt. I can't think of another way to put it other than to say that Dean's remarks were stupid. Or perhaps I should be more politically correct and say "counterintuitive."
In any case, we can take the tone up a notch by remembering that while the man's actions may have been stupid, the man himself is quite intelligent and thoughtful. Let's win the moral high ground by showing respect for our opponents, even though they do not respect us.
Happy day,
Mike
I strongly resist the temptation to call the Democrats names. It is an easy habit to fall into and does nothing to advance the discussion. We've all done it, but in my mind, you lose the debate when you start calling people names. To say that something/someone/some Democrat is stupid means you couldn't articulate the obvious reason why.
Now, having said that, start paying attention to what the Democrats say. Invariably, they start name calling when engaged in political debate: Bush is evil, tax cuts are stupid, the Republicans are Nazis, etc. As author Ann Coulter wrote, "The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. Someday we will turn to the New York Times editorial page and find the Newspaper of Record denouncing President Bush for being a 'penis-head.'"
Democrats do this because they have no logical arguments. Why? First and most obvious, because they are just plain wrong--factually, morally and intellectually wrong. More than that, however, nearly all Democrat arguments are based on feelings. They excel at appealing to our baser instincts, in particular, fear and outrage.
As an example of stirring up outrage, look at how the Democrats have exploited--and indeed reinvented--class warfare. For 70-plus years now, they have tried very hard to recreate a caste system in America. Back in the 1930s you heard phrases like "the working man" or "soak the rich" or something similar. Today, look for the oft-repeated phrase "the richest 1% of Americans." This is a way to play up the "it's us against them" tactic that enrages millions of upwardly mobile, prospering Americans without being overtly offensive. After all, no one could be offended by such attacks other than the "richest 1% of Americans" or their "puppets" and "stooges" in the Republican party. Sound familiar?
The Democrats really excel when it comes to scaring the hell out of people. To cite but one example, look at Social Security. We can't even begin the debate on the privatization of Social Security without the Dems terrifying senior citizens. Managing your own Social Security account--like you do with your 401(k) account--morphs into a media barrage of screaming about how you will most certainly lose all your retirement money in the stock market. They have to scare people into submission in order to keep taking their money away. That's just awful, not to mention being bad public policy.
Need another example of how the Democrats scare old ladies and little children? Terrorism. Just this morning, former Senator Bill Bradley endorsed former Governor Howard Dean for president (there's a reason these guys are "former" whatevers). Bradley said, "As a Democrat, I wanted him [President Bush] to lose against Gore, but as an American I desperately wanted him to win against al Qaeda. Sadly, he still has not." Well, Bill, you're right. The job isn't done yet. But it might have been more constructive to have said something like, "The war on terrorism continues but has not yet been won. I can think of no one with greater courage or intelligence or strength to fight this war than Howard Dean." That is a positive, constructive, reassuring statement. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it doesn't scare people (other than the people who know it isn't true).
Is there a time to introduce name calling into the public debate? I've been struggling with this lately. Recently, Howard Dean said, "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." Well, you're absolutely right Gov. Dean (that's Dr. Dean if you read the New York Times). We live in a land where the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You're quite correct. But you're also an absolute dumbass for saying that in the national press. Why would any candidate willingly step in front of that bus? In my mind, that brings his effectiveness as a president and as a communicator into doubt. I can't think of another way to put it other than to say that Dean's remarks were stupid. Or perhaps I should be more politically correct and say "counterintuitive."
In any case, we can take the tone up a notch by remembering that while the man's actions may have been stupid, the man himself is quite intelligent and thoughtful. Let's win the moral high ground by showing respect for our opponents, even though they do not respect us.
Happy day,
Mike
Well, it's me again. I haven't written much (anything) over the holiday weekend but my brain has been storming over the endless possibilities of this project. First of all, I will be having many rant and theories on different standpoints mostly politics and religion. These are two subject that you are never supposed to talk about unless you want to start a fight because religion and politics are the two things that everyone holds firm beliefs in. It is always "I am right and you are wrong" in most peoples eyes on these two subjects. On the other hand I have had many discussions around the campfire (some of my friends and I go camping during the summer) about these subjects and never has a fight broken out. That being said, I would like to say that I will be having guest commentaries from my friends in this journal (I guess it just became "Journal of the MaDMeN) and I hope that other people will join in. I will have my email posted in the page subject line and anyone that wants to comment can email me what their opinion is and it will get posted to this page. I will only post CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to this page. If you write me and say "You're Wrong" or "Jeez, you're stupid" they will not be posted here (unless we want to make fun of you for being an idiot.) All emails that are sent to me are fair game to go on this page. You will soon be saying hello to Mike, Terry and Jeremi in here because they are some of the most intelligent arguers I have ever met. I may be able to get my aunt (devout Democrat) to join in on the conversation since she seems to want to convert me to being a Dem (I like some of the ideas) because she keeps sending me information on Dean (what a shmuck) for President. Well, I will be saying farewell for now. Yell at you shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)