Yes, I support the Judge's decision in the AZ immigration law case. This does not mean that I liked the decision, nor does it mean I fully understand the decision, nor does it mean I agree with the decision, nor does it mean I do not still support the AZ immigration law. It only means I respect the judge's decision and I will stand by the decision.
We are a nation of laws meant to shape a free and ordered society such that we all can live as we see fit without intruding into the domain of others. The only way for this to occur is to have respect for the laws which are passed. We might not all agree or like the law but we must obey the law. If we don't like a law, we can work to change it. Sometimes judgments made by those who have a veto power over the law might rise our ire but a response of defiance cannot be tolerated if we desire for the other laws to maintain our free and ordered society. Right or wrong, the judge's decision is the judge's decision and we must abide by it.
With that said, I shall now do something which might seem odd. I will argue that part of the AZ is unconstitutional - but not utilizing the weak Department of Justice argument that the law tramples on federal responsibilities. Just realize, I do not actually know what was argued or what actually was stated in the decision besides what I've heard from the talking heads. I am going to argue a provision of the statute unconstitutional based on some new knowledge I've gained about our governmental system.
The portion I shall argue unconstitutional is the portion which requires officials during a legal stop with reasonable suspicion that the person involved in the legal stop is an illegal alien to inquire about immigration status. One of the requirements missing from this provision is what law officers are supposed to do once they come across someone who meets this condition. The intent is for the law officer to arrest the suspected illegal alien. Now this would apply to anyone who could not prove they are a legal alien or citizen. How long does this process take? This is where the law begins to stretch from constitutionality into unconstitutionality.
Hypothetical situation: Individual stopped for speeding. His English is not the best in the world. He is very nervous and lapses back into his native language. The police officer asks for his driver license and registration. Unfortunately, the driver forgot his wallet thus does not have proof of who he is. The name on the registration is his name but it's a common foreign name. The nervousness coupled with the broken English and the lack of a driver's license raises the suspicion of the officer. Is this guy an illegal alien or is he legal? What should he do? He radios back to the precinct but the name provided is inconclusive due to similarity with other names. The officer now arrests the man on suspicion of being an illegal alien due to lack of documentation. The problem is that the man has lived in this country for six years and has been a US citizen for the past one year. Is this a problem?
When considering the constitutionality of a law, the court looks at the intent of the law to see if affects a right. If it does, there are several tests which can be applied to verify the law's constitutionality. When rights dealing with life or liberty arises, the court will ask if the right involved is a fundamental right. In this case, detaining someone falls into the fundamental right category of liberty. Now liberty can be taken away with Due Process of Law but the law must provide Equal Protection of the law. This is where the immigration law begins to fall apart.
In Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833, 894), Justice Sandra Day O'Conner states, "The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant." In the AZ immigration law there are several groups for whom the law is irrelevant. Among these are legal citizens carrying legal identification, legal immigrants or other foreigners with legal and proper identification, and even illegal immigrants. The law becomes a restriction upon those who are legal citizens who by their look and their speech might lead one to believe they are not legal citizens who do not have identification upon their person. This class of people is the class we are concerned with in this discussion.
To look at this another way: two people are stopped for speeding: One who is white without a driver's license and one who is Oriental without a driver's license. What happens in each case? Without the AZ law, both are cited for not speeding and for not having a license. With the AZ law, the Oriental person, based on circumstances, could be detained longer than the white to verify immigration. How long that detainment lasts depends on the speed of the system in verification of the person's immigration status. Thus the Oriental's liberty is being denied, not necessarily without Due Process of Law, but based on not being Equal Protection of the Law.
To pass the Equal Protection Clause, the law must be "applicable equally to all in like condition," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11, 30). In the above scenario, two separate people are being treated differently. The reason they are being treated differently is because of certain traits associated with that person: race, color, nationality. When these traits become evident, this invokes the "strict scrutiny" test for constitutionality.
Under strict scrutiny, the State must prove that the intent of the law fulfills a "compelling state interest" and that the law is "narrowly drawn to satisfy this compelling interest." It is a valid state interest to ensure illegal immigrants are not in the state. It is a compelling state interest to remove said illegal immigrants from the state, especially if some of those immigrants are committing crimes against the populous of the state. The question then is the law "narrowly drawn" to satisfy this interest?
One only has to look to Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535) for the answer. In this case, thrice convicted felons were subject to sterilization because, at that time, it was believed criminal traits could be inherited from the parents. The problem with the law is that those subject to sterilization were "blue collar" criminals and not "white collar" criminals. Thus someone stealing $50 in a robbery three times was subject to the law while someone who embezzled $50 a hundred times was not. Why was this significant? Blacks committed most blue collar crimes while whites committed most white collar crimes. Thus Justice Douglas stated, "it has made as invidious discrimination as if it has selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." Thus the sterilization law was declared unconstitutional for failing substantive due process.
The AZ law is not narrowly drawn to protect the liberty of a legal US citizen such that they will not be detained any longer than another US citizen who is of a different race or national origin. Much like Skinner, a discrimination of national origin is subjecting a class of persons to oppressive treatment in a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This means the law has stretched its umbrella of illegality over a legal action. Since the legal action is related to liberty - a fundamental right - the law must be declared unconstitutional.
The counter argument to this, which is made during many Supreme Court decisions, is that the number of people who would actually be denied liberty unjustly would be so small that it is unwarranted to declare the law unconstitutional. The problem with this argument though is our criminal system is based on the belief it is better to let a murderer go free to kill again than for the state to imprison an innocent person. Both are egregious actions, but the removal of freedom by state power outweighs the egregious nature of killing. We must stand by this principle even when our morals are assaulted.
I still agree with the AZ immigration law as written. However, I respect and stand by the judge's decision.
Mike
References:
Supreme Court Media: http://www.oyez.org/
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Inspiration from Glenn Beck
The beckoning of my school work means a shorter topic today. Instead of any of the topics mentioned in my prior blog entry, I side track slightly for another inspirational and uplifting entry. This now begs the question, "inspiration from Glenn Beck?" I know the mainstream media paints Mr. Beck as a loon or as someone trying to destroy America. Those who actually watch his show know better. He's funny. He's entertaining. He's enlightening. Yes, I said that word, "enlightening." The topics Glenn Beck discusses come from the very people who blast him. If you ever doubt Mr. Beck, all you have to do is look up the resources he cites.
I can't stand Joy Behar. She's truly a misguided loon. Yet I will watch her show. Not only to ensure I know the viewpoints of an enemy of America and capitalism, but also, for some of the entertaining aspects of her show. So if you view Glenn Beck as the devil and you've never watched the show, I challenge you to watch his show. He might prove you wrong. Of course there's the chance, he'll prove you right.
On Tuesday's show, Glenn, on his trusty blackboard, wrote a series of phrases to help Americans better their country. He is having a rally on Aug 28 in the same spot Martin Luther King Jr gave his famous, "I have a dream" speech. The rally is called "Restoring Honor Rally." On Tuesday, Glenn was showing us how to better ourselves to better our Country.
What he wrote:
1) No peace without HOPE
2) No hope without LIBERTY
3) No liberty without INTEGRITY
4) No integrity without VIRTUE
5) No virtue without ENLIGHTENMENT
6) No enlightenment without TRUTH
I believe he left off one statement: No truth without KNOWLEDGE
To better yourself you need to start at the bottom and work your way to the top. Improve your knowledge. Don't be like the President and his administration who rely on half-truths and innuendos without all of the facts before they speak. Use source material to improve your knowledge. Then you will know the truth.
After you've gained truth, you will possess enlightenment as you understand what is happening around you. With the gaining of enlightenment, you will have virtue - goodness, morality, or uprightness. By possessing virtue, this will help you to have integrity. With integrity, you know liberty and the essence of what liberty represents. Understanding liberty brings about the hope necessary to believe in the future. And from hope springs peace because once people have hope based off of liberty based off of integrity based off of virtue based off of enlightenment based off of truth founded in knowledge, people know how to live together to achieve all of those traits with each other.
I applaud Glenn Beck for this inspiration. I applaud Glenn Beck for his rally to restore honor to our government and our country and our world. Even if you don't like Mr. Beck, you must agree, his words of inspiration can be used by all ideologies.......
Mike
I can't stand Joy Behar. She's truly a misguided loon. Yet I will watch her show. Not only to ensure I know the viewpoints of an enemy of America and capitalism, but also, for some of the entertaining aspects of her show. So if you view Glenn Beck as the devil and you've never watched the show, I challenge you to watch his show. He might prove you wrong. Of course there's the chance, he'll prove you right.
On Tuesday's show, Glenn, on his trusty blackboard, wrote a series of phrases to help Americans better their country. He is having a rally on Aug 28 in the same spot Martin Luther King Jr gave his famous, "I have a dream" speech. The rally is called "Restoring Honor Rally." On Tuesday, Glenn was showing us how to better ourselves to better our Country.
What he wrote:
1) No peace without HOPE
2) No hope without LIBERTY
3) No liberty without INTEGRITY
4) No integrity without VIRTUE
5) No virtue without ENLIGHTENMENT
6) No enlightenment without TRUTH
I believe he left off one statement: No truth without KNOWLEDGE
To better yourself you need to start at the bottom and work your way to the top. Improve your knowledge. Don't be like the President and his administration who rely on half-truths and innuendos without all of the facts before they speak. Use source material to improve your knowledge. Then you will know the truth.
After you've gained truth, you will possess enlightenment as you understand what is happening around you. With the gaining of enlightenment, you will have virtue - goodness, morality, or uprightness. By possessing virtue, this will help you to have integrity. With integrity, you know liberty and the essence of what liberty represents. Understanding liberty brings about the hope necessary to believe in the future. And from hope springs peace because once people have hope based off of liberty based off of integrity based off of virtue based off of enlightenment based off of truth founded in knowledge, people know how to live together to achieve all of those traits with each other.
