You are here: Home / Archives for Ethics

The GOP is Dreaming Act

May 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

 

The Dream Act has been in circulation in Congress since 2001. It was created as a compromise to all the comprehensive immigration reform bills that failed to get through congress in the decades after Regan’s landmark immigration reform bill that squeeked by in 1986. In 2008, after failing to get the backing of Congress several times, a Republican, Kay Bailey Hutchison, announced she would work with the authors of the Dream Act to add some language that would make it more palatable for Republicans to buy-off on.

 

This Dream  Act 2.0 was then re-introduced to congress. You would think this version would have been a slam dunk, as Republicans got to put their fingerprints all over it by making it more restrictive on who is eligible and excluding some of the benefits it bestowed upon those who qualified, but wouldn’t you know it? Even after being able to amend the Dream Act, and turn it into a more restrictive measure for keeping the best immigrants residing under the radar with us today, that still wasn’t good enough. The Dream Act v2.0 failed to pass a vote in 2009.

 

Back to the drawing board and Republicans got to water it down some more and make it even more exclusive by adding background checks, biometric data, specifying specific crimes that would make some candidates ineligible, and more. Surely this Dream Act would sail through Congress.

 

Nope. Just as the Dream Act went through its last changes in 2011 and had been stripped of many of it’s benefits that were designed to encourage the best and brightest of our undocumented citizens to stay and participate in making this country better and safer, the Republicans were getting crankier and more power-drunk.  Stopping President Obama from accomplishing anything in his first term appears to have been their primary objective. The only Dream Act the Republicans were working on was a one term Democratic President.

 

Now that the Republicans have watered down the Dream Act into something more likely to be called a Short Nap Act, they get to vote it down and deny the Democrats another Victory. And guess what? Along comes a Republican with a NEW idea!

 

He hasn’t said what it is, but his new Dream Act Lite will surely have what it takes to get Republican support in Congress. This time it will have one thing that the other three versions didn’t; a Republican author. (It was those blasted Democrats that kept getting in the way.)

But what about history repeating itself you may ask? Yep, I have been wondering too. I don’t think this version of the Daydream Act will pass either. Just think of all the years of effort and compromise the Democrats went though in order to appease the Republicans. Do you think the Democrats will vote for this version whenever it gets revealed?

 

Me neither, and I also think that’s just what the Republicans want. That way, they have an excuse to blame the Democrats for this stalemate.

 

This bill has been modified and tabled so many times it should be called the, “Nightmare on ‘C’  Street.”

 

The Dream Act as it stands right now has been crafted by both Democrats and Republicans. If that won’t help it pass through Congress, nothing will.

 

Some Republicans liken the latest, most stripped down version of the Dream Act as “back door amnesty.” I urge you to read the article below on the Dream Act and what it really says about the bill at is stands today. How could any sane person see this as a gift that will be used against us by masses of undeserving people? It is so restrictive and sets the bar so high for those to qualify, and STILL doesn’t guarantee anyone citizenship –just the opportunity to apply for it– AND only the best of the best will qualify.  Smart, ambitious, strong, sacrificing. Who wouldn’t want these fine young people to be a part of their nation? Yet this still is not good enough for our Republican Ultra-conservative Congressmen, who have forgotten they work for us. Somewhere along the way, these elected officials began to fill themselves with themselves and I don’t think there’s anything other than themselves they are capable of thinking about. If you were to ask Congress what was the best solution for the good of the country, do you think you would get a truthful reply? I don’t think they’ve even thought about it in that context.

 

After you read the article below, I urge you to let Congress know how you feel. I left a link to their contact info too. And let’s not forget about the House of Representatives.

 

Any logical person would come to the conclusion that if they can’t pass a law that has been eleven years in the making with help from both sides of the fence, then they are incompetent of doing so, and you know what happens to you or I when our bosses think we can no longer do our jobs? Yep, we get fired.

 

Congress, you are on notice.

 

Give  the President a decent immigration bill to sign or you will not be invited back, and the people who will be filling your current positions will know that the same fate will apply to them– with one major difference: instead of having eleven years to get something done, they will have just one term. We need people in our government who can play nicely with each other and help solve our nations problems. Jokers, posers and frauds need not apply.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

http://www.dreamactivist.org/text-of-dream-act-legislation/

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Filed Under: DREAM Act, Education, Ethics, immigrants, Laws, Politics

“Two White Hats” an anti-immigrant ideology exposed

May 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

In response to “TWO WHITE HATS” by Lindsey Grant*

 

Your paper makes an argument that two child families and a small 200,000 immigrant cap per year is what is best for our country. While at first blush your argument may sound logical to some people, the premise upon which it is built is reprehensible to any free thinking person on earth. Upon closer study it reveals a mad-scientist, “Rule the World” scheme that usually can be found in late night horror movies, saturday morning cartoons, or books and movies by Ian Fleming.

