Dear El Presidente Bush:
I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for all of the wonderful things that you have done for the people of this country. You have done more than I could have ever imagined that you would do when you first came to power.
First, I would like to thank you for coming to the defense of the Mexican national, Jose Ernesto Medellin, who was on death row for the rape and murder of two young Texas teenagers. The "World Court" said that his rights were violated because he was not told he could contact the Mexican Consulate, and you stepped in and came to his defense and informed the State of Texas that yes, they would have to reconsider his case. Why did you not come to the defense of the one American who was involved in this crime? That man, an African-American, has already been executed. If I remember this case correctly, Medellin and his buddies raped the 14-year old and 16-year old for over an hour. Did you know, El Presidente, that they bashed out the front teeth of one of the girls so that it would feel better for them when they made the girl perform oral sex on them? That they laughed and pointed and said something to the effect of, "This b_____ won't die!" when choking her with a belt didn't work? (Would you have been so forgiving if Jenna Anheiser-Bush had been the victim?) I'm sure that the girls who were the victims of those animals would love to thank you for your efforts, also. If they were here. But they are not.
My daughter's friend would like to thank you, also. She was a school teacher in an elementary school in our area. A couple of years ago, she and a handful of teachers who were not bilingual were told that they would not be returning the following year. They were replaced with Spanish-speaking teachers. Why? Some schools in Texas have a wonderful "pilot" program where English-speaking and Spanish-only-speaking children are put in the same class. Half a day's instruction is given in English, then those lessons are repeated the second half of the day in Spanish. We are told that it will be wonderful that all of our children will be bilingual. I am so grateful for that. Of course, they may not have much time to learn math or science, but who needs that?
I'd also like to thank you for your wonderful border policies. The arrest and imprisonment of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for just doing their job sent the message loud and clear to Border Patrol Agents everywhere: Don't do your job too well (wink, wink; nod, nod). Your policies have also emboldened the Mexican drug cartel. Did you know that a huge marijuana field was found not far from an FBI/DEA training facility in Dallas? Did you know that there were at least four other marijuana patches (some with thousands of plants) found in the Dallas area (including a local recreational lake)? Authorities have concluded the Mexican drug cartel is responsible. Thank you for making them feel so comfortable here!
I'd also like to thank you for your inconsistency in dealing with the United Nations. You told them where to go when they didn't go along with your plan to invade Iraq. But now, our Senate is looking at ratifying the "Law of the Sea" treaty (L.O.S.T.). This would give the UN control over the earth's seas (as well as the air above it and all mining rights), with the power to levy taxes and fees on all vessels from all countries. Just what I love: if national taxes aren't enough, let's have international taxes. Thank you!
Thanks for the lead in our toys that are produced in China. Thanks for the tainted dog food from China. Thanks for the fact that only 1% of food that is imported into our country is actually inspected. The USDA/FDA has done a great job under your administration! That makes me feel so safe, especially considering that the pharmaceutical industry has admitted that about 50% of the ingredients that are used in manufacturing our drugs now come from: CHINA!
Although I agree that families who make $86,000 should not be eligible for SCHIPS (your main objection to increasing the funding), if we would quit giving benefits of all types to people who are here illegally, we might have enough to pay for it. It beats not having it at all, for those who truly need it. If the Immigration Reform Bill that you wanted had passed (Senate Bill 1639), Section 413(c)(4) said that the US would be "helping the Government of Mexico to establish a program with the private sector to cover the health care needs of Mexican nationals temporarily employed in the United States." So, we can help provide health care for citizens of other countries, but not our own? Section 413 of that same bill says that under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, we would also strengthen educational and training opportunities in Mexico. There's a whole list of things we would have done there in this bill. We can't rebuild New Orleans, but we can help build Mexico and Iraq. Maybe the $3 million that we just sent to Mexico to help them expand their wiretapping program could help pay for SCHIPS, too.
Thanks!
