Illegal Immigration: A Nationwide Problem

While I was reading the most recent blog posts of my classmates, I came across an entry entitled, “Oh Arizona…,” located on Kelsey Scott’s Government Blog. My classmate is very passionate about the Immigration law put into place recently in Arizona. She believes that it was a necessary law and that despite the Federal government’s view, it does not discriminate against the Hispanic population. She acknowledges the fact that some law enforcement agents will take advantage of the new law, but she believes that most will actually try to enforce it as neutrally as possible. She draws most of her attention to the drug cartels in Arizona and the increasing crime rate that supposedly comes with those operations. She is 100% in support of the immigration law.

While I do agree that something needs to be done with the growing immigration population in the United States, I feel that the law that Arizona put in place may have been a little too strong. Regardless of how you small of an issue you deem discrimination as, it is a protected right in our constitution. You cannot discriminate anybody based on race. One part of the law states that, “After any lawful stop, police can "determine the immigration status" of those they suspect of being in the country illegally. Unfortunately discrimination is going to play a factor in who cops deem worthy of being a suspect, especially those of the Hispanic ethnicity. The author of the blog even acknowledged at one point that some law enforcement agents will take advantage of the law. This is a problem. The reason that the Federal government sued Arizona actually had more to do with the fact that they believe the Arizona law infringes on the Federal government’s authority to enforce immigration law.

Illegal Immigration is not just a problem seen in Arizona. Immigration is a nationwide problem. Crime rates are not just increasing in Arizona. In fact, the preliminary statistics released by the FBI show that crime rates in certain categories have decreased as much as 10%.With that being said, I feel that you really cannot use the crime rate as a reason for deporting immigrants. The main reason we need to deport immigrants is the fact that our unemployment rate is hovering around 10%, and we give up over 8 million jobs to illegal immigrants who will work for significantly lower pay. Immigration should not be left up to the states to create and enforce laws. Our Federal government needs to issue nationwide law, a law that will not violate specific rights which are protected in our Constitution, like the amendment protecting citizens from discrimination. The wording of the Arizona law was too strict and it allows for too many protests from certain ethnic groups. Plus it could also potentially lead to a huge burden on legal resident aliens, who will fear walking the streets because they could potentially be arrested. Immigration is a problem but so is discrimination. Arizona law allows for too much discrimination, and our Federal government needs to yield this opportunity to stop the states from imposing their own immigration laws by creating a law that will protect every state from illegal immigrants.

To Act or Not to Act: Our Government as a Sitting Duck

In 2008, the voters of California spoke. They effectively passed Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is a ballot measure which changed the state constitution in order to prohibit gay marriage. This led to not only a statewide controversy amongst gay rights advocates, but also a nationwide controversy. On August 4, 2010, San-Francisco based U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop 8. Walker repeatedly argued that banning same-sex marriage amounted to sex discrimination because some individuals are denied the right to marry others based solely on their gender. Of course, supporters of Prop 8 are going to appeal the decision and it will more than likely end up going to the Supreme Court.

The fact that this is taking place as we are gearing up for mid-term elections in November puts the government and Obama in a tight spot. The ruling by Walker and the possibility of a ruling in the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays could even help push the issue of same-sex marriage to the forefront of the national agenda. Our government needs to react. Obama has been famous for pushing divisive social issues to the back burner. On top of that, he has, from the beginning, been sitting on the fence when it comes to gay rights. He essentially is trying to please both sides just enough so that they will not try and push the same-sex marriage issue any further right now. He came outright and said that he did not support Proposition 8 because it is discriminatory. He is against amending the U.S. and any state constitution, especially, when it will result in adverse treatment by singling out one specific group. However, Obama has also publicly declared that he is against same-sex marriage. His unwillingness to whole-heartedly support either side of the same-sex marriage issue has left many puzzled. Most journalists believe that he is not gaining anything in his quest for equality for all when he refuses to accept equality for all in marriage.

