'Amnesty' El Parte Dos

So if the forum on The Politico would work, this is what I was going to write in response to the many who called me out earlier:

Allow me to defend myself ...though I'm sure I will not change hearts or minds:

Bruce
Frykman: May. 30, 2007 - 10:33 AM EST

JPBarnett: May. 30, 2007 - 9:28 AM EST
If they speak the Spanish, they must be illegals! Let's send 'em back to Spain." Idiots.

What? All of Latin America, with the exception of Brazil speak Spanish, most of the Carribean, Spain, the Philipines etc all speak Spanish...its a lovely language and a fine culture but then so is Chinese, so should we let the Chinese flood across our borders by the tens of millions as well?

Sorry about this one. This was sarcasm. I realize it doesn't always play well in written text. I was merely referencing a suggestion by a previous poster who said that Mexicans were created by
Spaniard who raped their native tribes, so we should send them all back to Spain. It was a throwaway point anyway...

What we've got here is a complex situation. 12-25 million people are in this country illegally, most from Central and South America. Roughly, 98% of these people look and sound different from white-bread Americans. I will continue to assert that if these people spoke English and had lily-white skin, this wouldn't be a tenth of the problem people make it out to be now. I know I'm not going to win that argument, but I will assert that as truth for the record. With that out of the way...

Many of you have thrown out portions of truth. Without question, there are people here reaping benefits they are not paying for. It is a problem. Part of the proposed immigration reform act will deal with this. Another poster summarized better than I can:

Equalizer: May. 30, 2007 - 6:42 PM EST
Just keep the good ones and return the rest. Anyway the change of status program it is only a temporary 6 months to 1 year, if they do not qualify for more, they wont be citizens at all; I do not think all who qualify for Zamnesty visa will want to pay $5,000 + $1,500 fees to become citizens, can you imagine to wait 13 years to
be Zegal (Legal),

That's the sum of it. Everyone who is here will "touchback" home. Those that can afford the costs and want to brave what is a very difficult system will have every opportunity to earn citizenship, the same way that any other non US-citizen may.

Many of you talked about fining employers. I agree. Let's hold corporations, and even Mom and Pop-type stores accountable, if need be, for hiring people without proper identification. Also, let's crack down on people that are making forgeries
of documents like SSN's and Green Cards and what not. While it does not excuse the illegality of lying to an employer, it would be much harder to do so if someone else was not complicit in forging these kinds of documents.

Many people also talked about how this bill is a pathetic attempt at reform. And you know what? Maybe you're right. The bill is certainly far from perfect. But think about the way legislating works. In the Senate, 100 people get together and have to agree on a way to approach a given situation. Each member of that body has a different idea of what is right wrong. Hell, most people on this forum have different ideas about what is right and wrong. Now also keep in mind that there is another legislative body to deal with, and a President that you must also get to agree before anything can be done at all (a simplification, true). Therefore, neither
this bill, nor any other will be everything for everybody! Good legislation is all about the careful art of compromise. Certain barriers exist on both sides of the issue. In the end, you end up with a bill that has enough support to pass, even if it is not the 'perfect' bill that some may have imagined.

I hate to sound like a civics teacher, but that's the way it is! When was the last time the US Government ever passed an act with unanimous approval, not just of those legislating and executing the laws, but also of the laiety? I can tell you; it never happened!

To me, what this comes down to is an honest attempt by leaders on both sides of the issue coming together in a way Washington hasn't seen in years to accomplish something. I will never tell you that you can't disagree with their final product, but let's give credit where it is due. Sens. Kennedy, Kyl, Graham, Feinstein, Lott, as well as Secretary Chertoff and WH Chief of Staff Josh Bolten deserve credit for coming together on a difficult compromise. They have also tried their damndest to convince members of their respective caucuses (to varying levels of success) that it is a workable compromise. You may disagree, but what they have done was not an easy task.

One last note (for now):

Anti Rep/Dem American: May. 30, 2007 - 3:10 PM EST

I know that is a hard concept for you America haters to understand but there are still some people that care about this country.

Don't you EVER try to tell me how I feel about my country! You and I may disagree about how things should be run here, and that's fine. I am happy to debate about any of it. You may not change my mind, and may not ever change yours, but we can debate civilly all day long. At the end of the day, you and I will both be countrymen. I love this country with all my heart, and I hope that with that love in mind and soul, I will be able to do, think, and say what I think is best. That's the greatest part of this country. Don't you ever ever ever forget it!