I guess the greatest thing that I have to thank you for is turning me from being a Republican to an Independent. Muchas gracias!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
A "Revolutionary" Idea
I watched a show about Che Guevara today. If I understood the show correctly, then he was all about everyone sacrificing and working for the common good. To this very day, he is an inspirational symbol for those who want revolution and for socialists and communists alike. I had recorded this show in the first place because I wanted to learn about the man whose face I have seen on all of those T-shirts (worn especially by today's "hot" celebrities).
I have always said that the ideals of socialism and communism sound good. After all, who can argue with the idea that everyone has enough to eat, adequate housing, health care, etc. ? I think that sounds great! However, people are people, and there are some reasons that it just won't work.
One reason I present is based on a phenomenon that I have observed first-hand: Have you ever noticed that when you are at work, night after night you see the same group of people trot out the door at 5:00? Night after night it's the same other group of people who are staying late? If you are behind on a deadline and they need volunteers to work Saturday morning, it's always the same group there on Saturday. Even at the church pot-luck dinner, it's always the same group setting up the tables, etc., while it's the same faces who are always first in line (and it's not the ones who set up the tables). Afterwards, event after event, the same old women are in the kitchen doing the dishes, while others are in the hallways, laughing and talking. Am I to believe that if we became socialist/communist that human nature would suddenly change and we would ALL start working hard? As time goes on, would those who are actually working start resenting those who won't? If I can get just as much by not working, why would I be motivated to bust my tuckus?
When someone says "the government" should pay for things, what they mean is that money should be taken out of my paycheck, regardless of my consent, via taxes. I find it funny that some of those who want money taken out of my check are today's celebrities and politicians who stay in hotels that cost $3,000 a night, sleep on $1,000 sheets, and buy $1,200 baby bassinets. If they truly like Che's thinking, why don't they stay in a $200-a-night hotel room and give the difference to their local food bank? Buy some $50 sheets and donate the difference to a school to buy supplies? Those who often squeak the loudest are the least willing to live up to the ideal.
In talking to people who live together before getting married, I am often asked, "You wouldn't buy a car without test driving it, would you?". So I have a "test driving" proposal for those who advocate Che Guevara's policies. The Mormon church has a very interesting thing that they do the first Sunday of each month. The first Sunday of each month is designated as "fast Sunday". Their members go without food and drink for a 24-hour period (two meals) and donate the money they would have spent on those meals to a special fund that is set aside to help the poor and needy of their congregation. What if all of the "revolutionaries" and "progressive" of this country (and everyone else, for that matter), willingly gave up something and donated the money from that to their favorite charity or cause? Not up to fasting? Well, you could take your lunch to work instead of eating out for a couple of days and donate the money from that. Or skip the Starbucks for a week. Do I really need another soda today? (I can tell you that's a "NO"!) At Christmas one year our office adopted a family and bought gifts for that family as a group. It was amazing how much we were able to do!
Young Hollywood could do all kinds of things (skip the cocaine a time or two) and raise all kinds of money. Think cheap sheets and buying shoes that the rest of America wears.
You don't know where to put all that money? Almost every big city has a local "food bank" that needs help, and your money would help those near you. I love to give to the ASPCA, National Wildlife Federation, "Toys for Tots", my local food bank, and I pay tithing at my church. What is really fun is watching the face of your waitress when she realizes just how big that tip you left really is. Just pick a cause, a person, or a family that you care about.
You're one of the people who needs the help and you don't have money to give? How about your time? Animal shelters need someone to walk the dogs there. Help the kid next door understand those math problems. Watch your friend's kids for free when she has to work on Saturday night. You ARE important and you DO have something to give.
I think that we, as a country, could give Che Guevara's ideals a "test drive", so to speak, and we would learn several things from the experiment. First, I think we would all learn that helping others (without coercion) can bring a great sense of satisfaction and joy. Second, I think that we would learn that individuals and private organizations are much more effective at giving help than "the government" ever can be (think FEMA and Hurricane Katrina). Last, if everyone who could do this would do this, we as a country could accomplish so much that we wouldn't need "the government" to help us take care of each other.
Now, that's a truly revolutionary idea!
I have always said that the ideals of socialism and communism sound good. After all, who can argue with the idea that everyone has enough to eat, adequate housing, health care, etc. ? I think that sounds great! However, people are people, and there are some reasons that it just won't work.