Just like the issue with immigration and Arizona’s attempt to enforce their own regulation laws, Obama and the national government need to realize that they cannot push these social issues aside anymore. The government has done a good job for years avoiding controversial issues but now the time has come to take a step forward. The citizens of the United States are already beginning to get fed up with the indecisiveness of our national government and they are going to begin to revolt. The government is going to have to take a stand in social issues that will only serve to benefit the equality of people for all. What is the harm in allowing gay couples to celebrate their union in marriage? While people may not find it morally right, it does not physically affect or pose a danger to any one person. If you do not support gay marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex, it’s that simple. We have reached a point in society today that forces us all to re-evaluate our stances on certain issues. The government needs to realize that they need to show all their cards and pick the side that will finally result in equality for all. You cannot keep straddling the fence President Obama, not if you want to have a chance at re-election!

Electoral College For The Win!

I recently read one of my classmate’s bogs entitled “When Will Our Opinion Really Be Worth Something?” This editorial really intrigued me. My fellow classmate believes that the Electoral College System, currently employed by our Nation as a means of choosing our President, is unfair and biased. The current Electoral College System allows our nation to casts their votes for president in what is deemed by us as, “the popular vote.” This vote is then used to help ‘”instruct” the 538 total electors chosen from each state, who ultimately will cast their votes to choose our President. Whichever candidate receives 270 Electoral College votes, wins the election.

The most common complaint by those individuals, including my classmate, who abhor the Electoral College, is that there is a chance the peoples’ voices will not be heard. A candidate can lose the popular vote and still win the overall election by winning the votes of the electors. This seems to be the only flaw most critics of the Electoral College can find with the current system. My classmate uses the example of the 2000 Presidential election to prove his point. In 2000, George W. Bush won the Presidency despite that fact that fellow candidate Al Gore won the popular vote. My classmate believes that this is reason enough to abolish the Electoral College. We as the “governed” have a voice in our country, and we have a right to say how it should be run. The fact that Bush won in 2000 means that our voices are not taken seriously enough.

I disagree! The Electoral College does allow every citizen in the U.S. the opportunity to express their wants and desires for our nation every single time they vote in a presidential election. We still have a voice. On top of that, it is a proven fact that since its establishment in Article II Section I of the Constitution, The Electoral College has only failed 3 times to elect a president that was not otherwise chosen by the people in the popular vote. It is put in place as a compromise between the larger states and the smaller states, as well as a good defense against a nation who is way uninvolved and unknowledgeable about our government today. It was stated in the opening paragraph of my classmate’s blog that they do not feel very knowledgeable about government. I myself do not feel very knowledgeable about our government. That is why I feel that the Electoral College works. It allows every person who so chooses to stand up and voice their opinion, while also allowing those more knowledgeable than us an opportunity to select a candidate who will meet the most needs for our nation. Small states get to stand up and voice their opinions as well. Without the Electoral College small states’ voices about government would never really be heard because the populations in larger states, like California, Texas, and New York will always win out. While I will agree that the Electoral College is not bulletproof and maybe concessions should be made, we cannot deny the fact that it is probably the most sound and successful tool our government employs today.

Musical Chairs: Democrats v. Republicans

It seems that the hits just keep coming for Democrats hoping to keep control of the House and Senate come November elections. I almost am wondering if I can hear Republicans rejoicing already. The latest drama to hit the Democratic camp is Charles B. Rangel and the 13 charges of ethical violations brought against them. Is there any way for Rangel and the Democrats to salvage what is left of their chances to come out on top in November?

The way I look at it, Democrats are already terrified of losing control of the House and the Senate in the upcoming elections, which I think is justifiable. Obama’s decisions to keep pushing through bills that are not directly addressing the issues that are keeping most Americans on the edge of the seats, has begun to allow Conservatives back in the game. The unemployment rate is still rising, and Obama’s apparent incompetence in dealing with the Oil Spill has definitely done him no favors. The issue with Rangel is the next blow, which the Democrats did not need. There have been reports that some Democratic Party officials have asked Rangel to not go to trial with these charges, while others have asked him to resign.