'Amnesty'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4224.html

I will reiterate what I wrote on the comment board for this story found on Politico.com:

I am so tired of hearing the political fear mongering of the word 'amnesty.' First of all, the immigration reform bill in its current form offers no such thing. There is a path to citizenship, but to call that a 'blanket amnesty' is not even mistaken, but merely ignorant. Second, what opponents of 'amnesty' forget is that we have depending on what sources you listen to between 12-25 MILLION illegal immigrants in this country. If we do not do something to allow them to earn their way towards citizenship, as this bill provides for, the only other option is deportation. Would one of you geniuses on the right like to explain to me how you plan on rounding up 12-25 MILLION people!?

What this all boils down to is xenophobia at best, and out and out racism at worst. You people that get so worked up about Hispanics (because they're not all Mexicans. They come from Guatemala, Honduras, Cost Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc.)do so because you get unduly irritated because you can't understand them! I will grant to you that a certain working knowledge of English is essential to assimilation into the United States, but assimilation does not happen overnight. Second and third generation immigrants by and large speak both languages, something the ignorant right will never even attempt. Hell, most of you cannot even figure out the difference between an illegal immigrant and one that came here legally! "If they speak the Spanish, they must be illegals! Let's send 'em back to Spain." Idiots.

If we really want to talk about a people that hate the members of the host nation, how about we talk about our American forefathers who massacred millions of Native Americans in their conquest of this nation. I am not seriously suggesting that we do not belong here, but if the hypocrites on the right are going to characterize Hispanic immigrants this way, it is about time they look in the mirror.

Stop wasting your time bitching about the "illegals who stole your job," and go find a new one. Racists.

'In God We Trust'

***So, I work in the Indiana House of Representatives. For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***


I'm sorry, I don't really like to single people out, but sometimes I am simple incapable of letting people spread misinformation in a way that is hurtful.


Perhaps you have heard about the controversy surrounding the new-ish Indiana license plates (picture left). They are very patriotic-looking and display the motto "In God We Trust.' Of course anytime there is a connection between the words 'God" and a government, be it local, state, or federal, there is a backlash from the secular elements of society followed by a counter-backlash by social conservatives.


What has happened here is slightly different. The ACLU, on behalf of an Indiana man, has sued. The grounds, however, are not religious. The suit charges, correctly, that drivers wishing to purchase this plate may do so as any they do the standard Indiana plate. Unlike other 'vanity' license plates, such as ones available for the Colts, the Environment, Riley Hospital, or Breast Cancer, the 'God' plate has no administration fees. Therefore, people are being allowed to express their advocacy for this more or less on the State's dime. Other groups must pay a $15 fee to do the same.


The argument here is not about God. The argument is about having to pay for what should be free speech. If one group is allowed to express itself freely, all groups should be permitted to do likewise. The alternative is that all groups should have to pay. It is not fair for one group to be given an opportunity to express itself in a manner that is clearly unavailable to other groups.


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/LOCAL/704230439


http://evansville.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2407370802&ref=nf

Not Red & Blue, but Red, White & Blue - and GREEN

I found this article in the New York Times Magazine. It is by The World Is Flat author Thomas Freidman. Here's the link (it's also in the title):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green.t.html

Global Climate Change is real. No one will convince me otherwise. Even if you disagree, the article is worth reading. It examines how the US can overcome a slip in our perceived international standing by embracing things Green. We can lead the way, and Freidman argues, even coerce China, India, and Brazil - the leaders in the post-developing world - to do likewise.

All in all, a well reasoned argument with a proposed solution. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is better than anything that anyone else is trying right now.

Update

***So I work in the Indiana House of Representatives। For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***


I thought you all should know that the Amendment was defeated! Five brave legislators took a stand against codifying hate into the Indiana Constitution. At the risk of exposing these brave lawmakers, I want to single each of them out for congratulations:

• Rep. Scott Pelath
  
• Rep. Terri Austin
• Rep. Earl Harris
• Rep. Russ Stillwell
• Rep. Bob Kuzman

Maybe think about sending them an e-mail or a letter to let them know that you support the stand they took last night in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures committee. I know I have thanked them as I've seen them.

Hate Politics

***So I work in the Indiana House of Representatives. For the record, my views are my own, and while they may be shaped by those I work for and around, they reflect only the thoughts of this lonely mind and are in no way representative of any Representative or staffer thereof.***

With that out of the way...

I get to see some pretty cool things on a day-to-day basis. The legislative process can be boring or exciting, heated or dispassionate. Sometimes a group comes in and makes some noise, sometimes the only people there are the Legislative Assistants and the Interns. I am the latter.

Today, Advance America came to the Statehouse. Their agenda was two-fold: abolishing property taxes and supporting Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 7, the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would effectively ban gay marriage.