One reason I present is based on a phenomenon that I have observed first-hand: Have you ever noticed that when you are at work, night after night you see the same group of people trot out the door at 5:00? Night after night it's the same other group of people who are staying late? If you are behind on a deadline and they need volunteers to work Saturday morning, it's always the same group there on Saturday. Even at the church pot-luck dinner, it's always the same group setting up the tables, etc., while it's the same faces who are always first in line (and it's not the ones who set up the tables). Afterwards, event after event, the same old women are in the kitchen doing the dishes, while others are in the hallways, laughing and talking. Am I to believe that if we became socialist/communist that human nature would suddenly change and we would ALL start working hard? As time goes on, would those who are actually working start resenting those who won't? If I can get just as much by not working, why would I be motivated to bust my tuckus?
When someone says "the government" should pay for things, what they mean is that money should be taken out of my paycheck, regardless of my consent, via taxes. I find it funny that some of those who want money taken out of my check are today's celebrities and politicians who stay in hotels that cost $3,000 a night, sleep on $1,000 sheets, and buy $1,200 baby bassinets. If they truly like Che's thinking, why don't they stay in a $200-a-night hotel room and give the difference to their local food bank? Buy some $50 sheets and donate the difference to a school to buy supplies? Those who often squeak the loudest are the least willing to live up to the ideal.
In talking to people who live together before getting married, I am often asked, "You wouldn't buy a car without test driving it, would you?". So I have a "test driving" proposal for those who advocate Che Guevara's policies. The Mormon church has a very interesting thing that they do the first Sunday of each month. The first Sunday of each month is designated as "fast Sunday". Their members go without food and drink for a 24-hour period (two meals) and donate the money they would have spent on those meals to a special fund that is set aside to help the poor and needy of their congregation. What if all of the "revolutionaries" and "progressive" of this country (and everyone else, for that matter), willingly gave up something and donated the money from that to their favorite charity or cause? Not up to fasting? Well, you could take your lunch to work instead of eating out for a couple of days and donate the money from that. Or skip the Starbucks for a week. Do I really need another soda today? (I can tell you that's a "NO"!) At Christmas one year our office adopted a family and bought gifts for that family as a group. It was amazing how much we were able to do!
Young Hollywood could do all kinds of things (skip the cocaine a time or two) and raise all kinds of money. Think cheap sheets and buying shoes that the rest of America wears.
You don't know where to put all that money? Almost every big city has a local "food bank" that needs help, and your money would help those near you. I love to give to the ASPCA, National Wildlife Federation, "Toys for Tots", my local food bank, and I pay tithing at my church. What is really fun is watching the face of your waitress when she realizes just how big that tip you left really is. Just pick a cause, a person, or a family that you care about.
You're one of the people who needs the help and you don't have money to give? How about your time? Animal shelters need someone to walk the dogs there. Help the kid next door understand those math problems. Watch your friend's kids for free when she has to work on Saturday night. You ARE important and you DO have something to give.
I think that we, as a country, could give Che Guevara's ideals a "test drive", so to speak, and we would learn several things from the experiment. First, I think we would all learn that helping others (without coercion) can bring a great sense of satisfaction and joy. Second, I think that we would learn that individuals and private organizations are much more effective at giving help than "the government" ever can be (think FEMA and Hurricane Katrina). Last, if everyone who could do this would do this, we as a country could accomplish so much that we wouldn't need "the government" to help us take care of each other.
Now, that's a truly revolutionary idea!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The North-American Community "Myth"
I've been hearing about something called the "North American Community" for a couple of years now. The history behind it is that in March of 2005, President Bush, the Prime Minister of Canada, and President Vincente Fox of Mexico had a meeting and decided to start us on a road that will push us toward the goal of becoming a "North American Community", something similar to the European Union.
I have to admit that when I first heard this, I thought, "Sounds a little 'grassy knoll' to me," and I didn't think that much about it. However, if you "google" the term "North American Community", quite a few articles pop up. Sometimes you will hear it called "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP) -- there is even a website at
http://spp.gov/.