 

Global migration is a by-product of the success and growth of any region in the world, relative to the poverty and excess labor of others. In nature it is called the law of equilibrium.

 

It is Natural- This has been going on since man began to travel. Nobody made up the idea to move from a poor region into a more prosperous one. It was just logical. Since it is logical and natural, to attempt to regulate it will be expensive, time and energy consuming, and almost guaranteed to be futile.

 

It is self regulating- Whenever an area becomes saturated with a good or service, prices dive and the competition dies off, leaving the strongest to serve the region. No area supports an over abundance of consumers with limited resources. Instead, alternate regions needing service are searched out by those unable to compete, or alternative products are created to fill the new needs of those that are able to stay behind. One only has to look at our current Net Zero Immigration which has taken place during our recession. People gave up looking for work and went home. People who have jobs did not return home for their seasonal round-trip migration. No Memo went out. This is social proof that the situation is self-regulating and natural.

 

It solves the needs of both the poor and the rich-. Are we to say that an area with plenty of labor but few jobs is better off the way it is, as well as an area that is growing prosperous and needing more goods and services should be left to stagnate due to a bottleneck of suppliers?  Of course not. Both the overabundant and the impoverished prosper. What the heck is so wrong with this? Why is it that some of the people who have so much think they will continue to have this bounty when the bottlenecks finish draining them of their current excess resources?

 

This natural migration phenomenon doesn’t steal from anyone, and competition is what we as a nation are founded on. Force someone to hire a poor, lazy  person, immigrant or citizen, instead of a hungry, energetic, hardworking person, and productivity will plummet, as will morale, quality control, and damage repair will increase until the reputation of that person, company, region or nation is no longer the shining example is used to be.

 

Our first obligation to our country is to do what is best for our country, not force it to employ people who don’t want to work, or think that the work we force them into is what they themselves really needs. I think the Germans did this in World War II, and the Japanese did this to the Chinese, and. . . Never has forced labor been a benefit to a society, rather, it always became a shame to it.

 

Secondly, a two child family- I don’t know what KKK textbooks you are reading, but if you read any of the news articles circulating the past few months about the, “Net Zero Immigration” phenomenon, you will have heard that a part of the reason this is happening is the hispanic fertility rate has fallen to 2.4 children. We are already almost at a two child family right now, without legislation demanding it. Forcing people to stop having children is reprehensible. How would this be done? Abortion? Sterilization? Castration? These types of solutions are currently only on display in but a few horror movies. I can’t believe someone with a supposed education could even propose something as sick as this.

 

The whole thesis of “Two White Hates” is faulty and it’s implied solutions are abominable. Few societies in our planets history have ever attempted to make ideologies such as this government policy. One doesn’t have to look far to see why none of those societies are around any longer.

 

In summation you end with a FAIR party-line slogan of 200,000 immigrants per year cap, coming from the hugely erroneous idea that the immigration caps of the early 20th century could somehow sustain our 21st century population. Your intellectual and highly educated argument for this is,

 

“That level was large enough to include an immensely valuable flow of scientists and intellectual leaders, and it should be sufficient again.”

 

Yep, that didn’t sound stupid or forced. If something is “immensely valuable” why would you want to limit it? To drive this point home, imagine this conversation,

 

“Because you opened a new savings account with us, we are going to give you a free bar of gold.”

 

“No thanks. I have enough money. Maybe next year.”

 

 

 

 

Two White Hats: http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Two%20White%20Hats.pdf

 

Net Zero Immigration:  http://bit.ly/JXNt7W

 

Lower Fertility Rates of immigrants:  http://bit.ly/KwbZf6

 

 

 

Filed Under: Economy, Ethics, Hate, immigrants, Laws, Politics

What Apple Computers problem with Mike Daisey has to do with our Immigration conundrum

May 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

 

I have been a big proponent of Amnesty for our immigrants in the country illegally. My reason has always been, “We knew they were here, we bought products made, harvested, delivered by them. We enjoyed many services they provided us and not once did we take a stand and boycott a company because we were getting a good price because of immigrant labor. We are complicit in this whole problem. Our immigration debacle exists solely because of our demand for good prices and the governments inability to create systems to allow our industries to get the labor they need legally. Because of our participation, no, our creation of this problem, we owe it to the immigrants to create a system where they can stay here legally.

