Immigration

So what's the answer? No, I don't know. But I do have comments.

Of course.

To those who want to literally build a wall across our Southern border I have one thing to say: Get a grip! Does that not remind you of another very famous wall of days gone by? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "B". Do not kid yourselves, that is exactly what the world (and many Americans) would call it: The New Berlin Wall.

Could we please remember this key point: We are a nation of immigrants. We came here, we killed large numbers of Natives (those we didn't kill we put on little plots of less than lush land), and we took over the joint. [And when I say "we" I do not mean me and mine. When we showed up here the Natives had already been shoved farther West than we've ever wandered.] Now we want to keep all other immigrants out?

Yeah, that makes sense.

For those kvetching about these new bills that would make it a crime to employ illegal aliens, you need to check the laws: it's already illegal to employ an illegal alien. Also, that's one of the best ways to deal with the issue.

The businesses hiring illegals and the governments (ours and Mexico's) that actually make it easier to come here and work illegally are the problem. They need to be given a time out and told to stop that.

People will continue to come here and live and work illegally as long as they can get jobs. So the businesses need to stop supplying the jobs.

Of course, these are really cheap workers. They'll work for a wage that can't legally be paid to Americans and they're off the books, so little things like taxes and social security don't have to be paid for/by them.

Which means the businesses aren't going to voluntarily stop hiring and employing these folks. So the government needs to actually come down on them and make them face the consequences.

It would also help if our government would tell Mexico to stop encouraging their citizens to come here. Not surprisingly, Mexico is not particularly pleased about people who attempt to sneak across their Southern border and they're not overly nice to those folks. But they don't care if their own citizens skip on up here. They need to work on their own country, their own economy so that their people don't have such a crazy need to leave.

About the suggestion that we wave a magic wand and make those currently living and working here now legal. Nah. That's not a good idea. They're illegal aliens so they're not paying taxes (and haven't been for as long as they've been here).

Though I don't think we should throw them all out, build a big ol' wall and keep 'em out, then sit around pretending to be Isolationists while simultaneously attempting to take over the world, I also don't think they should get quite that free of a ride. They've been enjoying many of the societal services provided for by everyone else's taxes.

As for the throwing them out thing: Again, get a grip. And keep in mind that many of them have children who were born here, thus making said children U.S. citizens. And we can't exactly deport U.S. citizens just because we decided to. And deporting their parents wouldn't be right either.

So how about some sort of expedited process for those already here? Get them on the books, in the system, paying taxes, and working on legal citizenship.

At the same time, U.S. businesses need to be strongly "encouraged" to stop hiring illegal aliens. That will seriously slow down the influx because if there are no jobs then there's no reason to come here anymore.

But... we have a government that loves business. We have a government that doesn't like to come down hard on business.

So what are the chances they will over this?

Little to none.

Which leaves us where?

Exactly where we are.

Figures.

The good news is that the debates on the issue have been postponed to Thursday. Hopefully they will be in (or will continue into) the afternoon so I can listen to C-Span on my computer at work.

Exactly

"Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation."

-Nelson Mandela, 2005

If you haven't yet seen The Girl in the Cafe, I highly recommend it.

What are they thinking?

Have you read about the Constitutional amendments that some are pushing Congress to consider? There are two.

1. One is about marriage. You know the line: one man and one woman. So in other words, it's about amending the Constitution to take rights away from Americans, it's about actually discriminating against a class of Americans. Not exactly the overall purpose of the Constitution.

2. The flag desecration amendment. Again. This time, though, I think they might have the votes. So again, this is about taking rights away from people. The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, protects us from having our speech restricted by the government. Whereas this amendment would restrict our speech and would subject us to punishment for a very powerful form of peaceful protest. Again, not exactly the purpose behind the Constitution.

The Supremes

The Supreme Court Justices, that is. Of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

I went to the Court today to listen to oral arguments for a couple of cases. The building--newly renovated, for those unfamiliar with the area--is really quite beautiful. The inside of the courtroom is impressive. However, the most lasting visual impression had nothing to do with the decor.

The Supreme Court here in Ohio has more female justices than male justices. There are 4 women and 3 men. That is a sight to behold. It is impressive to see.

But an even more lasting impression has to do with race. The 7 justices, sitting behind the bench at the front of the room, are all white. And seated one to each side of the bench are the 2 clerks (bailiffs?). Both of whom are black.

So the visual is the 7 white justices bookended by the 2 black clerks.

It made an impression.

We'll finish today with a few tips for you should you ever argue a case before The Supremes:

• Do not tell a justice that his/her question is "weird."
• Do not call the justices "judge." If you can't come up with their names in the heat of the moment, stick to "your honor."
• Don't argue. Yes, yes, it's called an oral argument. But don't actually be argumentative. Don't raise your voice to the Supreme Court Justices (state or federal!).
• Do not sigh so loudly in response to a question from a justice that you can be heard in the back of the room.
• When the justices start chatting and laughing amongst themselves, you need to perhaps bulk up your argument really quickly. Or just sit down.

Quote of the day

Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Politician of the Week

Ohio State Senator Robert F. Hagan.

He is the hands down winner of the week. In response to the adoption restriction bill that was recently introduced in the Ohio House [see my post from February 17, Bills Pending in Ohio], Senator Hagan sent out what is being called a "mock memo."

The subject of the memo was "Co-Sponsorship Request." The first line:

I intend to introduce legislation in the near future that would ban households with one or more Republican voters from adopting children or acting as foster parents.

Hagan goes on to say that children raised in Republican households are "more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

A quick google search will find more fun quotes from the memo. It's interesting, I laughed when I read it, yet at the same time it made me really sad. That the House bill has been introduced is just... well, disgusting, really.

I love that Senator Hagan sent this out. What a fantastic way for him to make his point!

He is not, by the way, alone in his feelings about the House bill. Not by a long shot. Even some of the more conservative papers in the state have printed editorials and such slamming the adoption restriction bill.

There are just too many kids out there in need of good, safe, supportive homes. To further restrict the homes, the parents, available to them because of intolerance, dislike, fear is simply unconscionable.

So three cheers to Senator Hagan this week, he deserves it.

34%

That would be the president's latest approval rating.

Yeah, there's a mandate for you.

Here are some interesting facts about the 2004 election. We've often heard that Bush received more votes than any other president in history (I assume this is where he got his crazy mandate idea). What we do not hear is that there were also more votes cast against him than against any other president in our history.

This would be about population growth and lack of third party candidates, not a mandate for change.

His 6.3% margin over Kerry was also the smallest by any encumbant president in our history.

So again, what mandate is he talking about?

Would you like to know Cheney's approval rating? 18%. Wow.

You know who has an even lower approval rating? Can you guess?

Did you even try to guess?

The governor of the great state of Ohio, Bob Taft. As of a couple of weeks ago, his approval rating was 16%. The truly sad part? That's an improvement. He bottomed out at 6% back in November.

There's really just nothing else to say. The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.