I will come out and say that I am against this amendment, completely and wholeheartedly. That said, I appreciate reasoned debate and the right to express your opinion. What I have no tolerance for is ignorance and hatred. Today's rally exhibited both.

This is how marriage should work: the Church (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Satanist, whatever) can ordain people to get married as they see fit. Marriage is a religious and social construct that ought not be regulated and licensed by the government, be it federal, state or local. If government wants to continue to recognize 'marriage,' they should allow equal-opportunity civil-unions to any group of people that seek it out.

The insistence that "God said being gay is a sin" is a religious statement, not a political one. Church and state are rightly separated in this nation. If you believe being gay is wrong, don't do it. Feel free to share your opinion. But do not force that opinion on others because of your religious dogma(s).

My main problem with those that oppose SJR 7 is that they do so blind of their bigotry. I respect religious people. They are mostly good people. However, their pious attitude smacks of hypocrisy. Christians forget that Christ himself hung around with prostitutes and other outcasts of society. He did not hate them; he accepted them. If you can't draw the parallel there, I can't help you.

But the thing that really pisses me off is watching these supporters of hate legislation bring in their 2-5 kids along with them. Children deserve to be able to grow up without adults shoving their prejudices down the kids' throats. It is a sick thing to see. It hurts me inside to know that those kids will end up hating people later in life because they really don't know any better. It's not fair. It really is akin to child abuse. That's what they say when children are exposed to many other destructive behaviors; this one should be no different.

Class of 2008, part 1

I saw a report on Fox "News" the other night about Hillary Clinton's proposed run for the White House in 2008. It got me thinking about the aspirations of the many that will likely run for the vacant presidency. While Wikipedia has a good article here, I thought I would run down the major canidates both with brief description and commentary.