I applaud Glenn Beck for this inspiration. I applaud Glenn Beck for his rally to restore honor to our government and our country and our world. Even if you don't like Mr. Beck, you must agree, his words of inspiration can be used by all ideologies.......
Mike
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Knee-Jerk Reaction
I am taking a reprieve from studying today because the topics I want to discuss are mounting a coup in my head. From today's topic, to the topic of the ignoramus bill signed into law today (how does a bill which will cost the taxpayers money while raising banking costs (including credit union banking) protect the consumer?), to the topic of a bill based on a fallacy (the "paycheck fairness act"), the mental pressure to speak out about these issues was getting to me. So this morning while working out at the gym, I wrote the framework for today's topic. This hopefully will minimize the time to write the topic while at the same time provide practice for law school exams. (Law school exams are essay exams. Each question is a scenario from which the exam taker is supposed to identify the issues, discuss the relevant rules, analyze the scenario based on those rules and then provide a conclusion. In a time period that even the professor could not answer the question fully!)
Earlier this week I saw an on-line story about Ms. Shirley Sherrod. The article was detailing the bias in the NAACP towards the Tea Party as lop-sided. A video posted on the website Big Government (the website responsible for the prostitute sting videos against ACORN) showed Ms. Sherrod discussing how she did not help a white farmer (Ms. Sherrod is black). Of course there was much outrage at this "racist" incident. The NAACP called for her resignation and on Monday, the USDA, which is where she worked, called her while she was driving and pressed her for her resignation. Obviously she must have felt this was a "resign or you're fired" type of phone call since they told her to pull over so they could discuss this with her. Thus she resigned.
I snickered when I read the story. I again snickered when I saw the video on FOXNEWS later that day. But something stood out. Something which made me wonder was this over reaction and another example of the misuse of the word "racist." What stood out was the words she used.
Ms. Sherrod was retelling a story in which a white farmer came to her at the Georgia Dept of Agriculture looking for help with his farm so he wouldn't lose his farm to bankruptcy. She says she felt the farmer was talking down to her, much like a superior white would do to a black. Now of course, this is her perception of how he was speaking. This in no way is to say he was speaking in that manner. But that is how she perceived the conversation, so we'll believe her one-side of the issue for now. The key words are then spoken. She, with a half-laugh, says she did not give him her full potential. Her words were "I did not give him the full force of what I could do."
In other words, she HELPED him. However, she did not give him her full effort. If she gave help, but that help was a minimum effort, even if the reason to do so was the color of his skin, is that racism? To give him the minimum effort means she must have given more of her effort to someone else. Unless of course, she always gives the minimum - but I doubt this. If she gave her full effort to struggling black farmers but only gave the minimum to struggling white farmers is this racism? No, it's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Is that not what affirmative action is all about? She was appearing to favor blacks over whites. This is not necessarily racism. If colleges are required to enroll a certain percentage of underrepresented groups to ensure those minority groups have access to the college, is that not the same thing as providing more assistance to black farmers than to white farmers? I think so. Remember, she did not say she did not help him. She only did not provide the full force of her effort.
Should she have been fired over this? Should she have resigned over this? Of course not. What she did was not egregious, even if she had done this action yesterday. For one, it is not racism. Even though the NAACP came out and said it was racism, it is not. Remember, racism is the believe one race is superior to another. If we allow the umbrella of racism to cast a shadow on prejudices, then words and feelings which are not racism are elevated to the rank of racism. This would mean saying something bigoted like "all blacks eat fried chicken" is on the same level as the KKK calling for the end of interracial marriages because they view white blood is being contaminated by black blood with the birth of interracial babies! This violates logic! This violates common sense! Yet this is what the racist Jackson and the NAACP are accomplishing. It is ridiculous.
Of course, the video was edited. To listen further, Ms. Sherrod states she realized that helping people was not about the color of their skin. Helping people was about assisting poor farmers against rich farmers. This was the purpose of her story. She realized she was wrong and changed. She gave that white farmer the full force of her efforts, and to this day, that farmer's family is gracious to her. I should also mention, in case you don't know, her story happened 24 years ago! That's right, even if what she did was racist, the events happened 24 years ago. This means she was asked to resign over something long ago in the past. Senator Byrd was hailed as a great statesman yet when speaking of his KKK ties, "oh, he was just trying to get elected." Senator Byrd was the head of the West Virginia KKK! We can forgive Senator Byrd but we can't forgive Ms. Sherrod? Ridiculous.
This is not the first sign of a reaction from the Obama Administration or its appointees based on half-the-story. Don't forget about the President and his "stupid Cambridge police" comment. Don't forget about the Administration's reaction to the Arizona immigration law based on news stories vice the actual reading of the law. A knee-jerk reaction does no one any good. A knee-jerk reaction actually makes the situation worse not better.
Shirley Sherrod was the victim of a knee-jerk reaction. Even though the NAACP has retracted their statements based on the new facts, the damage is done. Ms. Sherrod deserved better treatment. She wasn't even given the chance to defend herself prior to the resignation request.
The boy who cried wolf strikes again........
Mike
See the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life?Gt1=43001
Earlier this week I saw an on-line story about Ms. Shirley Sherrod. The article was detailing the bias in the NAACP towards the Tea Party as lop-sided. A video posted on the website Big Government (the website responsible for the prostitute sting videos against ACORN) showed Ms. Sherrod discussing how she did not help a white farmer (Ms. Sherrod is black). Of course there was much outrage at this "racist" incident. The NAACP called for her resignation and on Monday, the USDA, which is where she worked, called her while she was driving and pressed her for her resignation. Obviously she must have felt this was a "resign or you're fired" type of phone call since they told her to pull over so they could discuss this with her. Thus she resigned.
I snickered when I read the story. I again snickered when I saw the video on FOXNEWS later that day. But something stood out. Something which made me wonder was this over reaction and another example of the misuse of the word "racist." What stood out was the words she used.
Ms. Sherrod was retelling a story in which a white farmer came to her at the Georgia Dept of Agriculture looking for help with his farm so he wouldn't lose his farm to bankruptcy. She says she felt the farmer was talking down to her, much like a superior white would do to a black. Now of course, this is her perception of how he was speaking. This in no way is to say he was speaking in that manner. But that is how she perceived the conversation, so we'll believe her one-side of the issue for now. The key words are then spoken. She, with a half-laugh, says she did not give him her full potential. Her words were "I did not give him the full force of what I could do."
In other words, she HELPED him. However, she did not give him her full effort. If she gave help, but that help was a minimum effort, even if the reason to do so was the color of his skin, is that racism? To give him the minimum effort means she must have given more of her effort to someone else. Unless of course, she always gives the minimum - but I doubt this. If she gave her full effort to struggling black farmers but only gave the minimum to struggling white farmers is this racism? No, it's called AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Is that not what affirmative action is all about? She was appearing to favor blacks over whites. This is not necessarily racism. If colleges are required to enroll a certain percentage of underrepresented groups to ensure those minority groups have access to the college, is that not the same thing as providing more assistance to black farmers than to white farmers? I think so. Remember, she did not say she did not help him. She only did not provide the full force of her effort.
Should she have been fired over this? Should she have resigned over this? Of course not. What she did was not egregious, even if she had done this action yesterday. For one, it is not racism. Even though the NAACP came out and said it was racism, it is not. Remember, racism is the believe one race is superior to another. If we allow the umbrella of racism to cast a shadow on prejudices, then words and feelings which are not racism are elevated to the rank of racism. This would mean saying something bigoted like "all blacks eat fried chicken" is on the same level as the KKK calling for the end of interracial marriages because they view white blood is being contaminated by black blood with the birth of interracial babies! This violates logic! This violates common sense! Yet this is what the racist Jackson and the NAACP are accomplishing. It is ridiculous.
Of course, the video was edited. To listen further, Ms. Sherrod states she realized that helping people was not about the color of their skin. Helping people was about assisting poor farmers against rich farmers. This was the purpose of her story. She realized she was wrong and changed. She gave that white farmer the full force of her efforts, and to this day, that farmer's family is gracious to her. I should also mention, in case you don't know, her story happened 24 years ago! That's right, even if what she did was racist, the events happened 24 years ago. This means she was asked to resign over something long ago in the past. Senator Byrd was hailed as a great statesman yet when speaking of his KKK ties, "oh, he was just trying to get elected." Senator Byrd was the head of the West Virginia KKK! We can forgive Senator Byrd but we can't forgive Ms. Sherrod? Ridiculous.
This is not the first sign of a reaction from the Obama Administration or its appointees based on half-the-story. Don't forget about the President and his "stupid Cambridge police" comment. Don't forget about the Administration's reaction to the Arizona immigration law based on news stories vice the actual reading of the law. A knee-jerk reaction does no one any good. A knee-jerk reaction actually makes the situation worse not better.
Shirley Sherrod was the victim of a knee-jerk reaction. Even though the NAACP has retracted their statements based on the new facts, the damage is done. Ms. Sherrod deserved better treatment. She wasn't even given the chance to defend herself prior to the resignation request.
The boy who cried wolf strikes again........
Mike
See the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life?Gt1=43001
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Inspiration from a Weird Source
In the midst of the economic crisis, the cries of racism from those who abhor the Arizona immigration bill to the NAACP against the Tea Party, and the cry of "Socialist" aimed at President Obama, people look for inspiration and motivation to help them not only to get through the tough times but to also feel good about what the future holds for them and the country. Some of the talking heads spew rhetoric which others feel does not help the situation while others view that same rhetoric as a call to arms. Every once in a while a little nugget of hope will glint in the shadows of despair. One must only mine the nugget to enjoy the riches it possesses.
Today, I found an inspirational nugget in a single line from a movie. This nugget says a lot about the beliefs which this country was founded upon - the same beliefs which has kept America strong for the last 234 years. The nugget also provides hope for our future.
