A Commentary to Arizona Immigration Law

I agree with the general tone of this blog. It's true that Janet Napolitano is upset with the Arizona's new immigration laws recently signed by Governor Jan Brewer. It would surprise me to read anything different. Napolitano must support the current actions or non-actions of the US government being in her current position until reform is completed on the National Level, which by the way she supports. It seems that from the elevated tensions that Governor Brewer felt the need to sign into law Senate Bill 1070. Even when Napolitano was Arizona's Governor in 2005 she implemented a state of emergency in August 2005 that freed up money to boost law enforcement along the border. This was after a self-appointed militia called the "Minuteman Project" began patrolling the border in April earlier that year. Napolitano may not agree with the new Arizona law, however she is quite aware of the need for immigration reform to help illegal immigration in Arizona. Arizona's surge of illegal immigrants has severely strained the states resources to accommodate these people in their schools, hospitals and prisons. Napolitano in a speech in 2007 to the National Press Club said, "Congress and the President must act this year, to fix this broken system. Washington must commit to immigration as one of the signature domestic and foreign policy issues of our day, because as in so many things, the continued failure to act will be worse than almost any legislation that can be passed." Immigration has decreased as Napolitano states since 2008 but has been due to both a down economy and the increased costs to pay smugglers due to tightened enforcement along the border according to Jeffery Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center.

Governor Brewer was in a no win situation. She took an oath to serve and protect the citizens of Arizona when she took office. This new law seems to enforce current laws on the national level. Gabriel Chin who is a professor at the University of Arizona pointed out that 8 United States Code 1306 (a) had only five convictions across the U.S. in 2008. He went on to say that "What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a federal crime that the authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances." In a recent poll taken by the Pew Research Center earlier this month overwhelmingly showed that the American people support the elements of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070. In four categories polled the percentages ranged from 73% for requiring documents to verify legal status, 67% for allowing police to detain anyone who can't verify status to 62% for allowing police to question anyone they think may be in the country illegally. As Governor Brewer is an elected official it seems she felt obligated to do something that she did not see the Federal Government enforcing. In addition to 8 United States Code 1306 (a) 1304 (e) was also taken from the Federal law to enforce at the state level. In 1304 (e) an alien is required to carry at all times in his personal possession any alien certification or alien registration receipt card issued to him. In 1306 (a) requires any alien to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States. After reading the Senate Bill 1070 I did not see anywhere racial profiling would be tolerated although I could see where it would be covered under Civil Rights protections within the law.

I definitely agree that it is not wrong asking immigrants to obey the laws of entry into this country. There have been federal laws protecting us for many years on the books as I mentioned above. For Governor Brewer signing this bill into law on the state level doesn't seem wrong to me. I believe she did what she felt had to be done to protect the citizens of Arizona. I believe it will speed up the reform needed on the National level now. Brewer said that racial profiling will not be tolerated and that we must trust our law enforcement officers. It is true we have always needed to trust our law enforcement officers to not racially profile anyone while they are doing their jobs. Anyone found violating these imigrants rights should be prosecuted. This country was built on the backs of immigrants. There are many good people here because they only want a better life for their families. I suggest that it has become the story of the bad apple spoiling the barrel. It's the increase in numbers of bad apples that has brought this to a head. Illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes and other criminal activities make citizens who may be legal immigrants or born and raised citizens feel afraid and angry because the politicians on the state and federal levels have not done enough to address this problem. Let's hope it moves forward soon because it needs to.

(The Blog this is a response to)

The United States National Government Through My Eyes...

The U.S. National government is an essential part of America whose powers were defined in our Constitution. The government is designed to protect its citizens and allow the same to prosper as its laws allow. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the right of each person to the pursuit of happiness. Congress writes the laws and the people elect the Congress. These checks and balances have worked well protecting our citizens over these past few hundred years making it possible for almost anyone to live out their dream whether you are a citizen or even an immigrant.