There is a local radio talk-show host in our area that has poo-pooed all of this; his idea is that there are conspiracy geeks that sit in their underwear at their computers until the wee hours of the morning making this stuff up, all while wearing tin foil on their heads.
I took a look at the "thomas" website today (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and searched through what the Senate is presenting this week as our "new" immigration bill -- Senate Bill 1639. Everyone seems to read the first few sections of this legislation; no one seems to care about all of the hidden things they stick in these bills towards the end. I usually start reading somewhere in the middle and work my way to the end, then hit the beginning sections last. In Section 413 (a) (9) it says, "The Partnership for Prosperity is a bilateral initiative launched jointly by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in 2001, which aims to boost the social and economic standards of Mexican citizens, particularly in regions where economic growth has lagged and emigration has increased."
Section 413 (a) (10) says: "The Presidents of Mexico and the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, at their trilateral summit on March 23, 2005, agreed to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life in the agreement on SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA."
Section 413 (b): "SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARTNERSHIP FOR PROSPERITY - It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico SHOULD ACCELERATE the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico..."
If you keep reading through the bill, you will see that we (translation: the US taxpayer) are going to pour untold amounts of money into Mexico to help with loans for farmers, to assist Mexico in establishing better banking, to help Mexico "strengthen education and training opportunities" in Mexico, and the US will help Mexico improve health care for the people still living in Mexico.
So the Senate's answer to illegal immigration is to pour billions of dollars into a country where corruption already abounds, without knowing how much of it will actually end up doing any good for anyone other than the corrupt leaders. My first question is, why do we have to basically pay what ends up being "extortion" money in order to solve illegal immigration? Where are we going to get money for schools in Mexico when we can't seem to find it for so many rural and inner-city schools that don't have enough in our own country? We can't have health care for all American citizens, but we have enough money to help Mexico with their health care? I feel my taxes going up every second!
More importantly, if the "SPP" is just a myth, why is it in black-and-white in a Senate bill under consideration?
I have to admit that when I first heard this, I thought, "Sounds a little 'grassy knoll' to me," and I didn't think that much about it. However, if you "google" the term "North American Community", quite a few articles pop up. Sometimes you will hear it called "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP) -- there is even a website at
http://spp.gov/.
There is a local radio talk-show host in our area that has poo-pooed all of this; his idea is that there are conspiracy geeks that sit in their underwear at their computers until the wee hours of the morning making this stuff up, all while wearing tin foil on their heads.
I took a look at the "thomas" website today (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and searched through what the Senate is presenting this week as our "new" immigration bill -- Senate Bill 1639. Everyone seems to read the first few sections of this legislation; no one seems to care about all of the hidden things they stick in these bills towards the end. I usually start reading somewhere in the middle and work my way to the end, then hit the beginning sections last. In Section 413 (a) (9) it says, "The Partnership for Prosperity is a bilateral initiative launched jointly by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in 2001, which aims to boost the social and economic standards of Mexican citizens, particularly in regions where economic growth has lagged and emigration has increased."
Section 413 (a) (10) says: "The Presidents of Mexico and the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, at their trilateral summit on March 23, 2005, agreed to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life in the agreement on SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA."
Section 413 (b): "SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARTNERSHIP FOR PROSPERITY - It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico SHOULD ACCELERATE the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico..."
If you keep reading through the bill, you will see that we (translation: the US taxpayer) are going to pour untold amounts of money into Mexico to help with loans for farmers, to assist Mexico in establishing better banking, to help Mexico "strengthen education and training opportunities" in Mexico, and the US will help Mexico improve health care for the people still living in Mexico.
So the Senate's answer to illegal immigration is to pour billions of dollars into a country where corruption already abounds, without knowing how much of it will actually end up doing any good for anyone other than the corrupt leaders. My first question is, why do we have to basically pay what ends up being "extortion" money in order to solve illegal immigration? Where are we going to get money for schools in Mexico when we can't seem to find it for so many rural and inner-city schools that don't have enough in our own country? We can't have health care for all American citizens, but we have enough money to help Mexico with their health care? I feel my taxes going up every second!