Today while eating lunch, I was watching Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay which was airing on a cable station. The nugget was found in a line of this movie during one of the many impossible scenes which make up the movie. Harold and Kumar had bailed out of an airforce transport plane and had crashed through a skylight into the office of President George Bush on his Texas ranch. The President takes them to his guest house - to escape from Dick Cheney - where the three of them smoke some weed.
During the conversation while high, Harold tells the President due to all of the things which had happened to him and Kumar that Harold just does not trust the government. The President responds with a little bit of humor, "hell I don't trust the government and I'm in the government." Then the inspirational line is spoken:
"You don't have to trust the government to be an American, you just have to believe in your country."
I cannot say how many times I've seen this movie; however, this time, the power of that line grabbed a hold of me. "You don't have to trust the government to be an American, you just have to believe in your country."
There are many things I see which I do not like happening in local, state, and federal government. I don't like the voices I hear about immigration, to taxes, to healthcare, to the economy. I don't trust the wisdom, the motivation, or the knowledge of most of those in the government or running for the government.
But I do have faith in our system of government. I do have faith and hope that in the end somehow things will work out for us. I do have faith the American ideals this country was founded on will prevail. I do have faith those the freedom which is embodied in capitalism will win over the oppression embodied in socialism. I do have faith in my country.
I am an American and I believe in my country.
Great inspiration from a weird source.......
Mike
Today, I found an inspirational nugget in a single line from a movie. This nugget says a lot about the beliefs which this country was founded upon - the same beliefs which has kept America strong for the last 234 years. The nugget also provides hope for our future.
Today while eating lunch, I was watching Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay which was airing on a cable station. The nugget was found in a line of this movie during one of the many impossible scenes which make up the movie. Harold and Kumar had bailed out of an airforce transport plane and had crashed through a skylight into the office of President George Bush on his Texas ranch. The President takes them to his guest house - to escape from Dick Cheney - where the three of them smoke some weed.
During the conversation while high, Harold tells the President due to all of the things which had happened to him and Kumar that Harold just does not trust the government. The President responds with a little bit of humor, "hell I don't trust the government and I'm in the government." Then the inspirational line is spoken:
"You don't have to trust the government to be an American, you just have to believe in your country."
I cannot say how many times I've seen this movie; however, this time, the power of that line grabbed a hold of me. "You don't have to trust the government to be an American, you just have to believe in your country."
There are many things I see which I do not like happening in local, state, and federal government. I don't like the voices I hear about immigration, to taxes, to healthcare, to the economy. I don't trust the wisdom, the motivation, or the knowledge of most of those in the government or running for the government.
But I do have faith in our system of government. I do have faith and hope that in the end somehow things will work out for us. I do have faith the American ideals this country was founded on will prevail. I do have faith those the freedom which is embodied in capitalism will win over the oppression embodied in socialism. I do have faith in my country.
I am an American and I believe in my country.
Great inspiration from a weird source.......
Mike
Friday, July 16, 2010
Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up?
One of my favorite quotations is "Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself."
In the past week there have been two separate stories hinting at racism. Or maybe it's something else. I'll let you decide.
We'll start with my favorite racist, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Yes, I called him a racist. He and his cohort, the Reverend Al Sharpton (do you see the similarity between the two? I wonder what God will say to these purveyors of hate when they finally reach the promised land?), can find racism in any story, in any event, in anything. (BTW, in case someone is thinking, "Hey this is libel!" Sorry, it's my opinion about public figures, which means the First Amendment protects me as long as I don't say a false statement of fact with 'actual malice'.)
Last week Lebron James jumped ship (I mentioned it before) from Cleveland to Miami. The owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers published a letter to the Cleveland fans decrying Lebron James for his actions and vowing to win a championship for Cleveland before Miami does the same with Lebron. After that letter, Jesse Jackson had to speak his mind.
Of course, what does the ultimate racist do but find racism where racism is not. He compared the letter by the owner to how a "runaway slave" is treated. All of Cleveland felt betrayed by Lebron - evidenced by the events where they burned his jerseys, some of which were valued at hundreds of dollars, if not more. Do their actions speak of Lebron James as a runaway slave too?
Dan Gilbert can speak his mind. All he did was voice the heartbreak over one of Cleveland's favored sports personality. Mind you, Lebron James is from Cleveland. He dished the Cavaliers. They have every right to be mad and to voice that anger. Who is Jesse Jackson to voice his opinion in such a manner as to compare Dan Gilbert to a slave owner? Jesse Jackson has an agenda and that agenda is to keep his ego in the media by doing what he loves to do - accusing whites of being racists even when they aren't. Mr. Jackson I have a message for you: read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" before you open your mouth again.
Earlier this week, the NAACP voted to condemn "racism in the Tea Party." Their claims of bigots in the tea party and the acceptance of bigotry by the tea party are evidenced by the supposed incident when a black lawmaker had a racial slur yelled at him while walking to the Capital Building and tea party gatherings where signs showing President Obama in white face or compared to a monkey were on view.
Recently on CNN, the leader of the NAACP, Ben Jealous said anyone waving a sign which could be viewed as racist should be escorted away. First off, is bigotry racism? Not necessarily. Remember racism is defined as a believe that one's race is better than another. A bigot is one intolerant of or prejudiced against those of differing religious beliefs, political opinions, race, etc. Being prejudiced against someone is not necessarily meaning the bigot believes he's better than the other. It is given all racists are bigots; it is not given that all bigots are racists. More than likely, most bigots are racists; but that means there are some bigots who are not racists.
So why is the NAACP claiming the Tea Party tolerates racists? I obviously cannot answer that question. But I'm sure it is purely political. But I digress.
Secondly, the NAACP wants the Tea Party to speak out against any view which might be construed as racist with more fervor than the Tea Party has done in the past. Well I think the Tea Party should pass a referendum condemning the NAACP for the racists the NAACP tolerates. I'm speaking of the New Black Panthers. In 2008, King Shamir was charged with interfering with an election when he stood in front of a polling place with a night stick and spoke ill to white voters to turn them away. Those charges have recently been dropped by Eric Holder. Now a DOJ lawyer has resigned over the issue. King Shamir, a bastion of good race relations, championed killing "white babies." Why have we not heard the NAACP condemning these people?
Some would say a black man saying blacks should kill white babies is more racist than Obama painted like the anarchist "The Joker" from The Dark Knight. The "white face" Obama, as I interpreted the sign, was drawing a reference to a character that "wanted to watch the world burn." I took it as a symbolic reference to how the President's policies are viewed in relation to our Country's future. Of course, the word "socialism" was below the picture and the picture was similar to the "hope" posters which were displayed during the election. Now I am not a black man so I might not react a specific way to this but I don't see anything racial in the poster.
So is there a difference between the supposed bigots crashing the Tea Party rallies and the Black Panther Party relationship to the NAACP? No. The Tea Party should not "CENSOR" the people who come to the rallies even if their view is not part of the rally message. This would be a violation of the First Amendment. Escorting people away whose view is different from yours in a way to silence them is the same as censorship. A vile and disgusting viewpoint cannot be silenced by the majority even to protect the minority. To do so violates the principles upon which this country was founded.
While I find King Shamir's opinion vile and disgusting, I respect his right to voice that opinion. Why can't the NAACP do the same? Instead of condemning the Tea Party, they should condemn the individuals concerned but only if the individuals truly deserve it. Again, the NAACP has political gains. Racism is not involved, it's just an easy tool to use. But using racism as a tool when racism is not present is no better, and I would argue it is worse, than racism itself.
Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself. Would the real racists please stand up? Oh wait, never mind, your actions have already rooted you out....
Mike
Definitions retrieved from dictionary.com app on the iPhone.
In the past week there have been two separate stories hinting at racism. Or maybe it's something else. I'll let you decide.
We'll start with my favorite racist, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Yes, I called him a racist. He and his cohort, the Reverend Al Sharpton (do you see the similarity between the two? I wonder what God will say to these purveyors of hate when they finally reach the promised land?), can find racism in any story, in any event, in anything. (BTW, in case someone is thinking, "Hey this is libel!" Sorry, it's my opinion about public figures, which means the First Amendment protects me as long as I don't say a false statement of fact with 'actual malice'.)
Last week Lebron James jumped ship (I mentioned it before) from Cleveland to Miami. The owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers published a letter to the Cleveland fans decrying Lebron James for his actions and vowing to win a championship for Cleveland before Miami does the same with Lebron. After that letter, Jesse Jackson had to speak his mind.
Of course, what does the ultimate racist do but find racism where racism is not. He compared the letter by the owner to how a "runaway slave" is treated. All of Cleveland felt betrayed by Lebron - evidenced by the events where they burned his jerseys, some of which were valued at hundreds of dollars, if not more. Do their actions speak of Lebron James as a runaway slave too?
Dan Gilbert can speak his mind. All he did was voice the heartbreak over one of Cleveland's favored sports personality. Mind you, Lebron James is from Cleveland. He dished the Cavaliers. They have every right to be mad and to voice that anger. Who is Jesse Jackson to voice his opinion in such a manner as to compare Dan Gilbert to a slave owner? Jesse Jackson has an agenda and that agenda is to keep his ego in the media by doing what he loves to do - accusing whites of being racists even when they aren't. Mr. Jackson I have a message for you: read "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" before you open your mouth again.
Earlier this week, the NAACP voted to condemn "racism in the Tea Party." Their claims of bigots in the tea party and the acceptance of bigotry by the tea party are evidenced by the supposed incident when a black lawmaker had a racial slur yelled at him while walking to the Capital Building and tea party gatherings where signs showing President Obama in white face or compared to a monkey were on view.
