Friday, December 28, 2007
THE IMMIGRATION CONUNDRUM
Immigration is a hot button issue that divides Americans. Generally, we fall into one of three categories in our views.
Some of us are sure that we know the answer, and that answer is drastic action. Not only do these want to close the border with a fence, but they would also find ways to identify and round up undocumented immigrants and send them home, accompanied by any children who may have been born while they were in our country.
This group would require landlords, employers, schools, medical facilities, government agencies, and maybe all American citizens, to report suspected undocumented residents under penalty of law. Good Samaritans helping illegal residents in any way would be prosecuted.
This first group knows what its goal is, and they are willing to take the necessary steps to accomplish that goal, regardless of any outcry to the contrary.
A second group consists of supporters of a program similar to the “comprehensive immigration plan,” which failed in Senate last year. This failed because a large majority of Americans opposed it. This was called “amnesty,” and that was not acceptable to a majority of Americans.
Perhaps activists fanned the flames of prejudice against “amnesty,” but more likely they just gave voice to the mood of the public. Americans were reacting negatively to their country being flooded with illegal immigrants taking jobs at a cheap wage, speaking a different language, and remaining in conclaves rather than integrating into American society.
A third group of Americans consists of those who are vexed and troubled over the social and economic problems surrounding the immigrant flood. This group is often conflicted, and even confused, about its position on proposed solutions, either drastic or soft. They may vacillate from time to time in their views, depending on new information or new media assaults.
This third “eclectic” group knows there is a problem that is becoming increasingly urgent. They agree on controlling the borders. They oppose broad-scale amnesty, or similar plans for citizenship which will ultimately blanket in another 12 million or more culturally and ethnically different citizens converting American neighborhoods into barrios.
While this eclectic group may not be ready for the mass deportation of 12 million people in this country illegally, they would like to see some large number go home. They would certainly like to see every immigrant registered, documented, traced, and continuously accounted.
This eclectic group would favor requiring employers to report, register, and submit for a clearance process, every employee who is not a citizen. Employers must document an unmet need for workers at a prevailing fair wage standard.
Most Americans support strong penalties for employers of illegal immigrants. They may support penalties for landlords. But citizens do not support the prosecution of Good Samaritans who give humanitarian aid to these. Neither will they support requiring public service personnel to report those whom they serve, nor making the average citizen spy for the government. Most see nothing wrong with making English the official language or a requirement for citizenship.
The extreme solutions will not work. Some compromise within the eclectic zone needs to be found.
Immigration appears to be not only a complex economic issue, but also a hot social issue. Reasonable, rational, and manageable solutions need to be found.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
Some of us are sure that we know the answer, and that answer is drastic action. Not only do these want to close the border with a fence, but they would also find ways to identify and round up undocumented immigrants and send them home, accompanied by any children who may have been born while they were in our country.
This group would require landlords, employers, schools, medical facilities, government agencies, and maybe all American citizens, to report suspected undocumented residents under penalty of law. Good Samaritans helping illegal residents in any way would be prosecuted.
This first group knows what its goal is, and they are willing to take the necessary steps to accomplish that goal, regardless of any outcry to the contrary.
A second group consists of supporters of a program similar to the “comprehensive immigration plan,” which failed in Senate last year. This failed because a large majority of Americans opposed it. This was called “amnesty,” and that was not acceptable to a majority of Americans.
Perhaps activists fanned the flames of prejudice against “amnesty,” but more likely they just gave voice to the mood of the public. Americans were reacting negatively to their country being flooded with illegal immigrants taking jobs at a cheap wage, speaking a different language, and remaining in conclaves rather than integrating into American society.
A third group of Americans consists of those who are vexed and troubled over the social and economic problems surrounding the immigrant flood. This group is often conflicted, and even confused, about its position on proposed solutions, either drastic or soft. They may vacillate from time to time in their views, depending on new information or new media assaults.
This third “eclectic” group knows there is a problem that is becoming increasingly urgent. They agree on controlling the borders. They oppose broad-scale amnesty, or similar plans for citizenship which will ultimately blanket in another 12 million or more culturally and ethnically different citizens converting American neighborhoods into barrios.
