Immigration Law and Mexico

I pick Mexico, not out of racism. I pick it, due to the shear percentage of illegals that originate from that nation and how much it's government attempts to interfere with our immigration law.

Whenever the United States makes moves to duplicate any of Mexico's immigration laws; the Mexican government and it's people protest, lobby and otherwise interfere in the actions of our country's citizens. You know why this is? Remittances from Mexicans working in the United States accounts for $25-$26 billion annually. They are Mexico's second largest source of hard currency, after oil. Mexico fights to keep our borders weak, not because they hate Americans. They do it, because their economy will collapse without the money illegals send home.

Here is how Mexico's immigration law works:

Illegal immigrants in Mexico do not benefit from any government subsidies; no unemployment checks, no welfare, no food stamps, no free medical, no subsidized or free housing, no social security, nothing. Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not"physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. Citizens in Mexico are required to carry papers that prove their status. Visitors and tourists are also required to carry papers proving their legal right to be in the country. Anyone who is stopped (even without cause) and doesn't have their papers, can be arrested as an illegal immigrant.

As much as I dislike the idea of Mexico's economy collapsing and the ensuing chaos is will cause, I dislike their parasitic dependence on us even more. The claim by big agra and others that the illegals perform work that no one else will is a business tactic, nothing more. It's the same claim that big agra on Mexico's southern border uses to work Central and South Americans at less than Mexican minimum wage. The business world wants to rip the poor man off. It's easier and more profitable to do so than it is to rip the rich man off. Bust the business who perform such practices. Make it cost more to rip off the poor man than it does to rip off the rich man.

I support us reforming our system to make it less difficult for law abiding people to legally enter our country. Our great nation was built on immigration. Those who have illegally come here need to go to the back of the line, as they have proven that they aren't law abiding people. I also support the United States enacting and enforcing immigration law similar to that in Mexico. The National Guard should work the border alongside our Border Patrol. Border violation is a military issue. Yes, there are a lot of "innocent" people. Unfortunately, violent criminals and terrorists can easily use them as cover. This is dangerous to the United States and it's just as dangerous for the immigrants.

Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

I absolutely support the strict enforcement of our borders. There is zero racism or nativism behind this sentiment. I love and support the legal immigration of all kinds of people. Immigrants have built this country and continue to build this country. For me, it's a security issue. The United States has a lot of enemies. We also have a huge crime problem. Spotty enforcement of immigration law and poor control of the borders increases the risk posed by both of these problems.

I have mixed feelings about the Arizona law. At it's core, I support the concept of the law. The fact that they thought to eliminate the possibility of "sanctuary" areas is good too. My single biggest concern is the fact that since it's only one state, it creates a situation of unequal enforcement. Since the control of our borders is supposed to be a Federal concern, immigration enforcement should also be a Federal concern.

The rampant spewing of reactionary fear and threats of boycotts is due to the media's misinformation. No, the Arizona police can't just stop you for no reason. They can't just go, "let's stop all the brown people." You have to be stopped for a reason other than "looking illegal." In other words, you have to be doing something wrong already.

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

The one part of the law most likely to be struck down is the section on day worker solicitation. The Supreme Court has already addressed that issue and it had been killed on a Freedom of Speech concern. So long as Arizona enforces this fairly and doesn't trump up charges against specific ethnic groups, most of the law should stand in court.

Political Power

If you haven't heard yet, apparently Sonoma County separated an elderly gay couple and sold off all of their worldly possessions. This, despite the two men having used every legal device open to them. Rather than re-printing all of the details here, I will just give you the link. Sonoma County Separates Elderly Gay Couple

Yes, this incident is terrible. Yes, we should protest, write letters and spread the word. Yes, Sonoma County should get the crap sued out of it and the money should go to Clay. Yes, the county personnel responsible for this tragedy should all be fired. None of this will bring Harold back or reduce the hurt that Clay will feel for the rest of his life.

Incidents like this bring to mind something that my mother taught me. Our votes and protests have power, but it's our wallet that really speaks. When locations and businesses refuse to support your rights and/or ideals, stop giving them money. This may mean that the children of religious fundamentalists lose out on Disney products. This may also mean that gay people won't be able to get their cheap WalMart fix. If you truly believe in what you say you believe in, you're willing to sacrifice for it.

If you aren't willing to give up that cheap Chinese toy, or listen to your kid beg for their Mickey fix, or forgo your favorite Sonoma wine... don't complain. If you aren't willing to sacrifice for your beliefs and/or rights, why should someone else?