The three branches of government, The Executive (President), The Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court) insure that power is limited to protect the people. Congress has more than adequately protected Americans from attack through our diverse military and it's actions. Congress provides funding for our branches of military with the President as our Commander-in-Chief. Since the mid 1800's government has expanded its role in America causing some to argue against government expansion and to point out that the Constitution was designed to limit government in the society and protect the people from potential abuses of power. That seems to be the argument even today that government may be getting too big. I believe that our government has provided the protection through it's laws to promote the climate for people from all over the world to chase dreams that would not have otherwise been provided in their own countries. Our freedoms provided in our Constitution are overseen and guaranteed by our government and cannot be found in most other countries. How many American's can go to Iran, Syria, Libya or North Korea to set up a business, believe in any number of religions (or not believe) as they want, freely speak in a public forum against the government, or choose to come or go freely between borders? I do know that people from openly hostile countries have been able to live in America and enjoy the same benefits and protections that our Constitution provides it's citizens and allowed successes in businesses, freely practice their religions, and have the same freedom of speech that has made our country what is known by many as the most generous and one of the most desirable places in the world to live.

Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim, whether you are Comanche, Cherokee, Blackfoot or Apache or whether you are blind, deaf, crippled, homeless or sick or if you are a minority or of a disadvantaged people, all citizens and or peoples as written in our laws and our Constitution are to be equally protected by our government. The united states citizens are not necessarily from a particular place, however they are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom that our government both protects and also enables us to live a life found only in America and the protection for those same peoples is outlined in our Constitution and overseen by our government.

Obama and Bush : Birds of a Feather? ...Are They?

One answer to the the question "Why is Barack Obama being praised for taking the same or similar actions that got the former president blacklisted?" is due to the current media coverage or lack thereof today. It seems that most media coverage has been supportive of and possibly even reluctant to criticized president Obama. Very few networks seem to be critical ever of the president. At some point during the Democratic primary for president the media seemed to put their support behind candidate Obama over Clinton. This support appears to have continued through most of the presidents first year in office. While Bush's popularity and support finished at the lowest rating for an outgoing president at 22%, Obama's ratings in most polls in January 2009 were over 60%. This has continued in part because the media is both liberal and mostly Democrat. It is no surprise that any similarities that may be made between Obama and Bush would favor Obama in the majority of the media outlets.

It is true that the media portrayed Bush as the "wealthy Americans" best ally. The criticism the media reported on Bush's bailing out the financial sector/banks seem to have not followed the progress or lack of thereof of the initial $700 billion bailout. It is interesting in an article on March 29, 2010 by Daniel Wagner, an Associated Press Business Writer, of the $700 billion bailout from Bush only $380 billion has been paid out. Of that amount $194 billion has been paid back. That number should grow after the Citigroup sale. Mr. Wagner states these are Treasury Department figures. If my math is right there is $186 billion balance left of which I suspect most will never be recovered. Bush's deficits during his presidency ranged from a low of $158 billion in 2002 to when he left office in 2008 with the second highest deficit recorded during his two terms at over $400 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers for 2009 deficit are estimated to be $1.85 trillion under Obama. Yes, it does seem to be a double standard as you mention that Bush was so heavily criticized and Obama is not.

Obama campaigned on pulling the troops out of Iraq and demonizing those who opposed those efforts. Although he may accomplish this goal it certainly has not been as quickly as he had indicated. Media has not had the same negative reports about this as they had during Bush's final years concerning Iraq. I agree with Obama's effort and support to increase troops in Afganistan. This action is a good one that should help protect the undermined forces there. I'm not sure that war is necessary as you say, but in the case of supporting our troops and the development of a democratic Iraq government it is in our best interest that the US has the needed support in the Middle East other than Israel. I believe the taste of freedom of a democratic society from a tyrannical one will be hard to take away once it is rooted in the Iraq people.

With respects to privacy issues, we as Americans should be able to count on the 4th Amendment to protect the common citizen. The Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Obama administration has used the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 to access emails older than 180 days. Some say this is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. It is interesting that the same privacy issues in our emails are not provided the same protection as we are provided with the mail delivered by the US Postal Service. Recently with regards to wiretapping or surveillance the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memorandum declaring that warrantless surveillance was lawful. These rulings during Obama's administration only back up Bush's policies on surveillance particularly when national security is at stake. My concern is where will the line be drawn now for us the American people. As you stated "where will it end?"