While this eclectic group may not be ready for the mass deportation of 12 million people in this country illegally, they would like to see some large number go home. They would certainly like to see every immigrant registered, documented, traced, and continuously accounted.
This eclectic group would favor requiring employers to report, register, and submit for a clearance process, every employee who is not a citizen. Employers must document an unmet need for workers at a prevailing fair wage standard.
Most Americans support strong penalties for employers of illegal immigrants. They may support penalties for landlords. But citizens do not support the prosecution of Good Samaritans who give humanitarian aid to these. Neither will they support requiring public service personnel to report those whom they serve, nor making the average citizen spy for the government. Most see nothing wrong with making English the official language or a requirement for citizenship.
The extreme solutions will not work. Some compromise within the eclectic zone needs to be found.
Immigration appears to be not only a complex economic issue, but also a hot social issue. Reasonable, rational, and manageable solutions need to be found.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bothersome Injustices
Perceived injustices bother the Militant Moderate. These are particularly bothersome when the judgments are made within the legal system, which is the last resort for the defendant in gaining fairness of treatment. Injustices in the court of public opinion, as presented, interpreted, and judged by the media, can also be quite bothersome.
One of these involves a person’s good name, but the other involves his freedom.
With these ideas in mind, let us look for a moment at the two-year sentence recently handed down to Michael Vick for dog fighting and related activities. The Militant Moderate is somehow bothered by that, although a lot of others think the sentence was light.
Raising, fighting, or euthanizing injured dogs are abhorrent acts to most. So, these were made against the law. But, are these the worst kind of offences? Are these enough to warrant ruining a man’s life or career?
The Militant Moderate would not be afraid to have Michael Vick visit his home. He would certainly like to have Vick with him on a walk down a dark alley at night. He would even trust Vick with a modest sum of his cash.
The point being, of course, that Michael Vick is no threat to either person or property of others by being free. So, why do we have him locked up with murderers, robbers, and rapists in a jail for so long? Are there no other more suitable forms of punishment? Would we not prefer our taxes spent to lock up dangerous criminals, instead of people like Vick or Martha Stewart?
In a brief stint of years as a young farm boy down in the valleys between mountains inside the edge of Arkansas, the Militant Moderate observed a few dog fights. Some were on a semi-pro basis. That is, some farmers kept mean dogs purposely, and they would match their mean dogs against others’ mean dogs – just like they might match fast horses in a race.
As a child the Militant Moderate found those dog fights frightening and disturbing. He had a low opinion of the cultural level of those engaging in such, and of those who “egged-on” and cheered the fights. That opinion has not changed. But he never really thought of sending them to jail.
The political actions of those who deny medical care and treatment to poor children, or to children of illegal immigrants, are also disturbingly bothersome to the Militant Moderate. One wonders how this compares on a moral scale with dog fighting.
One wonders also about criminalizing the actions of Good Samaritans, now even threatening seizure of their property (Son of HB1804), for acts of kindness toward undocumented immigrants. Caring for the needy “untouchables” of our era is evidently seen by some as equally bad or worse than dog fighting, and on the same level as drug-running.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
One of these involves a person’s good name, but the other involves his freedom.
With these ideas in mind, let us look for a moment at the two-year sentence recently handed down to Michael Vick for dog fighting and related activities. The Militant Moderate is somehow bothered by that, although a lot of others think the sentence was light.
Raising, fighting, or euthanizing injured dogs are abhorrent acts to most. So, these were made against the law. But, are these the worst kind of offences? Are these enough to warrant ruining a man’s life or career?
The Militant Moderate would not be afraid to have Michael Vick visit his home. He would certainly like to have Vick with him on a walk down a dark alley at night. He would even trust Vick with a modest sum of his cash.
The point being, of course, that Michael Vick is no threat to either person or property of others by being free. So, why do we have him locked up with murderers, robbers, and rapists in a jail for so long? Are there no other more suitable forms of punishment? Would we not prefer our taxes spent to lock up dangerous criminals, instead of people like Vick or Martha Stewart?