Mega-corps and Net Neutrality

Joelle Tessler of the AP: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "Net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers."

I don't argue the legal merit if this ruling. Under the current law, the FCC was reaching outside of it's jurisdiction. This situation is a symptom of a greater problem. As we move more towards a world of mega-corporations, we will find that companies have more and more conflicts of interest.

Let's use Comcast as an example. They provide home and business internet services. They also provide home cable and telephone services. Add to this mix the fact that they own CN8, Comcast SportsNet, SportsNet New York, MLB Network, Comcast Sports Southeast/Charter Sports Southeast, E! Entertainment, Style Network, G4/Tech TV, Versus, The Golf Channel, AZN Television, FEARnet, NHL Network, Exercise TV, NBC Universal, Philadelphia 76ers, Philadelphia Flyers and more.

When a company of Comcast's size has divisions that come into conflict, it is the parent company's job to determine priority. This priority will not necessarily be what's best for the individual customer. It will be what's best for the overall bottom line. This means that the small customer of the internet division may lose out in favor of the financial gains in the television or film division.

Comcast uses bandwidth as the excuse to kill Bit Torrent, claiming that it just slows down the network for other customers. If bandwidth really is the issue, they should ban MMPORPGs and online film/television viewing. These are also huge bandwidth hogs. Oh wait. They have money invested in those areas and would lose out. Hmmm... so it has nothing to with bandwidth in the end does it? It's about money. In addition to legitimate traffic, Bit Torrent is the most common form of piracy. They don't want to lose out on the money they think is being pirated from them. They also don't care if those legitimate users get hurt in the process.

Congress is currently entertaining a law that will give the FCC the authority to enforce Net Neutrality. I support this. I believe in absolute Net Neutrality. It's the only way to ensure freedom of the press and to ensure that whistle blowers have the freedom to expose wrongs done. Yes, this means some improper conduct will be allowed. If I have to choose between a few MP3 downloads getting stopped or the Free Iran movement being able to keep us updated, I will pick the Free Iran folks every time.

My ideal solution would be to ban companies from getting into these conflict of interest situations in the first place, but that is highly unlikely. As long as we are going to have corporations that have internal conflicts of interest, we need to give an outside power the ability to ensure that those conflicts are resolved in the favor of the consumer.

Militias and the American Language

The concept of militias has been in the news of late. This post is about misuse of language in the popular vernacular and the media. It is not about the fools who got themselves arrested. The popular view of what a militia is differs greatly from what it really is. Many populist militias do not fit the language definition of a militia, nor do they fit the U.S. legal definition. A more correct term would be paramilitary or insurgents.

Should the populist militia be formed for the purpose of defending the nation against outside invasion, or violent coup d'etat, it could be called a militia by the linguistic definition of such. It still would not fit the legal definition of the word. Those units could linguistically be called a paramilitary. The Law Dictionary has not defined "paramilitary." So, legally it is open to interpretation.

Should the populist militia be formed with the active intent to attack or oppose the legal government, their use of the word does not fit the linguistic or legal definitions. As they are not auxiliary to the government's standing military, they could not be linguistically defined as a paramilitary. Linguistically, the best word to define them would be insurgents. Insurgent is not a word covered in the Law Dictionary either, so it is open to legal interpretation.

My view is that the language used by the media feeds into popular misuse, rather than educating the public. Those "militias" that stand ready to defend the country should be called paramilitary units. While those "militias" that stand opposed to the government should be called insurgents. The National Guard and the Armed Forces Reserves are best called militias.

According to Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Main Entry: para·mil·i·tary
Pronunciation: \ˌpa-rə-ˈmi-lə-ˌter-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1935
: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force (a paramilitary border patrol) (paramilitary training)

Main Entry: 1in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: \-jənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise — more at surge
Date: 1765
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

According to the Law Encyclopedia Applies to U.S. law only
Milita
A group of private citizens who train for military duty to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.

In the United States, the National Guard currently serves as the nation's militia. Made up of volunteers, the National Guard acts under the dual authority of both the federal and state governments. According to the Constitution, Congress can call the National Guard into federal service for three purposes: to enforce federal laws, to suppress insurrections, and to defend against invasions. State governors can call upon the National Guard for emergencies that are prescribed by state law.