Although these two president do have similarities to be considered as you mentioned with certain educational issues, abstinence and capital punishment, I feel that it is strange to see that Obama has increased deficit spending by near four times, the war efforts have been increased, issues regarding the expansion of governments right to "listen in" are being all but being ignored by the media, and the potential destructive path of the proposed increased spending without so much as minimal exposure in the media worries me. These same topics although equally as important during Bush's terms were used to demonize Bush in the media. Obama seems to have been given a hall pass so far. It seems clear that the actions of this administration have exponentially increased previous policies of Bush's without much criticism.

This administrations finger pointing at the Bush administration are like you say "the pot calling the kettle black." I like another saying "be careful at who you point you finger at because you have three pointing back at yourself".

My Personal Opinion on The New Health Care Plan

There are several reasons for why I disagree with the new “Health Care Bill". American citizens should already know that there are distinct functions of government that should protect all American citizens and their rights. Our government provides for us, through our military branches, a national defense to keep us safe, a judicial system that protects the innocent and punishes the guilty, guarantees the preservation of individual rights and liberties which includes but is not limited to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. These are things specifically outlined in the document known as our United States Constitution. Where in our Constitution does it state that anyone is "entitled" to health insurance, retirement benefits, food stamps, social security, (and public education for that matter)? These newly formed or expanded welfare and entitlement programs will diminish the ambition and drive from many of our country's citizenry.

Due to the unemployment numbers rising, the lack of confidence in finding jobs and the hopelessness of it for many has caused more people to look to the government to take care of them. You are entitled to the "pursuit of happiness" but there is no guarantee of happiness, and a person’s pursuit of happiness does not entitle anyone to make an indirect claim on mine, or for that matter anyone else’s productivity by receiving benefits that I work and pay for. Our government is dealing a highly addictive drug, and that drug is "entitlements". The government does not only do this because they want everyone to have health care. It's either because they don't have faith in the citizens to make decisions for themselves or it seems that our government may be trying to build a foundation of power and control. The government can then maintain the control a dealer has over the addict. Many of us, as U.S. citizens, may soon become dependent on government welfare and the expanded entitlement programs offered. The next generations that are growing up today will always have their hands out asking for more help when things are not going their way rather than working that extra job to pay for an education, a second car or a newborn baby. This may become a way of life.

Working for what you have builds strength, character, and the willingness to go that extra mile to accomplish something that is meaningful or that was your choice to do (such as having a child). It feels great to accomplish difficult tasks. You derive a sense of accomplishment and pride. It sets examples for younger children to follow to be able to take care of themselves when they grow up. This country was built by the hard work of our forefathers. Their blood, sweat and tears gave us the opportunities we now have to be unique and fulfill our dreams. It's sad driving down the road and seeing a group of government workers repairing a road and two are working and six are watching. In private industry you will not have your job if you don't work or produce. This will get worse if people are given food, housing, clothes and now health care. What's left? The more dependent people become upon government, the more the government will control our lives, our choices, our money and…etc.

Logically, it makes no sense to have a right to something that someone else must provide with no benefit to the person that is being forced to make the sacrifices. I believe it will slowly take away all the incentive to work those long hours or second job when you see others receiving handouts or benefiting because they choose not to work to pay for their choices they've made. And why would they if the government will pay for it? Already retirees who have worked and planned for retirement will loose the benefits that had been given to them from some of these large corporations (AT&T for one) only because the health care bill make the companies pay taxes on the benefits now as income where it was subsidized by the government before. These companies do not have to give these retirees these benefits, however the government will make you buy it or penalize you if you loose the health care benefit that had been provided. Most retirees live on a fixed income and will be burdened to pay for this new expense. This is only one example of why the government needed to take more time when passing legislation that may be hurting many of those they had not considered before. Already it is being challenged in many states as unconstitutional but as sad as this is, the CBO did not use these retirees in their figures when estimating these health care costs.