I believe that if the Democrats have any small chance of keeping control of the House then Rangel needs to resign. Regardless of whether or not, in trial, he is cleared of these charges, some people are going to believe that he is a crooked House member. They will begin to not trust any Democrats because of this one man. On top of that, if he is cleared, some people are going to believe that it was Democratic influence and the need to protect themselves that led to Rangel’s innocence. I believe if he doesn’t resign it will only make it infinitely worse for all democrats involved. Obama has already begun to lead the way for a democratic demise, which is evident in his declining approval rating. When he took office, his approval rating was up around 70%, the last number I looked his approval rating had dropped to around 50%. This gave Obama the fastest declining approval rating for a president to date.

If the Democrats want to save seats in both the House and the Senate, first Rangel must resign. This would be the easiest start. Next, Obama obviously needs to change his game plan a little. He needs to start really focusing on the issues that seem to plague and worry the people in our nation. The relations between the Democrats and the Republicans are at dismal point these days, mainly due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats hardly ever agree on anything. Obama needs to refashion his views. Our people need jobs, and the people on the Gulf need help in the aftermath of the great tragedy that took place. We do not, however, need our President looking for ways to pass new bills through that do not even begin to address our largest issues. If Obama and the Democrats do not start listening to the people, then come November they will once again see the majority in the House and Senate shifting towards the Republicans.

Bye Bye Tax Cuts, Bye Bye Democrats?

Democrats and Republicans rarely agree on anything. This is a fact. So really it should come as no surprise that the Democrats and the Obama administration are opposed to extending the Bush tax cuts. However, most journalists and bloggers are beginning to wonder, if by not extending the Bush tax cuts are the Democrats signing their death certificates in November? Are they ignoring the real concerns of the people in this nation? Erik Erickson a blogger on a politically right-leaning blog, decided to write an entry defending the Bush tax cuts and providing evidence as to why the Democrats should be on board to extend them.

According to Erickson, the Bush tax cuts were passed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in response to a recession when they first took office. These tax cuts were Bushs’ version of the Obama stimulus plan. They cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and provided increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The Obama stimulus plan, Erickson argues, only proceeded to create temporary government jobs while subsidizing the expansion of the government.

After the September 11th terrorist attacks the economy grew at an anemic rate, prompting the passing of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This act revved up the 2001 tax cuts, by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains. This led to what was deemed ‘the tax cuts for the rich’, in which the richest 1% began paying almost 40% of all income taxes. But, most importantly, after the 2001 tax cuts the annual growth rate increased from .3% in 01’ to 2.5% in 02’, in 2004 America saw its highest GDP growth rate in 20 years.

Democrats, however, argue that after the 2003 tax cuts Americans saw the lowest unemployment rate since WWII. Erickson, of course, has a response for that. He argues that there are actually many reasons for the collapse. He says that you cannot always believe economists and take what they say as the gospel truth. The economy is not a precise science, there have been and will continue to be upturns and downturns. Also, during that time there were new massive regulations in Sarbanes-Oxley and the continuing infiltration f the government into private lending markets. This forced private lenders to launch risky ventures to stay profitable, which in turn lead to them collapsing in and taking the government with them. The Bush tax cuts actually had nothing to with it, Erickson argues. If the Democrats end the Bush tax cuts, then they are risking making the economy worse and possibly introducing greater uncertainty into the market.

Erickson is obviously appealing this entry to Bush lovers, and Republicans. However, I believe he actually wrote this piece in an effort to sway those individuals who may not have a specific party in which they vote, Independents and/or individuals who typically lean toward the conservative methods of economic policy. He is trying to sway the fence sitters, by providing the best facts about the Bush tax cuts and providing evidence to knock down any potential defect the Democrats may state is present in the Tax cuts themselves. Do I agree? I actually already believed that the Bush tax cuts were a positive reinforcement into our economy. After watching the Stimulus bill crash and burn, I believe that the Democrats should extend these tax cuts. Obama and his administration are hurting the chances for all Democrats in the polls in November, by ignoring the pleas of Americans all around the nation.