Recently on CNN, the leader of the NAACP, Ben Jealous said anyone waving a sign which could be viewed as racist should be escorted away. First off, is bigotry racism? Not necessarily. Remember racism is defined as a believe that one's race is better than another. A bigot is one intolerant of or prejudiced against those of differing religious beliefs, political opinions, race, etc. Being prejudiced against someone is not necessarily meaning the bigot believes he's better than the other. It is given all racists are bigots; it is not given that all bigots are racists. More than likely, most bigots are racists; but that means there are some bigots who are not racists.
So why is the NAACP claiming the Tea Party tolerates racists? I obviously cannot answer that question. But I'm sure it is purely political. But I digress.
Secondly, the NAACP wants the Tea Party to speak out against any view which might be construed as racist with more fervor than the Tea Party has done in the past. Well I think the Tea Party should pass a referendum condemning the NAACP for the racists the NAACP tolerates. I'm speaking of the New Black Panthers. In 2008, King Shamir was charged with interfering with an election when he stood in front of a polling place with a night stick and spoke ill to white voters to turn them away. Those charges have recently been dropped by Eric Holder. Now a DOJ lawyer has resigned over the issue. King Shamir, a bastion of good race relations, championed killing "white babies." Why have we not heard the NAACP condemning these people?
Some would say a black man saying blacks should kill white babies is more racist than Obama painted like the anarchist "The Joker" from The Dark Knight. The "white face" Obama, as I interpreted the sign, was drawing a reference to a character that "wanted to watch the world burn." I took it as a symbolic reference to how the President's policies are viewed in relation to our Country's future. Of course, the word "socialism" was below the picture and the picture was similar to the "hope" posters which were displayed during the election. Now I am not a black man so I might not react a specific way to this but I don't see anything racial in the poster.
So is there a difference between the supposed bigots crashing the Tea Party rallies and the Black Panther Party relationship to the NAACP? No. The Tea Party should not "CENSOR" the people who come to the rallies even if their view is not part of the rally message. This would be a violation of the First Amendment. Escorting people away whose view is different from yours in a way to silence them is the same as censorship. A vile and disgusting viewpoint cannot be silenced by the majority even to protect the minority. To do so violates the principles upon which this country was founded.
While I find King Shamir's opinion vile and disgusting, I respect his right to voice that opinion. Why can't the NAACP do the same? Instead of condemning the Tea Party, they should condemn the individuals concerned but only if the individuals truly deserve it. Again, the NAACP has political gains. Racism is not involved, it's just an easy tool to use. But using racism as a tool when racism is not present is no better, and I would argue it is worse, than racism itself.
Ye who finds racism where racism is not is, in fact, a racist yeself. Would the real racists please stand up? Oh wait, never mind, your actions have already rooted you out....
Mike
Definitions retrieved from dictionary.com app on the iPhone.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Lebron James Should Be Vilified
At least if you believe in social justice, socialism, communism, or any other "ism" besides capitalism.
On Thursday, Lebron James, a highly sought after basketball free agent, committed to joining the Miami Heat. This was to the disappointment of Cleveland fans and to the excitement of Miami fans. So why would socialists vilify Mr. James?
Socialists believe man is a member of society and not that man is an individual. Lebron James went to a team that he feels will get him a championship. He is joining two other superstars in the hopes the team will be strong enough to be a dynasty and win championships. Is this how a socialist believes? No, they believe everyone is on an equal foot with everyone else; no one is better than anyone else. How dare Lebron James feel his individual needs should be above the needs of anyone or everyone else!
The free agents in major league sports tout themselves as stars - above other players. These stars demand a lot of money for their talent. Some teams can pay, some cannot. Loyalty is not to the fans of a city; loyalty is to the team which gives them (the players) what they want, whether that want is money or whether that want is a championship. The player changing teams is doing so for a greed factor. They are being greedy because they think of themselves before other people, including the fans who pay their salary.
This attitude is contrary to the believe of socialists and those for social justice. Socialists believe people should not strive for attainment of personal glory; instead everyone should strive for attainment of society glory. But at what cost will this societal glory have to the individual?
The progressives believe we should take from the rich to give to the poor. That society is better if everyone is on the same financial standing. Think about what they are saying, we'll make everyone financially equal and that will make life better for everyone. This is a fallacy.
When you look at advancements in the world, most advancements came from the capitalist society not from any socialist society. Why is that? Because there's no incentive to be better, to do better, to make better in a socialist society.
If I won't be rewarded for my extra effort, why should I do the extra effort? Each person should be rewarded for their contribution to the society; people should not be rewarded for just being a part of society. If you don't pull your weight, why should you be rewarded?
If you want to see an example of this, look to the military. In the military, pay is decided by pay grade based on years of service. An E-6 over 10 years of experience but less than 12 will get the same pay as another E-6 with the same experience. I saw an E-6 who was so incompetent it was scary. Unfortunately, all we could do was not give him great write-ups in attempt to prevent him from making Chief (advancing in rank). Compared to another E-6 who is competent and able, how are we rewarding the good E-6? Well hopefully one day he'll advance to Chief (based on awards and good right-ups) unlike what will happen to the other E-6. Oh wait, but if there aren't enough E-7's in the military, it just might happen that both will get advanced. And is the military to the better for advancing the incompetent E-6? Of course not. This is socialism at its best.
Socialists scream about the high pay of CEO's. Are the CEO's worth it? Let me see, they manage the company to keep it in business to employ workers. They worked their way up the ladder. They've taken courses and have degrees commiserate with their status - courses and degrees which cost them money. Should they not be compensated for their experience and expenses? Not according to the socialists.
Yet they do not scream about men like Lebron James. He is getting paid just as much as some CEO's. The last time I checked, Lebron James plays a game. He also doesn't employ anyone. He also doesn't manage anything. Lebron also never went to college.
Something doesn't sound right here, and it doesn't have anything to do with Lebron vs the CEO's. Silly socialists.
I applaud Lebron James. He is taking a risk (the cornerstone of capitalism and progress). I hope it works out for him....
Mike
On Thursday, Lebron James, a highly sought after basketball free agent, committed to joining the Miami Heat. This was to the disappointment of Cleveland fans and to the excitement of Miami fans. So why would socialists vilify Mr. James?
Socialists believe man is a member of society and not that man is an individual. Lebron James went to a team that he feels will get him a championship. He is joining two other superstars in the hopes the team will be strong enough to be a dynasty and win championships. Is this how a socialist believes? No, they believe everyone is on an equal foot with everyone else; no one is better than anyone else. How dare Lebron James feel his individual needs should be above the needs of anyone or everyone else!
The free agents in major league sports tout themselves as stars - above other players. These stars demand a lot of money for their talent. Some teams can pay, some cannot. Loyalty is not to the fans of a city; loyalty is to the team which gives them (the players) what they want, whether that want is money or whether that want is a championship. The player changing teams is doing so for a greed factor. They are being greedy because they think of themselves before other people, including the fans who pay their salary.
This attitude is contrary to the believe of socialists and those for social justice. Socialists believe people should not strive for attainment of personal glory; instead everyone should strive for attainment of society glory. But at what cost will this societal glory have to the individual?
The progressives believe we should take from the rich to give to the poor. That society is better if everyone is on the same financial standing. Think about what they are saying, we'll make everyone financially equal and that will make life better for everyone. This is a fallacy.
When you look at advancements in the world, most advancements came from the capitalist society not from any socialist society. Why is that? Because there's no incentive to be better, to do better, to make better in a socialist society.
If I won't be rewarded for my extra effort, why should I do the extra effort? Each person should be rewarded for their contribution to the society; people should not be rewarded for just being a part of society. If you don't pull your weight, why should you be rewarded?
If you want to see an example of this, look to the military. In the military, pay is decided by pay grade based on years of service. An E-6 over 10 years of experience but less than 12 will get the same pay as another E-6 with the same experience. I saw an E-6 who was so incompetent it was scary. Unfortunately, all we could do was not give him great write-ups in attempt to prevent him from making Chief (advancing in rank). Compared to another E-6 who is competent and able, how are we rewarding the good E-6? Well hopefully one day he'll advance to Chief (based on awards and good right-ups) unlike what will happen to the other E-6. Oh wait, but if there aren't enough E-7's in the military, it just might happen that both will get advanced. And is the military to the better for advancing the incompetent E-6? Of course not. This is socialism at its best.
Socialists scream about the high pay of CEO's. Are the CEO's worth it? Let me see, they manage the company to keep it in business to employ workers. They worked their way up the ladder. They've taken courses and have degrees commiserate with their status - courses and degrees which cost them money. Should they not be compensated for their experience and expenses? Not according to the socialists.
Yet they do not scream about men like Lebron James. He is getting paid just as much as some CEO's. The last time I checked, Lebron James plays a game. He also doesn't employ anyone. He also doesn't manage anything. Lebron also never went to college.
Something doesn't sound right here, and it doesn't have anything to do with Lebron vs the CEO's. Silly socialists.
I applaud Lebron James. He is taking a risk (the cornerstone of capitalism and progress). I hope it works out for him....
Mike
Monday, July 5, 2010
A Possible Solution to Illegal Immigration
I have posted several blogs dealing with illegal immigration. None of my posts dealt with a possible solution to illegal immigration; instead, I argued the points of Arizona's immigration statute, I argued you can't put the stamp of racism on anti-illegal immigration, and I retorted against illegal immigration supporters. I strongly believe you cannot complain about a problem unless you are also willing to provide solutions. A voice of dissent should not only dissent but should also offer alternatives.
Those screaming "secure our borders" do offer some solutions. These range from troops on the border to building a fence. At one time, cameras were slated for distribution along the border; but earlier this year that program was put on the chopping block due to budget constraints. Which of these is really viable?
I, for one, do not believe a fence, a structure no matter how it is designed, is the solution to illegal immigration. For one, this fence will have to stretch a total of 1954 miles! I've seen pictures of a section of the wall and the picture I get in my head is the one from the movie, Escape from New York. In the movie, Manhattan is surrounded by a huge wall where prisoners are on one side and the US on the other side. Is this really what we want along our border?