Now there will be thousands in need of help from the government who like I mentioned are on fixed budgets and were receiving retirement benefits. They may now have to pay for it or suffer penalties. The government is not the answer for our problems. These politicians were voted in by the people and the people have and will make our country thrive once again if we focus on job creation to make money, not spend money we don't have now. We do need reform but not by increasing the deficit by 3 or 4 times. This is what people must come to understand if we are to remain sovereign as a nation.

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform

In this article from Drudge Report, the authors begin to claim that the new health care reform may cause companies like AT&T to find ways to recover some of these new costs incurred by this reform. The shareholders of these large companies will possibly see a decline in share prices if the companies costs rise to much. Companies like AT&T have an obligation to shareholders to maintain or increase profits. These new costs will reduce profits without taking action.

The blog goes on to inform us that in the past companies like AT&T have been receiving subsidies from the government for providing drug coverage to their retirees. These subsidies will now be treated like income to the company and be taxable under the new health care reform. This is one of the largest ways to help pay for this health care reform. The White House feels that this only closes a loophole for these companies, however it will not prevent companies from eliminating or reducing benefits to retirees to recover some of these new costs.

The new coverage which will help many Americans who desperately need health care but at the same time may cause current and future retirees to pay for parts of health care that were previously a benefit for their years of service. Retirees who loose benefits may end up becoming dependent on the government to subsidize them in the future which will add the the cost of health care for the government.

It seems that solutions to these problems are not easy. The fallout from this may not be felt completely for some time. I don't have an answer to solve this problem and I don't think the government or these companies do either. I will say that I am concerned for those who had felt comfortable in their retirement after years of planning and are now afraid that they may not be very comfortable soon.

ObamaCare at Ramming Speed

The article I have chosen to critique is from The Wall Street Journal. The article takes a deeper look into Obama’s new health care plan, and what he really has in store for the American people. The author’s point of view is obviously targeted for a conservative audience and is opposed to the Health Care Bill President Obama wishes to see through Congress despite the massive political and public opposition. Obama plans to, as the author states, “give the voters what they don't want anyway”. He goes on to discuss how Obama speaks constantly of decreasing the nationally debt, less spending, less taxes, and his beloved promise of “change” for the American people. But how is that possible when his healthcare plan calls to increase federal spending on Medicaid, Welfare and so many more public government programs? By 2020 it is predicted that 90% of the costs of this healthcare plan will be transferred to the federal spending as well, thus inevitably increasing taxes for everyone. Obama’s promise of having the option to keep your “grandfather plan” (current plan) if you wish is also a complete lie. Once and if his healthcare reform bill is passed, the government plans to impose “consumer protection” in the form of sanctions. Incidents like the “Cornhusker Kickback” when the president bribed the Senator of Nebraska for his vote will be happening in other states all over the country. The plan also calls for the expansion of our current welfare plan, raising the poverty line so that such help can be applied to families in need. The democrats are determined to push through this plan though it is virtually absent of any real reform. Pushing through this economic plan is symbolic to the Democrats as they are determined to be seen as progressives, no matter what the cost/implications end up being for the American people. It seems to me, that they wish to impose “change” just for change’s sake, which could end up being a very dangerous thing for our country.

Why Not Back Up Before We Go Forwards?

In this article from The Wall Street Journal, It discusses Obama’s Budget Plan for 2010. It seems to me that in my life that I must be reasonable about my own spending and that the government should be able to do the same. Money allocated to wasteful projects should be cut from the government's budget before we can begin to be expected to accept the deficit spending. I would hope that our government could do what a 20 year old girl must do in that if she doesn't have it she doesn't spend it. Some of these government projects would be laughable except it is with our money and no plans to have balanced budget in this newest proposed budget. How about a surplus of cash in the government? Why not? Can it be done by eliminating wasteful spending? In keeping with the spirit of taxing the wealthier people and large corporations, why would the government propose to spend 11 million dollars to build a bridge between two of Microsoft's facilities when Microsoft has billions in surplus cash. Why should we be expected to pay for spring training facilities for two professional baseball teams? Yes, 30 million dollars to the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies for spring training facilities. I do not agree with this, I think that many projects could be eliminated or reevaluated to at least do a better job of balancing the budget, not continue with a deficit especially when our money isn't being spent well to begin with.