Blog Stage Eight

Re:

On Monday, May 3, 2010 Francella aka Ms. Political wrote the blog article entitled

Napolitano calls Arizona immigration law a ‘cry of frustration’. After reading her blog entry I would have to disagree with her position on the topic and the foundation of her blog entry itself.

Francella wrote the subjective question “....what happens if I forget my wallet and get pulled over and have nothing? Are they going to ship me away?” With that statement I realized Francella had not taken the time to actually read the new law she was arguing against. Her article is based upon her reaction to the subjective views others have posed and not one she had gained herself. Within the law, if she had read it, gave her the answer which stated “......a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c).” At that point, after all attempts by the state to clear you you would be turned over to federal authorities for processing. The law points out the different forms of legal identification pieces that are legal and what will transpire of none are present. It is no different then what currently is going on.

Francella wrote that “......hispanics like myself who have never even stepped on Mexican land are being pulled over because they look hispanic.” This law is not even in effect so what cause would officers have to pull individuals over for immigration status right now? The new law even states “A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.” For someone to be pulled over they have to be in violation of a civil traffic law or other probable suspicious activity. Recently when I was at the side of the roadway dealing with car issues a police officer stopped to assist. During the course of assistance he requested registration and a drivers license. This I did freely. As a citizen choosing to live under a ruling government it is an agreement that under natural law I extend some of my civil rights and liberties to enable the executive power above protect the others. This officer was doing his duty and being cautious. It happens everyday to everybody. Why the sudden outpouring if it only happening to hispanics in Arizona. Why does it suddenly gain the title of racial profiling?

My issue is that she raises the issue of the law recently passed in Arizona dealing with the crime of illegal immigration but then mixes up a crime with the process of legal immigration. She wrote “There has to be a better way of cracking down on immigration reform.” This law is dealing with a felony under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien.” It has nothing to do with the process of immigration or its reform, both of which are legal processes in the United States. It is addressing the issue of a criminal act and an enforcement of a law that is already in place set by the federal government.

The author is right that this nation is a nation built upon generations of immigrants. My family, including myself, are immigrants but we are legal immigrants. We processed through the system, we paid our fees, we did what was necessary. Why do we have to abide by the system while others do not? This law is dealing with a crime that is not being addressed, not immigration itself. If Arizona does not enforce a law then it makes passing and creation of laws mute. If you are lax on one law then you become lax on all.

The author repeatedly refereed to racial profiling. You cannot but help that statistics are against an individual group. If a teenage boy is pulled over and get a ticket where are the shouts of age discrimination? Statistically speaking, young males between 18-25 are involved in 21% of all fatal accidents which were caused by wreck-less driving and speeding prior. You cannot help but the fact that right now a large percentage of people that will be caught by this new law will be hispanic due to the fact that right now statistically speaking a large majority of those that are illegal are of hispanic in nature or the fact that in the area that this law takes affect a large percentage of the population is hispanic.

Again overall I do agree with the Francella that immigration reform is needed but that was not suppose to be the basis of the article which drifted and intermixed two separate topics as if they were the same. Original intent was the law in Arizona dealing with a felony which Francella lost me on. Her article forced me to look up the law personally due to the fact I could not believe that simple questions such as the ones she asked were not answered in this new law. Researching the law caused me to become her opposition. I just wish the author had taken the time to properly research and even read the new law before writing a subjective opinionated piece with an informed perspective and not based on the emotions derived from the perspective of others that have influenced her through their own writings. Writings based on pure speculation cause me to lose faith in the writer.

Blog Stage Seven

Harry Reid and Immigration in the United States by Scott Cameron

Abortion. Religion. Civil Unions. Death Penalty. Many of these topics of discussion have been at the forefront of politics and debates within the citizens of the United States for years now. One topic, however, that is easily overlooked yet has been brimming under the surface since the foundation of the first colonies that would later become the United States of America has been the discussion of immigration.

Immigration has always been an issue for the citizens within the United States since the foundation of this nation. It boils to the surface in cycles which match the cycles of the waves of immigrants that come to this nation from differentiating geological locations with each wave and in time with the cycle of domestic growth, recessions, and depressions. The issue is so deeply imbedded that we have even had major political parties that had their platform based solely around the ideals of immigration such as the Know Nothing Party. during the 1840’s and 1850’s.

Recently the Senate Majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, spoke up for the need of immigration reform. At a speech given in Las Vegas, Nevada on April 10th, 2010, Senator Harry Reid stated to the crowd “We need to do this this year” in reference to immigration reform. Both houses of congress have their agendas filled with many other issues prior to recess including nominations for Supreme Court, bank reform, and the climate bill which the topic of immigration might push to the side. I question the timing and the motives for taking up the topic of immigration in the houses of congress; why here and why now?