DEMOCRATS

• Sen. Russ Feingold (WI) - The popular lawmaker from Wisconsin is currently serving his 3rd term in the U.S. Senate. He is considered somewhat independent, though he has a history (like most congressmen) of voting with his party. One of his most significant acts as a Senator was co-sponsoring the campaign finance reform bill bearing his name (McCain-Feingold). He is liked for his "common sense" approach to lawmaking and is often praised as a "reformer."
• Sen. Joe Biden (DE) - Biden will be up for re-election to serve his 7th term as the senior Senator from Delaware in the 2006 "mid-term" elections. Biden is the first Democrat to officially declare his candidacy. He has a been an opponent of President Bush's unilateral war in Iraq and will be an integral part of this summer's debate over the nomination to fill the vacancy left in the Supreme Court by Justice O'Connor as a member of the Senate Judiciary committee. Seen by many as a longshot.
• Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) - Richardson is the Chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, as well as a former U.S. Representative, U.N. ambassador, and Secretary of Energy. He has overseen dynamic growth in the economy of New Mexico, a state with a balanced budget and (get this) a budget reserve. Has reportedly said he will seek the nomination. Washington outsiders always make attractive picks to voters. It's the whole you have to campaign against Washington to get into Washington phenomenon.
• Sen. John Kerry (MA) - The 2004 Democratic nominee may very well be the 2008 version as well. As advantages he has national recognition and a large bank. His biggest negative, of course, is the fact that he already lost once. Now, I haven't become a Kerry hater since he lost. Admittedly, I was never his biggest fan, but in the words of a South Park, what do you do when the race is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich? All kidding aside, Kerry would have been a good choice in '04, but I think there are some great choices in '08.
• Former Sen. John Edwards (NC) - The '04 veep nominee had presidential aspirations of his own last election cycle. 2008 may provide him with with another chance. However, Edwards has the same negative as Sen. Kerry in that he has lost once (twice, if you include losing the primary). He also has the additional shortcoming of losing the public's eye. He is now the leader of One America, a political action committee dedicated to softening the effects of poverty. To me this PAC seems more like a desperate way to keep Edwards in the limelight.
• Gov. Mark Warner (VA) - Warner is the Chairman of the National Governors' Associaton. His stock has ascended in large part to the grassroots community. The internet can do wonderful things for lesser-known candidates, much like it did for Howard Dean in 2004. As governor, Warner has steered the State of Virginia through a huge budget deficit without resorting to massive cuts in important programs like education (are you hearing this, Gov. Daniels???). As the NGA's chair, Warner has had the opportunity to bolster his national standing. It was here he introduced a plan to refom America's high schools. These types of undertakings are monumental. They are both of high importance and difficulty. While many look to merely cry out against th system, Warner has introduced a way to change it. I'm not endorsing his plan or his candidacy, but measures like these should not go unnoticed. Warner also shares Gov. Richardson's "outsider" advantage.
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) - Of course, no discussion of 2008 would be complete without mentioning former President Bill Clinton's other half. I certainly would not discount the possibility that she may well be the first woman ever elected as President of the United States of America. With that said, she would have a long road ahead of her. First, she needs to secure her re-election to her seat in the Senate. Though she will no doubt face a big name opponent brought in specifically to beat her (maybe Gov. Pataki or former NYC Mayor Giuliani???), she will, by all estimations, retain her seat. Another problem Sen. Clinton has is the media. Though usually potential candidates want the media watching, Clinton has the media not only watching but analyzing every move looking to see how she is posturing for the bid in '08. While the attention may not be totally undeserved, it does make "everyday" business harder to conduct. Third, she had a problem of being polarizing. True, the current President is about as polarizing as they come, but what George W. Bush is to Democrats, Hillary (and to only a slightly lesser extent, Bill) Clinton is to Republicans. Where there was an ABB (Anybody but Bush) campaign in '04, we may see an ABC (anybody but Clinton) campaign in '08. With all of these things holding her back, Mrs. Clinton does have things going for her. Her high profile does work for her too, remember. The fact that she is a woman could lead many to vote for her for that reason. Though some have called it posturing, she has seemed to soften on some issues like Defense, while working bipartisanly on others like Healthcare. Certainly, Sen. Clinton will be a player in the next election.
• Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) - The junior senator from Indiana is serving his second term. Defending his seat in 2004, Bayh defeated his opponent by twenty-five percentage points. More astoundingly, he tallied more votes as a Democrat than President Bush did as a Republican in my triple-cherry red State of Indiana. There are two knocks on Bayh: he's not particularly well-known outside of his constiuency, and he's not liberal enough to escape the Democratic primary. The first, I think, is easy to overcome. Many had not heard of Clinton or Bush before they declared their candidacies and they were both two-term Presidents. The second, however, may be a problem. Primaries are very difficult to maneuver. Some may even say they are harder than the general election. After all, it's easy to argue with someone who has oppositional politics, but it is much more difficult to debate people that are essentially on your own team. I wish I had advice for the Indiana Senator here, but I think we'll just have to wait and see. What Bayh does have is what ESPN's Bill Simmons calls TUP (Tremendous Upside Potential). He's not a liberal, for one. This is a plus in a general election. Though some states (e.g. New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.) will vote for liberals regardless, many American voters feel disconnected from those on the far-left. He is what George Bush promised to be, a uniter. If Bayh can pull near-80% approval ratings as a Democrat in a traditionally Republican state, it is very hard to say he is anything resembling a divider. He's a Democrat who is strong on Defense and is socially moderate to conservative. Though Bayh has yet to declare his candidacy, he has formed a PAC, All America, that will allow him to create a larger national presence and support nationwide travel to accomodate such. What the heck, I'll come out and say it: Bayh in '08!

The second half of this post will focus on Republicans. I hope to get this out in the next week to week and a half. You all have my permission to stay on me to get this done.

For the People at Home Especially

Keep an eye out on the Opinions page of the Journal & Courier. In Friday's paper was a letter (3rd letter down) regarding Sen. Evan Bayh. Since Bayh is one of my favorites, I took it upon myself to defend him. Here's a copy of my letter, which by phone today I was told will be printed.

Senator Evan Bayh is one of the great politicians in Indiana. He, along with Republican Richard Lugar, forms perhaps the classiest and most professional tandem of U.S. Senators from any state in the Union.

The reason the Founding Fathers gave senators a six-year term is so that they don’t become overly pressured to bend to the will of a self-centered populace. Remember, after all, the Senate is a national institution that deliberates over matters of national, not state, importance. Mr. Johansen (3/18), please recall it is natural for a senator to become “out of touch.”

Speaking of recall, let’s talk about that. The recall is a state device; therefore, it can only be used on the state, not national, level. Further, the State of Indiana doesn’t employ the recall; it’s not in our state constitution

Senator Bayh does not deserve this. Yes, he voted against Secretary Rice and Attorney General Gonzales, a tow-the-line-and-deny-any-responsibility administration lackey and an opponent of human rights, respectively. Drilling in ANWR is a decision that will set a dangerous precedent. Our National Parks system was created to preserve American beauty, and drilling will lead to the destruction of that beauty. Social Security does have looming problems, but even a growing number of Republicans dislike the Bush plan. Judges support gay marriage because they realize its inevitability. These same “activist” judges have brought us integrated schools and the concept of rights being read when you are arrested.

I personally can't wait for a Bayh presidency.

So there's that. You gotta love Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.