More importantly, if the "SPP" is just a myth, why is it in black-and-white in a Senate bill under consideration?
Saturday, June 2, 2007
President Bush on My Mind
I just finished helping my husband lay tile in our bedroom. Actually, he lays the tile and grouts it, and I come behind him with a wet sponge and wipe off the excess grout. As I worked away, getting more dirty and more smelly by the minute, my thoughts turned to President Bush.
I think of him often: when I am cooking dinner or doing dishes, when I am pulling weeds in my yard, or carrying in my groceries. My teenage son thinks of him when he mows the yard and washes the car. I didn't ask my husband if he was thinking of President Bush when he put a new roof on our old house.
Why do I think of President Bush? Because according to him, I am supposed to have illegal aliens doing all of these jobs for me. When did he tell me that? Every time he goes to the microphone to talk about the "guest worker" program. I have lost track of how many times he has asked the question, "If we deport these 12 million people (more like 20 million, but okay), who will mow our lawns or clean our homes and watch our children?".
The fact that he thinks I have someone doing all of these things for me shows me just how out of touch he is with my life. He keeps saying that it is time we bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows and get them paying their fair share of taxes. I guess he forgot about the days when he was in their tax bracket (ha ha). My niece is in that tax bracket; she's in that "early married" stage of life where you are just getting started. She is married, with one child, and she and her husband have those "starter" jobs while she tries to work her way through school. Thanks to the child tax credit, the child care credit, and a little something called the "earned income credit" for lower-wage earners, her family had $500 in taxes withheld during the year and at tax time received a refund check from the IRS for $3,700. How many of the people President Bush is talking about will be in the same situation? I guess that must have slipped his mind.
Whether it is $400 haircuts (that's almost a new sofa at my house), a prominant senator who is rumored to be building a gigantic vaction home on some island, or a President who cannot imagine life in America without a throng of people around to do what we just consider "daily chores", the rhetoric and lifestyles surrounding today's politicians shows me that they have no concept of the reality of my life at all. And probably no concern for it, either.
I think of him often: when I am cooking dinner or doing dishes, when I am pulling weeds in my yard, or carrying in my groceries. My teenage son thinks of him when he mows the yard and washes the car. I didn't ask my husband if he was thinking of President Bush when he put a new roof on our old house.
Why do I think of President Bush? Because according to him, I am supposed to have illegal aliens doing all of these jobs for me. When did he tell me that? Every time he goes to the microphone to talk about the "guest worker" program. I have lost track of how many times he has asked the question, "If we deport these 12 million people (more like 20 million, but okay), who will mow our lawns or clean our homes and watch our children?".
The fact that he thinks I have someone doing all of these things for me shows me just how out of touch he is with my life. He keeps saying that it is time we bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows and get them paying their fair share of taxes. I guess he forgot about the days when he was in their tax bracket (ha ha). My niece is in that tax bracket; she's in that "early married" stage of life where you are just getting started. She is married, with one child, and she and her husband have those "starter" jobs while she tries to work her way through school. Thanks to the child tax credit, the child care credit, and a little something called the "earned income credit" for lower-wage earners, her family had $500 in taxes withheld during the year and at tax time received a refund check from the IRS for $3,700. How many of the people President Bush is talking about will be in the same situation? I guess that must have slipped his mind.
Whether it is $400 haircuts (that's almost a new sofa at my house), a prominant senator who is rumored to be building a gigantic vaction home on some island, or a President who cannot imagine life in America without a throng of people around to do what we just consider "daily chores", the rhetoric and lifestyles surrounding today's politicians shows me that they have no concept of the reality of my life at all. And probably no concern for it, either.