The hispanic population is the largest minority population within the United States. The hispanic vote is fast becoming one of the most influential and sought out vote within this nation. In the state of Nevada the hispanic vote makes up 12% of the registered voters and is one of the fastest rising groups of voters in the state. Hispanics are a majority democrat but tend to lag behind in actually voting vs. other counterparts in the state and nation. Currently Harry Reid is trailing his state in most major surveys and polls by several percentage points in the upcoming elections this fall.

I question if Senator Harry Reid intentions are genuine or not. If Senator Harry Reid has been apart of the Senate now for 23 years why now suddenly make immigration reform a top priority by dumping other initiatives already well underway in the houses? Why after 23 years suddenly make it a top priority that needs to be passed in a matter of several weeks?

It seems that Senator Harry Reid is latching onto the issue of immigration in a desire to gain a topic for his platform to run on since right now there is no strong topic of discussion for political parties to latch onto this upcoming election year. I question if Senator Harry Reid is reaching out onto the issue of immigration to attract the hispanic voters to the poll both knowing that a majority of them are democrat and will vote for partisan candidates which would gain him votes. I question if Senator Harry Reid is picking up this platform is abusing his senior and high ranking position within the Senate to control the agenda for personal gains or manipulate the system in his favor.

Immigration reform needs to be done but it needs to be done right. It needs to be preformed under the context that it is what is best for the nation and the interests of the nation versus the politicians own personal interests and the interests of special interest groups. This topic has been taken up many times beforehand but have been hindered by personal opinion and politics that have led to weakened and failed results that have led us to the indecisiveness that our nation now suffers from on a daily basis. This political issue has been raised many times beforehand and been dealt with in the same manner as in years gone by. History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Please, politicians, let us learn from our past and mistakes committed previous so we are not doomed to repeat them again in the future.

Blog Stage Seven

Blog Stage Six

Response to "Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau" by Danielle Zamora

When viewing the world of politics and law, it is imperative for an individual to leave their own personal convictions and values at the door. The individual must base their choices solely on an interpretation based on how the laws are written, the constitution that this nation is founded upon and remember to always place the greater good of the nation and others above what your own values and beliefs may be telling you to do.

I recently read the blog commentary written by Danielle Zamora titled “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau” and I feel that she has failed to keep this in mind. The final outcome of her article is against the legalization of same sex marriage. I agree with that final outcome but I believe that the logic that led her to that conclusion is flawed and my view on why the definition should be untouched at this time comes from a different prospective.

The majority of the article uses religion as a basis of decision for argument against same sex marriage. Her commentary even states that we are a Christian nation. The United States was founded as being ambiguous towards religion. We do not have a state religion and have purposely separated state from religion and cannot let religion define our interpretation and creation of law.

The author is correct in that the definition of marriage as being between a “man and woman” was defined as coming from religious interpretation. If we open up marriage to interpretation and change where is the end point or stoppage to change. If we open up and allow same sex marriages then we should open up to the idea of polygamy. If marriage is no longer between man and woman who is to say that a man cannot claim that he is now married to his goat or an inanimate object? Doesn’t that individual have as much as a right as the same sex couple that want to change the definition of marriage to what they deem fit as being proper or what a valid marriage is in todays world?

If claiming that holding onto the definition of marriage as being between man and woman is discrimination and imposes upon the freedom and rights of others then I ask who is to set the boundary or deny the rights of all other groups other then just same sex couples?

If you are to base your decision solely on religion then you have now crossed the line of separating religion from state and are allowing religion to dictate policies. You are basing an interpretation on a personal belief. You also crossed the line of denying the rights of and infringing upon the rights of other citizens of this nation.

I believe strongly that there is no problem unless there is a solution. The solution to this issue? I believe that the governments involvement in using marriage as a defining characteristic of an individual should be removed. Being defined or given different treatment based on your marriage status creates a society of division and inequality. Citizens are taxed differently, given different rights and treated differently based on this one characteristic.

Since marriage is a definition and institution created by religion it should stay within the confines of religion itself and out of national state matters and policies. If same sex couples or other citizens of this nation want recognition of their unions as official marriages then it is up to the religion they follow who defined marriage to discuss the topic of same sex marriages and whether or not they are authorized or deemed “moral” in their eyes. Yes it would require reworking of current laws but the establishment of an unbiased nation of equality would be worth the time and effort.

Through this choice everyone is equal and the same in the eyes of the law. There is no discrimination, nobody is forced to abide by a law they do not believe in or was written based on a personal biased view of the world. It is up to the individuals religion to decide the moral and ethnical implications of their lifestyle choices and whether or not to recognize those individuals choices.