In a brief stint of years as a young farm boy down in the valleys between mountains inside the edge of Arkansas, the Militant Moderate observed a few dog fights. Some were on a semi-pro basis. That is, some farmers kept mean dogs purposely, and they would match their mean dogs against others’ mean dogs – just like they might match fast horses in a race.
As a child the Militant Moderate found those dog fights frightening and disturbing. He had a low opinion of the cultural level of those engaging in such, and of those who “egged-on” and cheered the fights. That opinion has not changed. But he never really thought of sending them to jail.
The political actions of those who deny medical care and treatment to poor children, or to children of illegal immigrants, are also disturbingly bothersome to the Militant Moderate. One wonders how this compares on a moral scale with dog fighting.
One wonders also about criminalizing the actions of Good Samaritans, now even threatening seizure of their property (Son of HB1804), for acts of kindness toward undocumented immigrants. Caring for the needy “untouchables” of our era is evidently seen by some as equally bad or worse than dog fighting, and on the same level as drug-running.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, December 10, 2007
POLITICAL JUSTICE
Political freedoms and guarantees were hard-won. It took centuries.
Governments have come a long way since the days when the king’s rule was absolute. Louis XIV of France, a defender of the divine right of kings to rule, is known for the statement: “I am the State.” Therefore, any stubborn act or speech against the king was a treasonous or seditious crime against the government.
When King John was forced to sign the Magna Charta in 1215, the nobility in England won rights in government. King Charles I in 1621 (before his beheading) ceded the parliament certain exemptions from civil prosecutions, and in 1641 Cromwell granted parliament was habeas corpus rights.
Such exemptions later spread to Canada and in common law to the far reaches of the world. These parliamentary privileges exempt them from civil actions or seizure of their persons from forty days before until forty days after a session.
Our country has a form of immunity for Congress from civil actions and habeas corpus rights during sessions. No modern western legislative body has exemptions from criminal prosecution, although some do require that such action be cleared with the presiding officer of the body.
The reason for such rights is the prevention of personal or political intimidation of officials through the abuse of the justice system.
And this is what all the fuss is about in the termination actions initiated in the White House against their own U.S. Attorneys who would not follow their policy of political dirty work.
Certain of those went about their work in an unbiased manner, refusing to file weak or unfounded charges against democrat candidates during the period leading up to recent elections. Some pursued corrupt republican congressmen, and successfully prosecuted them.
These uncooperative federal district attorneys were said not be among the party faithful any longer, and they were terminated. Those who filed charges with little or no basis, and those who went after opposition party candidates and major supporters were found in good favor.
It is not that the president does not have the right to hire and fire U.S. district attorneys. He does not even have to have to state a reason for doing so, although those fired were said to have poor performance records, in contradiction of other information.
However, when it became evident that such firings were the result of an effort to use the justice system for political purposes, then all this becomes not only bad government but contrary to the laws on obstruction of justice.
Congress has an obligation to expose any such conduct and to pursue corrective measures.
It is unfortunate that we have seen such manipulative use of the legal system many times before – even in Oklahoma. Almost every time it has involved politics or money. News media have sometimes been complicit, or perhaps unwitting allies, in such actions. Continued legal persecution of the elderly, ill, and mentally incompetent Senator Stipe comes to mind.
How often have we seen gross errors and corrupt acts given the wink by justice officials and let pass? Yet similarly we have seen efforts to entrap another political or public figure in a legal morass because of some minor error or the appearance of an indiscretion.
Just as a selfish and cruel king kept power by levying false charges against his enemies in the days of old, so will a corrupt government today use the long arm of its law enforcers and its courts to intimidate its adversaries.
Lasting democracies are those which are vigilant in keeping liberties of citizens protected and their system of justice pure.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Governments have come a long way since the days when the king’s rule was absolute. Louis XIV of France, a defender of the divine right of kings to rule, is known for the statement: “I am the State.” Therefore, any stubborn act or speech against the king was a treasonous or seditious crime against the government.
When King John was forced to sign the Magna Charta in 1215, the nobility in England won rights in government. King Charles I in 1621 (before his beheading) ceded the parliament certain exemptions from civil prosecutions, and in 1641 Cromwell granted parliament was habeas corpus rights.