Smoking Bans and Other "Annoyances"
I want to state up front that I am not a smoker and never will be. I find it an unpleasant habit that I will never understand and there are times that it can be an annoyance. Apparently, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller found it an annoyance, too, when she and her daughter went out for dinner one night. The difference is that when she is annoyed, she can do something about it. Before the city knew it, they had a full-out smoking ban in all of their restaurants. I always thought that businesses had the right to make those kinds of decisions. Of course, there DO need to be some measures taken: separate "smoking" sections, some added ventilation systems, etc., to make sure that it does NOT become a health issue (no clouds of smoke billowing across your table as you eat), but in the end I would like to think that this "land of the free" left this decision to freedom: the freedom of patrons to choose to go to a restaurant or not, and the freedom of a business owner to have the kind of atmosphere he or she wants in their business.
If we all have the right to do away with things that are unhealthy and annoying in our eating establishments, then do you want to know what I find unhealthy and annoying? Children in buffet-style restaurants. If I were mayor, children under the age of 12 would be banned! I cannot count the number of times I have stood in line behind some small child as they SLOWLY made their way through the buffet. After seeing some sweet darling scratch their bottom or pick their nose, my stomach lurched as I watched them manhandle each dinner roll until they found just the right one. After finally finding some food that had not been contaminated with a million germs from a grubby hand, I began the journey to my table. This is where the real peril ensued. As I tried to keep my drink from sliding off my tray as I waddled along, a sweet little girl ran squealing, trying to get away from her brother. They both darted in front of me, causing me to stop on a dime, sloshing soda all over my new shirt. My mother, who has broken bones in previous falls at home, required a full compliment of body guards (us) to surround her as she made the dangerous journey. So, in my perfect world, young children would be tied to their chairs or sent to Chuck E. Cheese.
Is my point that I don't like children? Nope. I popped out two of those little critters myself and rearing them has been THE most important thing I will probably ever do. But one person's annoyance does not always deserve to be policy. And while it may be "fashionable" today to come down on smoking in the name of "health and welfare", I have to wonder what comes next? Will they start weighing me on a scale at the front of the restauraunt and select the size of my plate based on my number? Before you think I am crazy, remember that New York has now told its restaurants they cannot use trans-fats, and many other places are following suit. I've always thought it odd that if I want to go out and have indiscriminant sex or an abortion on demand, then it is "my body, my choice", but if I want to throw down an order of hot, yummy french fries then I need the government to protect my body from my choice. Does it really go both ways?
If you are someone who hates cigarette smoke, then you have won a victory. For today. But remember, today's smoking ban might become tomorrow's ban on something you like that some smoker finds annoying.
If we all have the right to do away with things that are unhealthy and annoying in our eating establishments, then do you want to know what I find unhealthy and annoying? Children in buffet-style restaurants. If I were mayor, children under the age of 12 would be banned! I cannot count the number of times I have stood in line behind some small child as they SLOWLY made their way through the buffet. After seeing some sweet darling scratch their bottom or pick their nose, my stomach lurched as I watched them manhandle each dinner roll until they found just the right one. After finally finding some food that had not been contaminated with a million germs from a grubby hand, I began the journey to my table. This is where the real peril ensued. As I tried to keep my drink from sliding off my tray as I waddled along, a sweet little girl ran squealing, trying to get away from her brother. They both darted in front of me, causing me to stop on a dime, sloshing soda all over my new shirt. My mother, who has broken bones in previous falls at home, required a full compliment of body guards (us) to surround her as she made the dangerous journey. So, in my perfect world, young children would be tied to their chairs or sent to Chuck E. Cheese.
Is my point that I don't like children? Nope. I popped out two of those little critters myself and rearing them has been THE most important thing I will probably ever do. But one person's annoyance does not always deserve to be policy. And while it may be "fashionable" today to come down on smoking in the name of "health and welfare", I have to wonder what comes next? Will they start weighing me on a scale at the front of the restauraunt and select the size of my plate based on my number? Before you think I am crazy, remember that New York has now told its restaurants they cannot use trans-fats, and many other places are following suit. I've always thought it odd that if I want to go out and have indiscriminant sex or an abortion on demand, then it is "my body, my choice", but if I want to throw down an order of hot, yummy french fries then I need the government to protect my body from my choice. Does it really go both ways?