Another type of militia, not recognized by the federal or state governments, is the private militia. Private militias are composed of private citizens who train for armed combat. The formation of private militias became more common in the United States in the early 1990s as some political groups armed themselves to demonstrate their opposition to certain policies and practices of the federal government. One of the most publicized private militia groups was the Montana Freemen, who were involved in a lengthy standoff with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1996.

CUT EXTENSIVE BITS ABOUT BRITISH AND PRE-REVOLUTION MILITIAS

When state delegates met in 1787 to create the constitution for the new United States of America, the principal division was between those delegates who favored a strong central government and those who preferred to leave more power to the states. The former wanted a strong standing military, and the latter argued for greater reliance on the state militias. The issue of a standing military was particularly controversial because many Americans were suspicious of the very concept of a standing army, associating it with the tyranny they had experienced under Great Britain. Nevertheless, because most of the delegates were more concerned about invasion than domestic tyranny, Congress was given the power to create a standing army if it so chose. Advocates of state power did achieve a partial victory, however, in that authority over the state militias was divided between the federal government and the state governments. Congress was given the authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, but states were given the power to appoint officers and provide training. Congress, not the president, was given the power to summon state militias into federal service for just three specific tasks: "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cls. 15, 16).

During his first term as president, George Washington worked with Secretary of War Henry Knox to reorganize and strengthen the militia. They sent their plan to Congress, and after heated debate Congress, on May 9, 1792, passed what became known as the Uniform Militia Act (1 Stat. 264). This law, which remained the basic militia law until the twentieth century, stated that all free, able-bodied white men, age eighteen to forty-five, were required to serve in their state militias and that they were obligated to supply themselves with the appropriate firearms and equipment. The law provided certain specifications for how militia units were to be organized, but Congress left many details to the states and declined to include sanctions for states or individuals who failed to comply with the law. As a result, the act had little legal weight and served mostly as a recommendation to the states.

All fifteen states did pass laws in response to the Uniform Militia Act. These laws had some provisions in common, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the exemption of conscientious objectors from military duty; the laws varied in other areas, such as in the frequency of training and the methods for selecting officers. In general, the Uniform Militia Act and the laws passed in response to it created many strong and effective state militias; in addition to being an indispensable part of ceremonies and parades, state militia units manned coastal forts, guarded criminals, enforced quarantines, and assisted the police. On the other hand, the many state laws prevented the integration of the various state militias into a reliable force for federal purposes. The federal government often lacked even basic information about the strength and organization of the state militias, making it difficult to make full use of them for military purposes.

Despite the many weaknesses of the militia system, it continued to receive widespread support in the nineteenth century from politicians and the public, who were eager to avoid the expense of a standing army and who viewed the idea of the citizen-soldier as crucial for the maintenance of U.S. freedom and independence. In reality, however, the militia system was often ineffective and unreliable, as during the War of 1812 when militia units were chronically undermanned and poorly prepared. Despite calls for reforms, the militia system declined steadily during the nineteenth century. Less training was required, fewer men attended, and fewer still had firearms, instead showing up for training with cornstalks and broomsticks.

By the 1830s and 1840s, several states had weakened or abolished their systems of compulsory service, relying instead on volunteers. As a result, the militia units became more ceremonial and elitist in nature, as members donned expensive uniforms and equipment to march in parades and other festivals. These volunteer units were useful to state and local authorities because they often assisted the local police in maintaining law and order, which were frequently disrupted by riots and protests, particularly in larger cities.

After the Civil War, in which militia units played a crucial role by supplementing the regular armies of both the Union and the Confederacy, the militia system again went into a decline. A shortage of funds required cutbacks in militia programs, and military service became more unattractive as the rapid growth of industrialism led to frequent labor strikes, which the Army was required to police. According to Russell F. Weigley, a prominent military historian, "The main effect of industrialism seems to have been to reduce inclination and time for amateur soldiering, and thus to weaken the militia institutions inherited from the rural past."

One rejuvenating factor for the militia during this time, however, was the formation of the National Guard Association (NGA) in 1879. This organization was formed to represent the militia's interests before federal and state governments and the public. The name "National Guard," borrowed from the French, was chosen because most states at the time were already using that term to designate their organized volunteer companies. The leaders of the National Guard Association insisted that their units were an integral part of the U.S. military establishment but also maintained the importance of the guard's connection to individual states. In 1887 the NGA achieved its first victory by persuading Congress to raise the federal annual appropriation to arm the guard to $400,000.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Congress and President William McKinley began work to reform the nation's military structure and operations. Secretary of War Elihu Root saw that the United States needed a workable reserve system, rather than the militia, which still operated under the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. Root worked with leaders from the NGA to create a reorganization plan, and the result was the passage in 1903 of the Dick Act (32 Stat. 775), so named for Major General Charles Dick, who had played a large role in creating and supporting the bill. This act formally repealed the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 and extended federal involvement with the National Guard in peacetime. More federal funds were made available to state National Guard units, and in return the state units were required to drill their troops twenty-four times a year, train reservists in summer encampments, and submit to annual inspections by federal officers.