Such exemptions later spread to Canada and in common law to the far reaches of the world. These parliamentary privileges exempt them from civil actions or seizure of their persons from forty days before until forty days after a session.
Our country has a form of immunity for Congress from civil actions and habeas corpus rights during sessions. No modern western legislative body has exemptions from criminal prosecution, although some do require that such action be cleared with the presiding officer of the body.
The reason for such rights is the prevention of personal or political intimidation of officials through the abuse of the justice system.
And this is what all the fuss is about in the termination actions initiated in the White House against their own U.S. Attorneys who would not follow their policy of political dirty work.
Certain of those went about their work in an unbiased manner, refusing to file weak or unfounded charges against democrat candidates during the period leading up to recent elections. Some pursued corrupt republican congressmen, and successfully prosecuted them.
These uncooperative federal district attorneys were said not be among the party faithful any longer, and they were terminated. Those who filed charges with little or no basis, and those who went after opposition party candidates and major supporters were found in good favor.
It is not that the president does not have the right to hire and fire U.S. district attorneys. He does not even have to have to state a reason for doing so, although those fired were said to have poor performance records, in contradiction of other information.
However, when it became evident that such firings were the result of an effort to use the justice system for political purposes, then all this becomes not only bad government but contrary to the laws on obstruction of justice.
Congress has an obligation to expose any such conduct and to pursue corrective measures.
It is unfortunate that we have seen such manipulative use of the legal system many times before – even in Oklahoma. Almost every time it has involved politics or money. News media have sometimes been complicit, or perhaps unwitting allies, in such actions. Continued legal persecution of the elderly, ill, and mentally incompetent Senator Stipe comes to mind.
How often have we seen gross errors and corrupt acts given the wink by justice officials and let pass? Yet similarly we have seen efforts to entrap another political or public figure in a legal morass because of some minor error or the appearance of an indiscretion.
Just as a selfish and cruel king kept power by levying false charges against his enemies in the days of old, so will a corrupt government today use the long arm of its law enforcers and its courts to intimidate its adversaries.
Lasting democracies are those which are vigilant in keeping liberties of citizens protected and their system of justice pure.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, December 03, 2007
DEBATE ABOUT WHAT?
The recent republican candidate “debate” on CNN was puzzling. Questioners were selected from You-Tube responders, supposedly the best way to obtain questions on a broad spectrum of topics from a diversity of questioners.
Something went wrong. Either the questioners and topics were sifted and selected by CNN reps, or the candidates’ interpretations of the questions offered opportunities to pontificate or to attack an opponent. Perhaps it was some of both.
As was the case of the last democratic debate, there were lots of accusations and deliberate distortions of the positions of other candidates, including hair-splitting differences of views commonly held. These involved a lot of smoke and fire, signifying little.
Thinking back on the “debate,” there are only a few topical areas that can now be recalled. These included:
• Rants on illegal immigration and aspects thereof
• Support (minus one) of the Iraq War, using patriotism and fear
• Gays in the military
• Criminal penalties for abortion; control the Supreme Court
• Solve deficit by stopping government spending on entitlements --
Social Security, Medicare, children’s health, education, student loans; revive failed proposals for SS privatization & health savings accounts
• Agriculture subsidies to (big and little) farmers -- (think Iowa)
• Hiding security expense for out-of-town over-nights with girl friend
• Guns in cities
• Conspiracy on a highway through U.S. from Mexico to Canada
• What would Jesus do?
There must have been other topical areas, but it is difficult to remember all of them. Since this is a republican primary, perhaps the questions were selected with the republican base in mind.