Blog Stage Five

New Abortion Laws in Ohio by Scott Cameron

Imagine. You are hungry and so you enter a restaurant to have a cheeseburger. After you place an order you are escorted outside where you are forced against your choice and will to first met and become familiar with the cow you are about to digest in the burger. You ask why you have to do this. The reply of the staff state it is now policy due to a change in law that granted an interest group, Vegans, power over and control of a portion of your civil liberties and privacy.

Sound like a far fetched idea? In the state of Ohio it can soon may become a reality. Recently a series of laws were passed dealing with the issue of abortion with some of those laws as intrusive and trampling of your personal freedoms as the idea posed involving the vegan group. In one instance, before you receive an abortion you are required to undergo an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the unborn fetus.

The founding fathers of our nation based the development of this country on the idea of the Law of Nature by Locke. The belief is that everyone has a law of reason in which individuals will reframe from causing harm to another individuals own life, liberty, or property. Locke also was strong in the separation of the church and state. In this nation, with its founding, some rights are extended to the government for protection of others and to prevent the rule of the tyranny of the majority/minority over others as laws passed for a special interest or group may be good for one but not the other and the focus is of the greater good of the nation and its citizens.

In the instance of Ohio the law of nature and the position of the government in those citizens life have failed. The rule of a special interest group has overruled and infringed upon the rights and liberties of another group of individuals. The law makers that passed this law were influenced upon their own beliefs with many coming from their religious beliefs and passed the law due to personal interest over the interests of their constituents and the better of the nation.

I see the future. When you go to use a piece of paper you must first be escorted outside where you sit under the shade of a tree and look at it five minutes prior to your use of paper to appease new laws passed in the interest of environmental groups concerned with the life and death of plant life in the world. This future is the direction this nation is heading thanks, in part, to the recent law passed by Ohio and the framework it has provided for future laws to deprive individuals of their liberties and rights.

Assignment # 5

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Deadline: April 5, 2010

Write a substantial (250-500 words) and original editorial or commentary about U.S. national government. Post this article to your blog.

Send me the direct link to the post you’ve written using Blackboard’s Assignment feature before the deadline.

>> View/Complete Assignment: Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Blog Stage Four

FROM THE EDITOR: Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Because they should

Recently the primaries were held on March 2nd here in the state of Texas. Leading up to the primaries. Several newspapers and other media outlets announced who had their support. Up until this point in time I never thought much of the practice but after taking American Government now for several weeks I began to question the practice.

On October 25, 2009 an editor named Bob Unger wrote an editorial piece for the Standards-Times newspaper based on the east cost titled “Why Do Newspapers Endorse Candidates? Because They Should.” Bob Unger has been the editor in cheif at the Standards Times now for five years. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any other qualifications on the individual but know that for an individual to achieve that position he must be a well respected experienced individual.

In the article “Why Do Newspapers Endorse Candidates? Because They Should” Bob Unger makes the argument on why his newspaper makes a choice to endorse a candidate that is running for an elected position. He also continues on to point out not just why they chose a candidate but the criteria and how they make their selection. This article is written so that any everyday reader can pick up the article and understand the newspapers position and the choices that they make. The article helped me to better understand this practice but even with the information I still have to question the practice and how it is carried out.

Most individuals give a level of trust to the media and what information is being disseminated. Unfortunately, newspapers are written by men which have a proven track record through history of being incorrect or corrupt time and time again. There is a history of Bob Unger and his newspaper being incorrect in their stories or information distributed to the public such as, for example, an episode dealing with a “Little Red Book Hoax.”If Bob Unger and his media have a track record of being incorrect then how do you know they are correct in the candidate they endorse? Bob wrote that they interview each candidate for an hour as part of the selection process. What questions do they ask? Who chooses these questions? What were their responses? Bob Unger fails to make any mention of this in the article. He states that it is up to himself and one other individual to make the choice. That places a tremendous power in two individuals hand, more power then their should be. What if these individuals chose a candidate for other then what they feel is best for their readers? With their position, there is a large possibility or temptation for corruption to rear its ugly head into the process.

The main issue I have with the process is it defeats the democratic process. It is up to the voters to decide if the candidate best represents their interests. The public is very persuasive and easily influenced by outside sources. How many voters would of voted for a candidate other then what the newspaper endorsed or how many voters that were undecided made up their minds for the endorsed candidate drawing votes from what may of been the opposition? Even up to election day, depending upon surveys and studies, there may be between 5%-10% or more voters undecided. The newspaper just influenced the outcome of the election.

I understand the medias freedom of speech and the right to express their opinion but I believe that newspapers and other media outlets should hold themselves to a higher standard and only report just factual information and leave it up to the voters to decide who, in their own view best represents their interests. Voters gain confidence in their choice and decision. If an external factor makes their decision they may end up unhappy with their voting choice and gain cynicism about their governmental system and withdrawal from the democratic process which undermines and destroys the foundation of what allows our nation to function.