I think not. No matter how wide; no matter how tall; someone will figure out a way to either get over the wall, tunnel under the wall, or blow a hole in the wall. A wall is not the solution.
For substance to my argument consider this question, are we considering a wall along the Canadian border? The answer is no. Why not? If a wall on the southern border is the answer to illegal immigration, why is not a wall on the northern border? The answer is simple, the number of people entering illegally from the north is not as significant as the number entering illegally from the south. This is not to say no one enters illegally from the north, for probability states it is happening, the statement only signifies the number is not significant enough to warrant any concern.
So if we were to reduce the number of people illegally entering from the south would that end the need for the fence? I think so. Whether a fence surrounds our border or not, people will enter illegally. Some would argue the number would be significantly less if the wall is there. There is viability in that argument; however, if we could reduce the number by other means, means cheaper and easier to institute, would that not be better than an imposing fence along our border?
More border patrol along with sensors is a way to help in locating illegals immigrants entering the country. We don't need the troops along the border - for one that is a violation of the Constitution, for the army is for defense and the illegal immigrants aren't attacking us. Beef up security is a measure to help reduce those crossing the border. Adding sensors is another way to assist the border patrol. These don't need to be fancy and expensive sensors - just deployable enough to monitor for groups of people coming across. A single person, or even two or three, is something we shouldn't be looking for. Other impediments to their entrance can be just as effective.
How do we go about reducing the number of immigrants entering illegally without a fence? We first should remove the incentives which entice the illegal immigrants to enter our country. What incentives are those? For one, the welfare state is a great incentive to enter. What other country allows someone to enter, have a baby, and then get money to take care of said baby because they don't have the means to do so without the government? The government should not be a charitable organization to our own inhabitants, let alone those who are not residents. Step one in this process is to prohibit money going to anyone who is not a legal, registered, and naturalized citizen. Most of those who receive social benefits from the government do not do so on their own behalf, they do so because they have a child who is an American citizen; therefore, they receive benefits on behalf of the child. If we stop this, they will not come. So in other words, social benefits can only be paid to an adult citizen of America. Benefits cannot be paid to someone who is not an adult citizen for the benefit of someone who is. Some may say this is cruel (one Speaker of the House comes to mind immediately), but what is cruel?
Cruel is "disposed to inflict suffering, pain, etc. on others; or causing suffering, distress, etc" (New Standard, pg 171). Let's look at the situation objectively. An illegal immigrant came to America and had a child. The illegal immigrant cannot sustain a home to raise such child because they are "below or at the poverty level." The situation in which they are in is cruel. They are already in distress or already are suffering. Someone who does not give money to them is not contributing to their suffering or distress, that someone is only refusing to end their suffering or distress. This is a difference. You can argue it is cruel to let the situation continue, but why should it be a requirement, or why should you guilt someone, to help another who purposely put them ownself into said situation? I am not responsible for my neighbor; neither is he responsible for me. There's a difference between expecting aid and requesting aid. These people came here expecting aid which the government expects to give. If we stop the giving, the immigrants won't have an incentive to come illegally.
Another way to reduce incentives is to require ALL employers in the country to verify status of the employers they are hiring. As long as the potential employee is a US citizen, or authorized immigrant, the company can hire them; to do otherwise results in a fine for the company. This regulation would remove any incentive from the company to hire illegal immigrants; thus removing the incentive for the immigrant to enter illegally because they would be unable to find work.
Immigrants who come to America have to pay some exorbitant fees to enter. Not everyone can afford the fees (entry fee, registration fee, lawyer fee, etc) to enter the country and become a citizen. We should have a method which helps the destitute. But, I am not saying the government should pay for them. Instead, we need a non-profit organization which works with those who cannot afford to pay the fees to enter to help them enter the country. This way the destitute could go to the embassy in their country who would then put the potential immigrant in touch with the non-profit immigration organization. This would remove another reason people for people to enter illegally, because now they have a different avenue to meet the financial burden to become a citizen of the US.
People also enter the country illegally in support of the drug trade. This subject I will reserve to another time. I am proposing other changes which might reduce the numbers significantly enough that it might become easier to stop the illegal drug trade too.
Then the question becomes what do we do with all of the illegal immigrants currently living in America? The emotional answer would be to kick them out. But is this really a viable solution? It is the emotional answer. I would love to kick every single one of the illegal immigrants out, and yes (saying this in imitation of the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz) their anchor babies too. In reality, this would be a logistic nightmare not worth the hassle and not worth the cost. A more realistic and reasonable approach should be employed.
For one, offer an incentive to learn who they are. Specifically, require them all to register within a two month time frame. After the two months are up, if they haven't registered, goodbye. This way those here illegally have a means to actually tell us who they are with a stated penalty for not doing so. That being automatic deportation, no questions asked.
After registering, the once illegal immigrant now is labeled a potential immigrant. In the registration process, we must inquire as to why they came to America, what they've done since they've been here, and what was their status in their country of origin. This way we can weed out the heinous criminals. Everyone deserves a second chance. Just because someone was a pick-pocket in their country of origin does not necessarily mean they are a pick-pocket here. However, a line must be drawn somewhere. Killers and drug dealers should not be desired as citizens.
Then these potential immigrants are made to pay a yearly fee until their name comes up for becoming immigrants. In other words, their name goes on a wait list which is behind the list of people who are trying to enter legally. I know this sounds somewhat like amnesty, but it is not. Amnesty would be to allow them to stay no strings attached. Granted my method allows those here already to stay while others wait for permission to enter, at least those here as potential immigrants will be paying for that privilege. Realize, anyone caught being an illegal immigrant after my two month moratorium gets booted no matter what, thus there is no incentive to enter for the retribution program I'm advocating. I've tried to come up with a solution not based on emotion but instead is reasonable to solve the problem of undocumented immigrants in the US and what to do with them.
I have offered reasonable solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Will they work? I don't have a definite answer but I believe they would work. At least I've proposed a solution vice just saying we need a solution.....
Mike
References not linked:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Those screaming "secure our borders" do offer some solutions. These range from troops on the border to building a fence. At one time, cameras were slated for distribution along the border; but earlier this year that program was put on the chopping block due to budget constraints. Which of these is really viable?
I, for one, do not believe a fence, a structure no matter how it is designed, is the solution to illegal immigration. For one, this fence will have to stretch a total of 1954 miles! I've seen pictures of a section of the wall and the picture I get in my head is the one from the movie, Escape from New York. In the movie, Manhattan is surrounded by a huge wall where prisoners are on one side and the US on the other side. Is this really what we want along our border?
I think not. No matter how wide; no matter how tall; someone will figure out a way to either get over the wall, tunnel under the wall, or blow a hole in the wall. A wall is not the solution.
For substance to my argument consider this question, are we considering a wall along the Canadian border? The answer is no. Why not? If a wall on the southern border is the answer to illegal immigration, why is not a wall on the northern border? The answer is simple, the number of people entering illegally from the north is not as significant as the number entering illegally from the south. This is not to say no one enters illegally from the north, for probability states it is happening, the statement only signifies the number is not significant enough to warrant any concern.
So if we were to reduce the number of people illegally entering from the south would that end the need for the fence? I think so. Whether a fence surrounds our border or not, people will enter illegally. Some would argue the number would be significantly less if the wall is there. There is viability in that argument; however, if we could reduce the number by other means, means cheaper and easier to institute, would that not be better than an imposing fence along our border?
More border patrol along with sensors is a way to help in locating illegals immigrants entering the country. We don't need the troops along the border - for one that is a violation of the Constitution, for the army is for defense and the illegal immigrants aren't attacking us. Beef up security is a measure to help reduce those crossing the border. Adding sensors is another way to assist the border patrol. These don't need to be fancy and expensive sensors - just deployable enough to monitor for groups of people coming across. A single person, or even two or three, is something we shouldn't be looking for. Other impediments to their entrance can be just as effective.
How do we go about reducing the number of immigrants entering illegally without a fence? We first should remove the incentives which entice the illegal immigrants to enter our country. What incentives are those? For one, the welfare state is a great incentive to enter. What other country allows someone to enter, have a baby, and then get money to take care of said baby because they don't have the means to do so without the government? The government should not be a charitable organization to our own inhabitants, let alone those who are not residents. Step one in this process is to prohibit money going to anyone who is not a legal, registered, and naturalized citizen. Most of those who receive social benefits from the government do not do so on their own behalf, they do so because they have a child who is an American citizen; therefore, they receive benefits on behalf of the child. If we stop this, they will not come. So in other words, social benefits can only be paid to an adult citizen of America. Benefits cannot be paid to someone who is not an adult citizen for the benefit of someone who is. Some may say this is cruel (one Speaker of the House comes to mind immediately), but what is cruel?
Cruel is "disposed to inflict suffering, pain, etc. on others; or causing suffering, distress, etc" (New Standard, pg 171). Let's look at the situation objectively. An illegal immigrant came to America and had a child. The illegal immigrant cannot sustain a home to raise such child because they are "below or at the poverty level." The situation in which they are in is cruel. They are already in distress or already are suffering. Someone who does not give money to them is not contributing to their suffering or distress, that someone is only refusing to end their suffering or distress. This is a difference. You can argue it is cruel to let the situation continue, but why should it be a requirement, or why should you guilt someone, to help another who purposely put them ownself into said situation? I am not responsible for my neighbor; neither is he responsible for me. There's a difference between expecting aid and requesting aid. These people came here expecting aid which the government expects to give. If we stop the giving, the immigrants won't have an incentive to come illegally.