If you are someone who hates cigarette smoke, then you have won a victory. For today. But remember, today's smoking ban might become tomorrow's ban on something you like that some smoker finds annoying.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Hidden Items in Immigration Legislation
As a talk-radio fan, I have heard a lot of discussion on pending immigration legislation. Most of it has centered on amnesty and whether or not the current legislation being considered is or is not amnesty. Although this is a concern of mine (and I do have quite a few thoughts on this), my big concerns are all of the hidden items that might be lurking in this bill that no one is talking about. While browsing the Thomas website, I came across Senate Bill 1348, sponsored by Harry Reid (Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [Placed on Calendar in Senate]). When I read Sections 113 - 117, I was amazed by what I found.
I will admit up front that I am no lawyer, and hopefully I am misunderstanding what is there; however, if I am reading this correctly, amnesty for illegal aliens is the least of our worries. There are measures in here that seem to begin the chipping away of our sovereignty as a nation.
Section 117 discusses "Cooperation With the Government of Mexico". Regarding building a fence along the US/Mexican border, Subsection (d) basically says that US Government officials will have to consult with Mexican officials "before the commencement of any such construction in order to-- (1) solicit the views of affected communities; (2) lessen tensions; and (3) foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important security issues of mutual concern." So does that mean that President Bush and the Senate do not have to listen to what the citizens of the US want, but they DO have to listen to what the citizens of Mexico want?
The title in Section 114 says it all - "Improving the Security of Mexico's Southern Border". This section basically says that officials of the US, Canada, and Mexico are going to assess the needs of Guatemala and Belize to secure their borders and then WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP MEXICO SECURE ITS SOUTHERN BORDER. Now, we don't have the funds/manpower that we need to secure our borders, but by golly we are going to make sure that no one sneaks into Mexico. It would be laughing hysterically by now if I weren't so shocked.
Section 113(3)(C) considers "exploring methods for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to waive visa requirements for nationals and citizens of the same foreign countries;", while (3)(E) looks at "developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance automated reporting and risk targeting of international passengers;". Not being a lawyer, am I wrong in thinking that this sounds like we are going to have one outer perimeter of the three North American countries, with freedom to move about as if it were one country? Is that the ultimate goal?
You can debate the issue of "amnesty" all day, and it is a worthy debate. However, that isn't what keeps me up at night. This pig in a poke of a bill is much more far-reaching that that. Its long, shadowy hand reaches out to slowly choke our sovereignty as a nation.
I will admit up front that I am no lawyer, and hopefully I am misunderstanding what is there; however, if I am reading this correctly, amnesty for illegal aliens is the least of our worries. There are measures in here that seem to begin the chipping away of our sovereignty as a nation.
Section 117 discusses "Cooperation With the Government of Mexico". Regarding building a fence along the US/Mexican border, Subsection (d) basically says that US Government officials will have to consult with Mexican officials "before the commencement of any such construction in order to-- (1) solicit the views of affected communities; (2) lessen tensions; and (3) foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important security issues of mutual concern." So does that mean that President Bush and the Senate do not have to listen to what the citizens of the US want, but they DO have to listen to what the citizens of Mexico want?
The title in Section 114 says it all - "Improving the Security of Mexico's Southern Border". This section basically says that officials of the US, Canada, and Mexico are going to assess the needs of Guatemala and Belize to secure their borders and then WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP MEXICO SECURE ITS SOUTHERN BORDER. Now, we don't have the funds/manpower that we need to secure our borders, but by golly we are going to make sure that no one sneaks into Mexico. It would be laughing hysterically by now if I weren't so shocked.
Section 113(3)(C) considers "exploring methods for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to waive visa requirements for nationals and citizens of the same foreign countries;", while (3)(E) looks at "developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance automated reporting and risk targeting of international passengers;". Not being a lawyer, am I wrong in thinking that this sounds like we are going to have one outer perimeter of the three North American countries, with freedom to move about as if it were one country? Is that the ultimate goal?
You can debate the issue of "amnesty" all day, and it is a worthy debate. However, that isn't what keeps me up at night. This pig in a poke of a bill is much more far-reaching that that. Its long, shadowy hand reaches out to slowly choke our sovereignty as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)