 

A recent interview by two reporters discussing the recent Mike Daisey fiasco makes this point very well. Ira Glass from “This American Life” that broke the false story about Apple Computers, and later retracted it, speaks with Charles Duhigg of the New York Times. 1

 

“Charles Duhigg: … do you feel comfortable knowing that iPhones and iPads and, and other products could be manufactured in less harsh conditions, but that these harsh conditions and perpetuate because of an
economy that you are supporting with your dollars.
Ira Glass: Right. I am the direct beneficiary of those harsh conditions.
Charles Duhigg: You’re not only the direct beneficiary; you are actually one of the reasons why it exists. If you made different choices, if you demanded different conditions, if you demanded that other people enjoy the same work protections that you yourself enjoy, then, then those conditions would be different overseas.”

 

 

We are not only the beneficiaries of illegal labor, But we are the reason it exists in the first place. If we would have demanded the U.S. Government get us the labor we needed to supply us with the labor that affords us this lifestyle, we would not have this problem today.

 

Picking on the immigrant and trying to put all the blame on them for this situation would be the same as putting the blame of poor working conditions in China on the laborers themselves. (had there really been poor working conditions) Amnesty or a Pardon, or whatever you want to call it, is really the only honorable way out of this mess. It’s time to stop picking on the worker and take responsibility for this mess, and fix it before it gets any worse.

 

 

 

1 You can read the whole story here   http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/18/apple-and-the-daisey-affair/?hpt=hp_t3

Filed Under: Business, Economy, Employment, Ethics Tagged With: ,

An Argument for Amnesty

May 10, 2012 by 1 Comment

 

Although our laws have changed many times over the years, our attitudes towards immigrants have remained the same, even while admitting we are a “melting pot” country and that immigrants made this country all that it is today.

 

We have always had a need / fear relationship with immigrants. Our history of laws tells this story quite eloquently.

 

During the gold rush, California was awash in asian immigrants who came here looking for opportunity. We needed cheap laborers to build the railroads, do our laundry, cook, work in mines, and any other hard unwanted work. We weren’t too pleased with our immigrant workers, but they served a purpose so we put up with them, until gold became scarce and the competition for work made them more undesirable. We really liked to single out our asian immigrants, imposing more rules and limits on them than any other immigrant community. We even specifically banned Chinese in 1892.

 

Currently we are demonizing the Mexican immigrant, and grouping all other latino immigrants in with them by proxy.  As with the Chinese, we liked them when times were good. They did the hard and dirty work and made our lives much easier, but ever since jobs began to get scarce, we needed to blame someone for what ails us and they look like the easiest target. After we get over demonizing Latinos, I am sure we will find another immigrant base to focus our anger and responsibility on. If history does repeat itself, my money is on the Chinese. They seem to be our favorite.

 

If we look at our immigrant forefathers, when they first came to this country, they were persecuted and made scapegoats for any problem that the citizens of this country did not see fit to take responsibility for themselves. Because of this, every successive wave of immigrants has had to endure this treatment, until finally they became accepted and the focus on them decreased. This was almost always because of a newer group of immigrants who appeared to be more of a threat than the previous one.

 

For the past several years there has raged a large debate as to what to do with the millions of undocumented latino workers living in our country. Politicians have see-sawed over this issue countless times, promising improvements in immigration policy and then restating their positions after considerable party pressure. It’s like they want to do the right thing, but when they feel like they may be eaten by their own, they retreat to the comfort and protection of their party.  This may be very much our fault too.

 

And that is the point isn’t it? Whose fault is it that they are here illegally to begin with? Should we put the blame for this situation on the people who were just working within the constructs of what they were given, or on the people who created the need but ignored the systems required to satisfy that need? And if it is our fault– if the immigrants had no control over a system that is broken beyond belief and has been for years– then how can we blame and punish them? After all, aren’t we the only ones who can create the policies and institutions necessary to ensure everyone who comes into this country is identified, and we have the labor we need?

 

Lets end the blame game and get on with the solution, which leads me to my original proposition: Isn’t amnesty the honorable way out of this mess?