Another way to reduce incentives is to require ALL employers in the country to verify status of the employers they are hiring. As long as the potential employee is a US citizen, or authorized immigrant, the company can hire them; to do otherwise results in a fine for the company. This regulation would remove any incentive from the company to hire illegal immigrants; thus removing the incentive for the immigrant to enter illegally because they would be unable to find work.
Immigrants who come to America have to pay some exorbitant fees to enter. Not everyone can afford the fees (entry fee, registration fee, lawyer fee, etc) to enter the country and become a citizen. We should have a method which helps the destitute. But, I am not saying the government should pay for them. Instead, we need a non-profit organization which works with those who cannot afford to pay the fees to enter to help them enter the country. This way the destitute could go to the embassy in their country who would then put the potential immigrant in touch with the non-profit immigration organization. This would remove another reason people for people to enter illegally, because now they have a different avenue to meet the financial burden to become a citizen of the US.
People also enter the country illegally in support of the drug trade. This subject I will reserve to another time. I am proposing other changes which might reduce the numbers significantly enough that it might become easier to stop the illegal drug trade too.
Then the question becomes what do we do with all of the illegal immigrants currently living in America? The emotional answer would be to kick them out. But is this really a viable solution? It is the emotional answer. I would love to kick every single one of the illegal immigrants out, and yes (saying this in imitation of the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz) their anchor babies too. In reality, this would be a logistic nightmare not worth the hassle and not worth the cost. A more realistic and reasonable approach should be employed.
For one, offer an incentive to learn who they are. Specifically, require them all to register within a two month time frame. After the two months are up, if they haven't registered, goodbye. This way those here illegally have a means to actually tell us who they are with a stated penalty for not doing so. That being automatic deportation, no questions asked.
After registering, the once illegal immigrant now is labeled a potential immigrant. In the registration process, we must inquire as to why they came to America, what they've done since they've been here, and what was their status in their country of origin. This way we can weed out the heinous criminals. Everyone deserves a second chance. Just because someone was a pick-pocket in their country of origin does not necessarily mean they are a pick-pocket here. However, a line must be drawn somewhere. Killers and drug dealers should not be desired as citizens.
Then these potential immigrants are made to pay a yearly fee until their name comes up for becoming immigrants. In other words, their name goes on a wait list which is behind the list of people who are trying to enter legally. I know this sounds somewhat like amnesty, but it is not. Amnesty would be to allow them to stay no strings attached. Granted my method allows those here already to stay while others wait for permission to enter, at least those here as potential immigrants will be paying for that privilege. Realize, anyone caught being an illegal immigrant after my two month moratorium gets booted no matter what, thus there is no incentive to enter for the retribution program I'm advocating. I've tried to come up with a solution not based on emotion but instead is reasonable to solve the problem of undocumented immigrants in the US and what to do with them.
I have offered reasonable solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Will they work? I don't have a definite answer but I believe they would work. At least I've proposed a solution vice just saying we need a solution.....
Mike
References not linked:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
4th of July and a Call for Arms
Today is the Fourth of July; the day we set aside to celebrate the day we declared independence from England and, specifically, King George III. In honor of this date we must not just celebrate the day, but, borrowing from those who celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday, who call that day a day on not a day off; we should strive to remember, and if needed, relearn, the principles upon which this country was founded. To that end, I will give my treatise on the Second Amendment.
Last Monday, June 28th, the Supreme Court handed down the decision for McDonald v. Chicago. This decision struck down a 28-year old law by the city of Chicago which banned the possession of handguns by city residents. Both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions discussed the historical background for the basis for the Second Amendment, and just like the differing opinions of the Justices, historians have differing opinions - as pointed out by Justice Stevens - of what the historical basis is.
To this end, the defense of individuals to own firearms, I shall prove.
In an earlier blog, I referenced the English Bill of Rights from 1689. As stated before, this document was utilized by George Mason for the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was subsequently used to pen the Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights is separated into two distinct sections. The first section, much like our Declaration of Independence, lays out grievances of the populace to the King of England. The second section defines the rights sought by the people.
You cannot refer to one section without referring to the other. Justice Stevens does just that by only referring to what was written in the second section without benefit of the first section. In the second section, the right requested is, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." Justice Stevens points to the phrase, "as allowed by law." His assertion is that the English weren't asking to be armed without some limitations - limitations which could be prescribed by a legislature. When taken on face value, one can see the logic in that interpretation.
When the first section is read, a different meaning comes to light. The first section in laying out grievances states, "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law." Here the writers are stating some people are being disarmed while allowing others to be armed. Additionally, the assertion is that the government was utilizing said armed subjects against the unarmed subjects against the law of the land. The assertion being that you can't unarm one segment of the population while allowing a different segment to be armed. The question arises to the wording "as allowed by law" in the second segment. Remember, the second segment was in retort to the grievances of the first, with the first detailing actions contrary to the law. So in the second segment when they are demanding the right to be armed, the writers are saying, owning firearms is lawful, let us have firearms as "allowed by law." One could argue that if all firearms were banned, what would they have written? But that is not the case. The case here is that the people felt it was wrong for one group to have firearms and another not to have firearms.
Justice Stevens is asserting that the right to bear arms is not an individual right. In the English Bill of Rights, the writers very clearly state the desire for the Protestants to be armed "for their defense." I don't think it could be written any clearer that the possession of firearms is an individual right for self-defense against any aggressor.
When one looks at the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a different edict is voiced. Section 13 states, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Here the words "well-regulated militia" are used. What did George Mason mean with the words "well-regulated militia"? The answer is found in the next few words, "body of the people, trained to arms." The militia is specifically defined as the body of people. Not a segment of the body but the whole body itself. This means everyone in the populace is considered the militia, not just those who would want to volunteer. Granted, not everyone would be accepted into the militia - as we will find out later; but the principle here is that a free state relies on its people for defense. We are those people.
What about the words "well-regulated"? The words "trained to arms" comes into play. The intent was that the militia, i.e. the people of the state, should know how to use said arms. What good would the people be in possessing arms they did not know how to use? Thus "trained to arms" was written. Now the Framers of the Constitution wrote something totally different when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was written, it merged the concepts of the English Bill of Rights with that of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Bill of Rights states in the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security for a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well there are those words, well regulated Militia, again! But look at the second part of the Amendment, "the right of the people." What are the Framers meaning here?
First off, the Framers were afraid of a government repeating the English atrocities so they wanted each State to be able to defend itself from the Federal Government, thus the phrase "being necessary for a free State." At the same time, though, they did not want the people of the States to have their rights to arms to be infringed at all, which is why they did not further specify this was for the States themselves, but, in reality, the right was afforded to the individuals of each State. Why protect the State from the Federal government if you couldn't protect the individual from the State government?
In 1792, the Federal government passed the Militia Act which specified that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 shall be enrolled in the militia. It went further to state that each man shall obtain a musket or firelock with a specified number of cartridges or loads. So I guess they were specifying the National Guard of today? In effect yes. But at the same time, no. Realize, with a few exceptions, the militia was every able-bodied man of the state, not just those who signed up for the National Guard. The militia was considered to composed of the body of the people and the body of the people were considered the militia.
This Act was actually put into force during the Whiskey Rebellion when President Washington raised an army of over 12,000 men from various State militias. Once the rebellion action was over, the militias went back to their respective states. But does all of this really mean the Second Amendment applies to individuals?
Let's look at the words used by some of the Framers:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." George Washington
Do these sound like individuals who wanted the right to bear arms strictly limited to the State's whim? It does not sound like that to me. What I see are two Framers who wanted firearms in the very hands of the people they were to govern!
When it comes to precedent, the Supreme Court believes in following stare decisis (to stand by things decided). In New York v. Sullivan, (1964) 376 U.S. 254, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment afforded the rights under the First Amendment to the States; thus, States could not infringe upon any right guaranteed in the First Amendment. Based on this decision, it can be reasonable to apply the same reasoning to the Second Amendment. If the Federal government cannot infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, then the States cannot do the same.
In summary, the right to keep and bear arms affords those with arms to be on the same standing as others with arms. If only one group is allowed to bear arms, then the group with arms can subjugate those without arms. This subjugation possibility is not what the Framers had in mind. A free society depends on its ability to defend itself from aggression. A free society depends on those who make up the society to be free. To be a free individual requires one to be able to defend one's self from aggression, including governmental aggression and criminal aggression. Thus the key to a free society is the guarantee that the individuals of the free society are afforded the right to keep and bear arms.
Remember, as Thomas Jefferson points out, "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty." What do you desire?
Mike
On a side note, I do believe in some, and very limited, restrictions on gun ownership. Much like Freedom of Speech has some limitations, the right to keep and bear arms should have some restrictions. I do not, for one, believe guns of modest power should ever be restricted to a free and just individual (this was the case of the Chicago law which outlawed handguns but not shotguns). By free and just, I mean someone who has not been convicted of a felony involving a weapon or a person judged mentally unstable by a 2/3 determination of a panel of psychiatrists. I also believe that to bear arms requires some amount of training in deadly force applications and the proper demonstration of proficiency at gun use. What we cannot have is a State which denies its people to have firearms in the believe that society will be better for it. In that case, only criminals and a tyrannical government will keep and bear arms......
References not linked:
Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.
Brainy Quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). From http://www.findlaw.com
Last Monday, June 28th, the Supreme Court handed down the decision for McDonald v. Chicago. This decision struck down a 28-year old law by the city of Chicago which banned the possession of handguns by city residents. Both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions discussed the historical background for the basis for the Second Amendment, and just like the differing opinions of the Justices, historians have differing opinions - as pointed out by Justice Stevens - of what the historical basis is.
To this end, the defense of individuals to own firearms, I shall prove.
In an earlier blog, I referenced the English Bill of Rights from 1689. As stated before, this document was utilized by George Mason for the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was subsequently used to pen the Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights is separated into two distinct sections. The first section, much like our Declaration of Independence, lays out grievances of the populace to the King of England. The second section defines the rights sought by the people.