There were other topical areas about which little or no discussion occurred, but nevertheless are of great concern to voters in general. These include:
• A strategy to end the war in Iraq; post-war strategies
• Strategies for Mid-East peace
• The crisis in health care costs; health insurance & drug costs
• The health crisis of uninsured and under-insured adults and children
• Stopping budget deficits by restoring tax cuts; selective increases
• Realistic proposals for Social Security; proposals for Medicare
• Stopping the movement of companies and jobs overseas
• Stopping importation of technical immigrants to take good jobs
• Stopping off-shore corporate and individual tax dodges
• Taxing hedge fund profiteers at income rates
• Making tax rates on income from wealth and wages on labor closer
• Cleaning up the corruption of money from lobbyists & big donors
• Stopping unethical campaigning by money organizations (Swift-boat)
• Campaign finance reform, including public funding only proposals
• Global warming; survival of the planet
• Energy policy; restrictions on gas guzzlers; immediate standards on vehicles; realistic strategies to combat oil cartels and monopolies
• Hazards to health by defective imported products
• Hazards to economic future by trade deficits & debt held in China
• Problem of real estate bust and mortgage foreclosures on homes
• Monetary policy; manipulation of interest rates by feds; devaluation of dollar internationally
• Taxing windfall profits of oil and gas companies and royalty holders
• Pay-as-you-go budget and tax policy (including war costs)
• Straightforward and realistic solutions to illegal immigration problem
Certainly there is a world of concerns out there which were not addressed in the republican debate. Some are not likely to be addressed in any debate, because of necessary unpopular solutions (tax plans). But certainly discussion on the half-dozen more significant concerns of the American people would be welcomed.
Unfortunately, it appears that republicans would like to focus on their favorite divisive issues – gays, guns, abortions, and add immigration.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Something went wrong. Either the questioners and topics were sifted and selected by CNN reps, or the candidates’ interpretations of the questions offered opportunities to pontificate or to attack an opponent. Perhaps it was some of both.
As was the case of the last democratic debate, there were lots of accusations and deliberate distortions of the positions of other candidates, including hair-splitting differences of views commonly held. These involved a lot of smoke and fire, signifying little.
Thinking back on the “debate,” there are only a few topical areas that can now be recalled. These included:
• Rants on illegal immigration and aspects thereof
• Support (minus one) of the Iraq War, using patriotism and fear
• Gays in the military
• Criminal penalties for abortion; control the Supreme Court
• Solve deficit by stopping government spending on entitlements --
Social Security, Medicare, children’s health, education, student loans; revive failed proposals for SS privatization & health savings accounts
• Agriculture subsidies to (big and little) farmers -- (think Iowa)
• Hiding security expense for out-of-town over-nights with girl friend
• Guns in cities
• Conspiracy on a highway through U.S. from Mexico to Canada
• What would Jesus do?
There must have been other topical areas, but it is difficult to remember all of them. Since this is a republican primary, perhaps the questions were selected with the republican base in mind.
There were other topical areas about which little or no discussion occurred, but nevertheless are of great concern to voters in general. These include:
• A strategy to end the war in Iraq; post-war strategies
• Strategies for Mid-East peace
• The crisis in health care costs; health insurance & drug costs
• The health crisis of uninsured and under-insured adults and children
• Stopping budget deficits by restoring tax cuts; selective increases
• Realistic proposals for Social Security; proposals for Medicare
• Stopping the movement of companies and jobs overseas
• Stopping importation of technical immigrants to take good jobs
• Stopping off-shore corporate and individual tax dodges
• Taxing hedge fund profiteers at income rates
• Making tax rates on income from wealth and wages on labor closer
• Cleaning up the corruption of money from lobbyists & big donors
• Stopping unethical campaigning by money organizations (Swift-boat)
• Campaign finance reform, including public funding only proposals
• Global warming; survival of the planet
• Energy policy; restrictions on gas guzzlers; immediate standards on vehicles; realistic strategies to combat oil cartels and monopolies
• Hazards to health by defective imported products
• Hazards to economic future by trade deficits & debt held in China
• Problem of real estate bust and mortgage foreclosures on homes
• Monetary policy; manipulation of interest rates by feds; devaluation of dollar internationally
• Taxing windfall profits of oil and gas companies and royalty holders
• Pay-as-you-go budget and tax policy (including war costs)
• Straightforward and realistic solutions to illegal immigration problem
Certainly there is a world of concerns out there which were not addressed in the republican debate. Some are not likely to be addressed in any debate, because of necessary unpopular solutions (tax plans). But certainly discussion on the half-dozen more significant concerns of the American people would be welcomed.
Unfortunately, it appears that republicans would like to focus on their favorite divisive issues – gays, guns, abortions, and add immigration.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