Is our Government Humane to Illegal Immigrants?

There are two sides to every story. The story in the United States concerning employment and immigration; however, seems to have many sides. In an article posted on the Austin American Statesman website under the commentary section, Ruben Navarrette Jr. a writer on staff at The San Diego Union-Tribune displays the differing viewpoints of illegal immigrants inside the American work-force. There appears to be great debate amongst Americans social activist groups, as well as immigrant rights groups about whether or not the Obama administration has discovered a more humane approach to removing illegal immigrants from the workforce.

Many immigrant rights groups complained when Obama took office because he spent the first 18 months of his presidency copying the workplace raids which was a method conducted under former President George W. Bush. These raids are wholly detested because they round up illegal immigrants and deport them even at the cost of breaking up families, especially when they are forced to leave their U.S. born children behind. At the root of the problem, however, is the fact that they raids don’t actually deal with problem of illegal immigrants. The companies involved rarely get punished. In order to institute a kinder gentler way of removing the illegal immigrants, the Obama administration now relies on "silent raids." In a silent raid, federal agents conduct audits of company records looking for illegal immigrants. If they are caught then most of the time the business is fined and the employee is fired but not deported.

Navarrette states that many groups do not necessarily agree that the "silent raids" actually work. Conservatives say that it is pointless because the fired illegal workers will just go down the road and find the next job. Liberals are upset because they feel that the government is being too strict and the unemployed workers cannot provide for their families, and Civil Libertarians believe that as word spreads then companies will not hire anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, thus leading to discrimination of Hispanics.

With that being said, Navarrette agrees that the "silent raids" are a good thing. He says that they lack the drama or detentions and deportations, and they are certainly more humane. The raids attack the problem at exactly the right spot by putting the pressure on the employers, not the illegal immigrants. He says that, yes, the workers will be upset they got fired; however, they broke the law and should not have even been here in the first place. They should not feel entitled to a job. We have enough of these complaints from our own native born workers, and it was those complaints that led to the amount of foreign workers we currently have.

Navarrette’s commentary should be read by all illegal immigrants who feel that they are somehow slighted in our rapidly declining economy. It should also be read by all unemployed Americans who feel they cannot find a job due to the amount or illegal workers. Illegal workers pick up the jobs that unemployed Americans refuse to do because they feel the pay is too small or the work is too great. Unemployed Americans need to realize they are contributing to the increase in foreign workers in our nation. Do I agree with this author? Yes, I do. He makes many valid points. Whether we are illegal immigrants or unemployed Americans, we cannot complain about the lack of jobs. Illegal immigrants should not be here, and Americans should be working any job they need in order to provide for their families.

Can an Obama Change His Spots?

It should not come as a big surprise to anybody when I say that President Obama is continuing to decrease in popularity polls used to measure how Americans feel about his effectiveness as a president. With the economy in the state it was in before Obama took office, Americans expected immediate solutions. So as I said, really it’s no surprise that his popularity vote is so low. Our economy is still tanking despite the passage of the Stimulus Bill, unemployment is still in double digits, and the oil spill has only served to drop those numbers lower.

It seems, however, that despite the low poll numbers, Obama continues to push forward in his agenda. Could this mean that the Democrats will suffer the consequences from the Obama administration? Currently, the democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate, but this could be about to change come November.

The New York Times article, “Obama Pushes Agenda, Despite Political Risks,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, discusses why Obama must scale back in his efforts to continue passing bills that do not deal with the current important issues. The article states that Obama has done exactly what he promised to when he came into office, however, the political situations around him have changed the game. The rising unemployment rate coupled with his competence being questioned in regards to the BP oil spill, have put Conservative Americans back in the game. Obama already had to scale back on some aspects of the energy bill he is trying to pass because relations between the opposing parties are still terrible. It is believed that there is a strong possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the House, the Senate or both. If this does occur then Obama will have to refashion himself as a pragmatist who will have to compromise in exchange for smaller victories.