You cannot refer to one section without referring to the other. Justice Stevens does just that by only referring to what was written in the second section without benefit of the first section. In the second section, the right requested is, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." Justice Stevens points to the phrase, "as allowed by law." His assertion is that the English weren't asking to be armed without some limitations - limitations which could be prescribed by a legislature. When taken on face value, one can see the logic in that interpretation.
When the first section is read, a different meaning comes to light. The first section in laying out grievances states, "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law." Here the writers are stating some people are being disarmed while allowing others to be armed. Additionally, the assertion is that the government was utilizing said armed subjects against the unarmed subjects against the law of the land. The assertion being that you can't unarm one segment of the population while allowing a different segment to be armed. The question arises to the wording "as allowed by law" in the second segment. Remember, the second segment was in retort to the grievances of the first, with the first detailing actions contrary to the law. So in the second segment when they are demanding the right to be armed, the writers are saying, owning firearms is lawful, let us have firearms as "allowed by law." One could argue that if all firearms were banned, what would they have written? But that is not the case. The case here is that the people felt it was wrong for one group to have firearms and another not to have firearms.
Justice Stevens is asserting that the right to bear arms is not an individual right. In the English Bill of Rights, the writers very clearly state the desire for the Protestants to be armed "for their defense." I don't think it could be written any clearer that the possession of firearms is an individual right for self-defense against any aggressor.
When one looks at the Virginia Declaration of Rights, a different edict is voiced. Section 13 states, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Here the words "well-regulated militia" are used. What did George Mason mean with the words "well-regulated militia"? The answer is found in the next few words, "body of the people, trained to arms." The militia is specifically defined as the body of people. Not a segment of the body but the whole body itself. This means everyone in the populace is considered the militia, not just those who would want to volunteer. Granted, not everyone would be accepted into the militia - as we will find out later; but the principle here is that a free state relies on its people for defense. We are those people.
What about the words "well-regulated"? The words "trained to arms" comes into play. The intent was that the militia, i.e. the people of the state, should know how to use said arms. What good would the people be in possessing arms they did not know how to use? Thus "trained to arms" was written. Now the Framers of the Constitution wrote something totally different when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was written, it merged the concepts of the English Bill of Rights with that of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Bill of Rights states in the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security for a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well there are those words, well regulated Militia, again! But look at the second part of the Amendment, "the right of the people." What are the Framers meaning here?
First off, the Framers were afraid of a government repeating the English atrocities so they wanted each State to be able to defend itself from the Federal Government, thus the phrase "being necessary for a free State." At the same time, though, they did not want the people of the States to have their rights to arms to be infringed at all, which is why they did not further specify this was for the States themselves, but, in reality, the right was afforded to the individuals of each State. Why protect the State from the Federal government if you couldn't protect the individual from the State government?
In 1792, the Federal government passed the Militia Act which specified that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 shall be enrolled in the militia. It went further to state that each man shall obtain a musket or firelock with a specified number of cartridges or loads. So I guess they were specifying the National Guard of today? In effect yes. But at the same time, no. Realize, with a few exceptions, the militia was every able-bodied man of the state, not just those who signed up for the National Guard. The militia was considered to composed of the body of the people and the body of the people were considered the militia.
This Act was actually put into force during the Whiskey Rebellion when President Washington raised an army of over 12,000 men from various State militias. Once the rebellion action was over, the militias went back to their respective states. But does all of this really mean the Second Amendment applies to individuals?
Let's look at the words used by some of the Framers:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." George Washington
Do these sound like individuals who wanted the right to bear arms strictly limited to the State's whim? It does not sound like that to me. What I see are two Framers who wanted firearms in the very hands of the people they were to govern!
When it comes to precedent, the Supreme Court believes in following stare decisis (to stand by things decided). In New York v. Sullivan, (1964) 376 U.S. 254, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment afforded the rights under the First Amendment to the States; thus, States could not infringe upon any right guaranteed in the First Amendment. Based on this decision, it can be reasonable to apply the same reasoning to the Second Amendment. If the Federal government cannot infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, then the States cannot do the same.
In summary, the right to keep and bear arms affords those with arms to be on the same standing as others with arms. If only one group is allowed to bear arms, then the group with arms can subjugate those without arms. This subjugation possibility is not what the Framers had in mind. A free society depends on its ability to defend itself from aggression. A free society depends on those who make up the society to be free. To be a free individual requires one to be able to defend one's self from aggression, including governmental aggression and criminal aggression. Thus the key to a free society is the guarantee that the individuals of the free society are afforded the right to keep and bear arms.
Remember, as Thomas Jefferson points out, "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty." What do you desire?
Mike
On a side note, I do believe in some, and very limited, restrictions on gun ownership. Much like Freedom of Speech has some limitations, the right to keep and bear arms should have some restrictions. I do not, for one, believe guns of modest power should ever be restricted to a free and just individual (this was the case of the Chicago law which outlawed handguns but not shotguns). By free and just, I mean someone who has not been convicted of a felony involving a weapon or a person judged mentally unstable by a 2/3 determination of a panel of psychiatrists. I also believe that to bear arms requires some amount of training in deadly force applications and the proper demonstration of proficiency at gun use. What we cannot have is a State which denies its people to have firearms in the believe that society will be better for it. In that case, only criminals and a tyrannical government will keep and bear arms......
References not linked:
Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.
Brainy Quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). From http://www.findlaw.com
Saturday, July 3, 2010
A Retort to Illegal Immigrants and their Supporters
"Well, Americans,
What, nothin' better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too."
These are part of the lyrics to the song "Icky Thump" by the White Stripes (thanks to songlyrics.com). The song is Jack White's political take on immigration. The song illustrates one of the arguments used by those who support illegal immigration. The argument being America is filled with nothing but immigrants. Well let's dispel that myth.
As usual I'll start by defining "immigrant." Webster defines immigrant as "a person who leaves his country to settle in another" (pg 182). Most Americans today did not leave one country to settle in another, specifically America. A person born in America, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, is automatically an American citizen; thus, that person cannot be considered an immigrant to America, even if their ancestors immigrated to America. So let's flip the illegal immigrants' statement against them using Jack White's words: so if everyone who is in America is an immigrant, you are saying the children born to illegal immigrants in America thereby given citizenship rights by the Constitution are also immigrants, and therefore can be deported from the country? Is that what you want? I'm sure if asked of an illegal immigrant or one of the supporters of illegal immigrants, stammering words would come out of their mouths as they try to defend their stance.
Another favorite argument is that many Americans came to America without following any rules - they just came here. This is a true statement. My retort is this statement amounts to judging today by yesterday standards - which does not work. When America was first settled, there weren't any immigration policies. A funny side note: Christopher Columbus, an Italian, immigrated to Portugal. When the Portuguese would not finance his vision of sailing West to reach Asia, he petitioned the Spaniards. So Christopher Columbus, an Italian, living in Portugal, sailed West on his expedition under the Spaniard flag. This led to Europe's expansion and colonization of the "new world." Most people who came to America in the early days did so without passports and without permission of anyone. But that was then, this is now.
In 1820, the first records of the number of immigrants entering the country began (New Standard, p I-42). It wasn't until 1921 that Congress authorized a limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the country. This quota restriction, although the number has changed - the restriction hasn't, remains today. The actual first restriction to take effect was a health check which went into effect in 1875 (New Standard, p I-43). Over the years, America's immigration policy has changed. This change has been in response to the changing needs of the society. Who better to decide what's best for the society, the current habitants or those who wish to join? So in response to the immigration policy of old, to the illegal immigrant supporters I reiterate, that was then, this is now.
An argument for some type of control of who enters the country is terrorism. If we were to let just anyone enter the country, then terrorists who wish to do us harm could enter the country without any impediment (can anyone say 9-11? And those terrorists entered legally!). So according to the illegal immigrants, we should turn a blind-eye to anyone who wants to enter. This would mean we not only allow into the country them (the illegal immigrant by today's standard) and a terrorist who might actually target the illegal immigrant in one of the terrorist plots! I'm sure if asked if they would want that, the response would be no.
The country has set up some realistic rules for entering the country. It should not be hard to follow them - unless they have some other reason for not following them, like perhaps, they are a criminal and they are coming to America to continue in said trade.
A few weeks ago, the President of Mexico addressed the Congress, telling them he disagreed with the Arizona immigration law. My response to him would be, "So Mr. President, if you and your country are so great, why do so many people want to leave? You realize we don't have the same problems with Canada, right?" I wonder what his response would be to that question?
Mike
References:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
What, nothin' better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too."
These are part of the lyrics to the song "Icky Thump" by the White Stripes (thanks to songlyrics.com). The song is Jack White's political take on immigration. The song illustrates one of the arguments used by those who support illegal immigration. The argument being America is filled with nothing but immigrants. Well let's dispel that myth.
As usual I'll start by defining "immigrant." Webster defines immigrant as "a person who leaves his country to settle in another" (pg 182). Most Americans today did not leave one country to settle in another, specifically America. A person born in America, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, is automatically an American citizen; thus, that person cannot be considered an immigrant to America, even if their ancestors immigrated to America. So let's flip the illegal immigrants' statement against them using Jack White's words: so if everyone who is in America is an immigrant, you are saying the children born to illegal immigrants in America thereby given citizenship rights by the Constitution are also immigrants, and therefore can be deported from the country? Is that what you want? I'm sure if asked of an illegal immigrant or one of the supporters of illegal immigrants, stammering words would come out of their mouths as they try to defend their stance.