 

These people have been here for many years and we have never boycotted a single company that made a product for us cheaper because they used immigrant labor. Shouldn’t we give them citizenship should they desire it? At the very least we should make it legal for them to be here and decriminalize a population of hardworking people that aren’t criminals to begin with.

 

This is our mess. We need to take responsibility for it, and fix it, without blaming the pawns in our little blame game.

 

 

Filed Under: Economy, Ethics, immigrants, Immigration's effects on citizens, Laws, Politics

Is Mexican a bad word?

May 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Hate is one of those social crimes that every society is guilty of, but few people want to be openly associated with. Sometimes it lives in shadows behind the scene, sometimes it is coded and boasted about like a badge of honor. Each flavor of hate, from which there are many, has it’s own special language. We all need to be aware when someone wears a mask of civility, but in reality they harbor no good will.

 

I am compiling a list of these terms and phrases along with their meanings and put them together in an ebook. I will also include some suggestions of what to do when you encounter someone using this language in the hopes of guiding our national dialogue into a more constructive direction.

 

Mexican-  This term is used to group all Latino’s into one big group. It’s easier to hate everyone if you just lump them all together. That way it’s not necessary to ask someone if they are from Mexico or any one of the Central or South American countries and then figure out how they feel about each one separately.1 If you Google “immigration” you will find hundreds of articles about there being 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants from Mexico, when really they are only one nation we get immigrants from, and not all of them are undocumented.

 

This is truly unfortunate for the people who are from Mexico, to have their nationality specifically associated with such anger and contempt.  Associating Mexican with illegal alien has become so commonplace that many Mexicans appear surprised and even insulted when the title Mexican is used in their presence. When the nationality of a single race is singled out and associated with condemnation so often that it sounds like the mere mention of the country is an insult, it becomes very difficult to change the dialogue to a more compassionate one, which is what is going to have to happen in order to take the first steps towards any progress in this whole immigration issue.  This needs to be stopped now.

 

 

 

How to combat this-

 

If you are from Mexico, you have every right to be proud of your heritage, just like many Americans who boast of being Italian, or Irish, or Jewish, Polish, Scottish, Welsh, German, French, etc. . . Stand up and take back the name of your country by using it proudly in your speech.  Let the world know that being a Mexican is as good as being from any other country.

 

If you are not from Mexico-  Politely stop them and make it clear what country you are from. Your country is just as good as any other too. Every country has something that their citizens can be proud of. Don’t allow people to lump you together with the ones they think they hate, making it easier to disparage your character, customs or heritage along with somebody else’s.  Letting them know where you come from will make it much tougher for them to do that.

 

A word of caution: Some people may not be aware that they are doing this. When even the news media does this it could have innocently been picked up by people who just don’t know better. Try to educate, not humiliate and infuriate. If they purposely continue to use Mexican when they speak of undocumented immigrants, just walk away and let them swim in the cesspool they fill with hate each and every day.

 

Disagree? Did I forget something? Leave a comment below the post. I will curate the best input from the public and include it in the ebook, as well as give you credit for it.

 

 

1 According to DHS Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of Origin

and Top Twenty States of Residence in 2009:

 

2009 %

All countries …….. 10,750,000    100

Mexico …………….   6,650,000      62

El Salvador ……….     530,000       5

Guatemala ……….     480,000        4

Honduras. . . . . . .     320,000        3

Philippines ………..    270,000        2

India ………….. ..        200,000        2

Korea ………….  ..      200,000        2

Ecuador ……………    170,000        2

Brazil …………..  …    150,000         1

China …………………..120,000         1

Other ………. …..     1,650,000       15

Filed Under: Ethics, Hate, immigrants

Mitt Romney, the GOP, and America

May 10, 2012 by 1 Comment

I posted a blog entry on September 18th titled, “We Need A Hero,” and I thought I spotted one the other day. Newt Gingrich, you came forward and spoke your mind. You stood a moral ground and said you were “prepared to take heat” for it.

 

Well you got the heat.

 

Michelle Bachman and MItt Romney both took out their matches and tried to light fires under you so you would no longer be a threat to their nomination bids. Michelle Bachman called you, “The most liberal G.O.P. Candidate on immigration reform.” Which I guess was supposed to be an insult. Mitt Romney tried to put words in your mouth, overstating your position in an effort to make you vulnerable to an attack from your own party. We clearly see what he is made of.

 

Now we see you wavering a bit, stating you are not for amnesty, and 25 years should be the cut-off point for anyone who came here illegally to apply for a “Red Card” which would let them live here, but not as citizens. Excuse me, but 25 years ago was 1986, and anyone who was in the United States in 1986 was offered Amnesty back then. A  25 year cut-off really makes no sense.