Another favorite argument is that many Americans came to America without following any rules - they just came here. This is a true statement. My retort is this statement amounts to judging today by yesterday standards - which does not work. When America was first settled, there weren't any immigration policies. A funny side note: Christopher Columbus, an Italian, immigrated to Portugal. When the Portuguese would not finance his vision of sailing West to reach Asia, he petitioned the Spaniards. So Christopher Columbus, an Italian, living in Portugal, sailed West on his expedition under the Spaniard flag. This led to Europe's expansion and colonization of the "new world." Most people who came to America in the early days did so without passports and without permission of anyone. But that was then, this is now.
In 1820, the first records of the number of immigrants entering the country began (New Standard, p I-42). It wasn't until 1921 that Congress authorized a limit on the number of immigrants allowed into the country. This quota restriction, although the number has changed - the restriction hasn't, remains today. The actual first restriction to take effect was a health check which went into effect in 1875 (New Standard, p I-43). Over the years, America's immigration policy has changed. This change has been in response to the changing needs of the society. Who better to decide what's best for the society, the current habitants or those who wish to join? So in response to the immigration policy of old, to the illegal immigrant supporters I reiterate, that was then, this is now.
An argument for some type of control of who enters the country is terrorism. If we were to let just anyone enter the country, then terrorists who wish to do us harm could enter the country without any impediment (can anyone say 9-11? And those terrorists entered legally!). So according to the illegal immigrants, we should turn a blind-eye to anyone who wants to enter. This would mean we not only allow into the country them (the illegal immigrant by today's standard) and a terrorist who might actually target the illegal immigrant in one of the terrorist plots! I'm sure if asked if they would want that, the response would be no.
The country has set up some realistic rules for entering the country. It should not be hard to follow them - unless they have some other reason for not following them, like perhaps, they are a criminal and they are coming to America to continue in said trade.
A few weeks ago, the President of Mexico addressed the Congress, telling them he disagreed with the Arizona immigration law. My response to him would be, "So Mr. President, if you and your country are so great, why do so many people want to leave? You realize we don't have the same problems with Canada, right?" I wonder what his response would be to that question?
Mike
References:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Anti-Illegal Immigration is not Racism
This past Wednesday while working out on the elliptical machine at the base gym, I saw a CNN story about a woman who entered the country illegally and the daily stress of her life. Realize, I had to piece this story together without the benefit of sound. Additionally, the television was across the room and I was reading the closed-caption translation which occasionally blended in with the video portion of the story.
She is effectively a single mother. I say effectively because she is married to an American. Unfortunately for her, her husband is a Marine who is currently deployed to the Middle East. She states she is always afraid that when she goes to the grocery store or some other place while her children are in school she might get picked up for being an illegal immigrant resulting in her children arriving at home with no one there.
The part of the story that rankled my emotions was when she said she tells her kids to ignore the racists who are against their mother. She wishes people would have a heart and understand she is trying to raise her children in a free country. Just because of what she is should not cause her to be separated from her children or deported. This was another ridiculous attempt to cull an emotional response of "oh woe is me, have pity."
I've stated before that the spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. Equating anti-illegal immigration to racism is more of the latter than the former. The spokespeople for the illegal immigrants have crossed the line into spreading half-truths, or as I will argue - out right lies, to make their case. This is a typical progressive move to sway the public to their side. So let's go about showing the untruth in their words.
We'll start with racism. What is racism? Webster (1997) defines racism as "a thought or belief that one race is better than another race" (pg 272). New Standard (1987) also confirms this definition by holding "belief in the inherent superiority of one's own race" (Vol 12, R-8). The subject of the story wants us to believe that deporting her because she entered the country illegally is equatable to believing she is inferior to Americans because of her race or nationality. Her premises are flawed. Racism is based on the race of the person. Illegal immigration is an action not a characteristic. Thus those against illegal immigration are not racist.
Some will argue that some on the anti-illegal immigration side are also against immigration because they feel Latinos are inferior to them. There is no valid argument against that stance as there is truth in it. However, what applies to a segment of the whole does not necessarily apply to the whole of the whole. For example, all firemen are human. Bill is human. Therefore Bill is a fireman. This logic flow does not work. Bill may or may not be a fireman. While Bill is a human, there's not a guarantee he is a fireman. If you try to flip the first premise around to state (all humans are fireman), you get a statement that is not true. So going back to our racism statement: racists are against illegal immigration. Bill is against illegal immigration; therefore, Bill is a racist. This does not work. The premises are incorrectly applied. The only way it does work is to make Bill a racist as a premise vice a conclusion. When that is done, the logic works. But the premise relies on Bill being a racist to begin with vice being a racist because of his anti-illegal immigration stand. So when we bring in Howard, what do we get? Howard is not racist. Howard is against illegal immigration. Wait! Our premises now don't support the conclusion of the progressives. This is why a part of a whole does not reflect upon the whole; instead the whole reflects upon the part. This is a classic example of all A are B; all C are A; thus all C are B. The progressive logic is all A are B, all C are B, thus all C are A - which DOES NOT WORK! If your head is spinning, one more example might help. All apples are fruits. All bananas are fruits. All bananas are apples is flawed logic. This is what the progressives are doing.
So let's look at their argument from another viewpoint - one of discrimination. Discrimination, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary (2005), is "the effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability" (pg 393). It is further defined as "differential treatment; esp., a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored" (393). Illegal immigrants are not being singled out because of their race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability.
As a matter of fact there is a reasonable distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant, and it is not based on what another person observes from looking at a member of each group. The distinction is based on what each member had done to be a member of that group. One violated a federal rule; the other followed the federal rule. One believes it is okay to violate law when they deem it in their best interest; one believes in following a law is in their best interest. Thus being against illegal immigration cannot be equated to discrimination because the stand is not based on an unreasonable distinction.
One cannot violate a law and then expect sympathy unrelated to the violation to escape the effect of the law. Our Country was not founded on this flawed principle; we are founded upon the believe of freedom but within the constraints of respecting the law which is created to maintain a free society. We welcome immigrants who follow the rules we established to join our society. We don't have to accept someone willing to do otherwise.
I am against illegal immigration and I am not a racist.
Mike
References:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Landoll's. (1997). Webster's Dictionary. OH: Landoll's Inc.
Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.
She is effectively a single mother. I say effectively because she is married to an American. Unfortunately for her, her husband is a Marine who is currently deployed to the Middle East. She states she is always afraid that when she goes to the grocery store or some other place while her children are in school she might get picked up for being an illegal immigrant resulting in her children arriving at home with no one there.
The part of the story that rankled my emotions was when she said she tells her kids to ignore the racists who are against their mother. She wishes people would have a heart and understand she is trying to raise her children in a free country. Just because of what she is should not cause her to be separated from her children or deported. This was another ridiculous attempt to cull an emotional response of "oh woe is me, have pity."
I've stated before that the spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. Equating anti-illegal immigration to racism is more of the latter than the former. The spokespeople for the illegal immigrants have crossed the line into spreading half-truths, or as I will argue - out right lies, to make their case. This is a typical progressive move to sway the public to their side. So let's go about showing the untruth in their words.
We'll start with racism. What is racism? Webster (1997) defines racism as "a thought or belief that one race is better than another race" (pg 272). New Standard (1987) also confirms this definition by holding "belief in the inherent superiority of one's own race" (Vol 12, R-8). The subject of the story wants us to believe that deporting her because she entered the country illegally is equatable to believing she is inferior to Americans because of her race or nationality. Her premises are flawed. Racism is based on the race of the person. Illegal immigration is an action not a characteristic. Thus those against illegal immigration are not racist.
Some will argue that some on the anti-illegal immigration side are also against immigration because they feel Latinos are inferior to them. There is no valid argument against that stance as there is truth in it. However, what applies to a segment of the whole does not necessarily apply to the whole of the whole. For example, all firemen are human. Bill is human. Therefore Bill is a fireman. This logic flow does not work. Bill may or may not be a fireman. While Bill is a human, there's not a guarantee he is a fireman. If you try to flip the first premise around to state (all humans are fireman), you get a statement that is not true. So going back to our racism statement: racists are against illegal immigration. Bill is against illegal immigration; therefore, Bill is a racist. This does not work. The premises are incorrectly applied. The only way it does work is to make Bill a racist as a premise vice a conclusion. When that is done, the logic works. But the premise relies on Bill being a racist to begin with vice being a racist because of his anti-illegal immigration stand. So when we bring in Howard, what do we get? Howard is not racist. Howard is against illegal immigration. Wait! Our premises now don't support the conclusion of the progressives. This is why a part of a whole does not reflect upon the whole; instead the whole reflects upon the part. This is a classic example of all A are B; all C are A; thus all C are B. The progressive logic is all A are B, all C are B, thus all C are A - which DOES NOT WORK! If your head is spinning, one more example might help. All apples are fruits. All bananas are fruits. All bananas are apples is flawed logic. This is what the progressives are doing.
So let's look at their argument from another viewpoint - one of discrimination. Discrimination, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary (2005), is "the effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability" (pg 393). It is further defined as "differential treatment; esp., a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored" (393). Illegal immigrants are not being singled out because of their race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or disability.
As a matter of fact there is a reasonable distinction between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant, and it is not based on what another person observes from looking at a member of each group. The distinction is based on what each member had done to be a member of that group. One violated a federal rule; the other followed the federal rule. One believes it is okay to violate law when they deem it in their best interest; one believes in following a law is in their best interest. Thus being against illegal immigration cannot be equated to discrimination because the stand is not based on an unreasonable distinction.
One cannot violate a law and then expect sympathy unrelated to the violation to escape the effect of the law. Our Country was not founded on this flawed principle; we are founded upon the believe of freedom but within the constraints of respecting the law which is created to maintain a free society. We welcome immigrants who follow the rules we established to join our society. We don't have to accept someone willing to do otherwise.
I am against illegal immigration and I am not a racist.
Mike
References:
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Landoll's. (1997). Webster's Dictionary. OH: Landoll's Inc.
Gardner, B. (Ed.). (2005). Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 8th edition. MN: Thomson/West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)