 

Mr. Gingrich, you don’t need to back down. There is nothing morally wrong in what you said, and you know it– that’s why you said it.

 

What I am sure every American in this country believes to be true is that have all the politicians we need. What America needs right now is a Hero. We need someone to stand up for what is right, more than for what is popular.

 

At first this would seemingly fly in the face of what Politics is all about, but I beg to differ.  Our greatest statesmen stood on principle when it would have been easier to echo the popular view. Those who did and said what was popular at the moment, will not be remembered long, nor celebrated for their contribution to mediocrity, or immorality.

 

Help us take back that which we seem to lose more of every year–our National Pride. We have screwed up the world economy, we were embarrassingly wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we don’t know how to get out of Afghanistan, we keep people imprisoned indefinitely without charges at Guantanamo Bay, and we got busted shipping guns to Mexico. (Like we really needed that one.) Every time we go to sleep at night we wonder what new controversy we may find ourselves in the middle of tomorrow.

 

When you spoke up for a Nation that did not believe in breaking up families– I began to see amber waves of grain again. When you spoke up for a nation that values friends and neighbors instead of creating a cultural and social war zone; I caught a glimpse of a “brotherhood from sea to shining sea.” When you said you would take the heat for trying to give us back some National Pride, I clearly saw someone “Who more than self their country loved. And mercy more than life!” .

 

America does not shed her grace on the lazy, or the timid, or the selfish. America needs a great leader now as much as any other time in our history. We are losing world confidence in our financial solvency. Our reputation as a bully to smaller countries goes unchecked despite our best intentions. And our inability to rise above ourselves and get out of our own way when it comes to welcoming “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free” is tragic. If these words mean nothing any more then they should be stricken from the monument, or forever be the yardstick by which our failure as a great and free country is measured.

 

Mr. Gingrich, I understand that you fear your own party is turning on you, as your opponents would like you to believe. I understand the fear you must be feeling when even your advisors tell you that your position on immigration could lose you the nomination.

 

That is real heat. But fear not; you are not alone. Your opponents feel it too or they would not have shot back with whatever foley was at their command. Don’t listen to the voice in the back of your mind telling you to step away from a position that is morally right.

 

Ten years from now and after, when we look back on this battle, as we have done each time we have fought to defend a moral idea against a false but popular position, you can be sure that you are in the company of other great men in our nation’s history.

 

It takes the heat of a mighty furnace to forge mere rock into steel, and a relentless battering to shape that steel into a sword. You are in a place right now where you can be that sword, a shining example of what is good about this country, and your political competition, which is made of softer, more malleable materials, will be reduced to ashes and relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

So Mr. Gingrich, when you are up late at night, and the day’s events play over and over again in your head, and you end the day with that one all-powerful question: How will the future see Newt Gingrich?” There really is an easier way to ask that question that should make the answer perfectly clear, “Are you a Lincoln or are you a Douglas?”

 

Mike J Quinn

 

Citizen,

The United States of America

 

Filed Under: Ethics, Immigration's effects on citizens, Politicians, Politics

Marrying a foreign citizen is not a crime

May 5, 2012 by Leave a Comment

It so happens that before 1997, spouses and parents could file the paperwork, pay a thousand dollar fee and the documents for their family member would be in the mail. All President Obama is trying to do is repeal this last little amendment to the immigration policies. The current immigration policy doesn’t just punish the immigrant, it punishes the American citizens that our laws are designed to protect as well.

There is no law against marrying anyone we choose, so we should not go around breaking families up because one of them committed a civil infraction. We would be a nation of single people if we did. Imagine not being able to marry someone because they got a parking ticket a few years ago. Sounds ridiculous right? Not for some of us. We now need to check the immigration status of our potential mates, because if they are here without proper paperwork, our family could get broken up and lives destroyed. Sounds romantic doesn’t it?

If we all just take a breath and relax a moment, we will see that the sky is not falling and America will not go “down the toilet” if we allow our fellow citizens who found themselves in love with someone who entered without inspection to keep their families together, just like they had so easily done before 1997. President Obama isn’t trying to destroy our country, he’s trying to protect our families.

The Civil Code by Findlaw.com can be found here

 

http://bit.ly/xSiYCd

Filed Under: Ethics, immigrants, Immigration's effects on citizens, Laws
« Previous Page