In the years leading up to World War I, professional officers in the regular army and leaders of the National Guard consistently opposed each other on the issue of establishing a national reserve free from all ties to the states. The NGA contended that National Guard units were the proper national reserve, but military professionals argued that national security could not depend on reserves that had two commanders-in-chief and two chains of command — federal and state. In congressional hearings held in 1916, then ex-Secretary of War Root argued against the guard as a reliable reserve: "The idea … that forty-eight different governors can be the basis for developing an efficient, mobile national army is quite absurd."

Proponents of a national reserve won the debate, and on June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act (39 Stat. 166), which for the first time created reserve components of the regular services under exclusive federal control. The act also conferred federal status on the National Guard, with the federal government providing more funding and exerting more control over it. National Guard units still reported to the state governors and served on a statewide basis, but guardsmen could now be drafted directly into federal service for the duration of an emergency. Guard members now had to take loyalty oaths to the United States as well as to their home states, and the War Department could cut federal aid to the guard unit of any state that failed to comply with the mandates of the act.

This basic system established in 1916 has continued to be maintained with few changes over the course of the twentieth century. The state National Guard units report to both the state and federal governments, but when they are called into federal service, state governors lose their authority over them. This state and federal authority conflicted several times in the 1950s and 1960s, when guard units from southern states were called into federal service to enforce federal desegregation mandates over the objections of the state governors.

Paramilitary
Is not defined by the Law Encyclopedia.

Insurgent
Is not defined by the Law Encyclopedia.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

Don't Ask Don't Tell needs to be removed. Most of our Western partners allow Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgendered (LGBT) folks to serve openly. I don't think we can claim that the British are made less effective by this. As these LGBT folks honor our country with their service, we should honor them.

The resistance to the idea that is coming from the fundamentalist conservatives is a desire control the votes of our soldiers, who are largely young people aged 18-21. The fundamentalists know that if our soldiers get to know LGBT folks as individuals, they will lose the "culture war." Those soldiers will come home, knowing that their gay buddy took a bullet for them, will vote differently on issues that effect the LGBT community.

Maintaining DADT has nothing to do with keeping out military effective. It has everything to do with keeping our young people ignorant.

For those that think repeal of DADT will endanger our LGBT soldiers; there is no requirement for individual gays to "come out." If that individual thinks doing so will endanger them, they can make the decision not to. As a LGBT individual, I think our civil rights movement can learn a lot from MLK and Gandhi. Some of us may get hurt in the process of seeking our equality, but the whole of us will thrive.

Introductory Post

I am a thinking, aware, voting citizen of the United States. My views do not align with any of our existing political parties. Here is a small sample of my world view.

1. What I do personally is nobody's business, unless it can lead to direct harm to another person. If I wanna make hooch for my own use, so be it. I can also sleep with any consenting adult I wish.

2. Universal health care for citizens and legal residents is absolutely necessary. This does not have to be single payer like Canada. It can be not-for-profit insurance like Israel.

3. Speaking of Israel. I support it and want it to thrive. I don't hate "Palestinians." They just need to deal with the fact that they lost. Calling Jews Nazis and denying the Holocaust is only going to hurt their cause. Also, if they want Israel to stop shooting at them and bulldozing their homes... they might want to stop electing terrorists.

4. Government needs to get out of the business of marriage. All government processed paperwork should be called a "Civil Union." These unions should cover heterosexual, homosexual and poly relationships. Who cares who you bind yourself legally to, as long as they are a consenting adult. If you want your union called a marriage; go to your church, shul, temple, Humanist league of choice and have them give your legal contract a new name.

5. Avoid chains and box stores if you absolutely can. When you support local business, you support your local economy. I know it costs a little more, but we should be keeping our small businesses in business. Go without that impulse buy or get a slightly smaller t.v.

6. I support the right to bear arms with a simple caveat. A simple background check looking for a violent criminal history or mental illness should be run before the purchase of any firearm. Violent criminals and those with mental disorders known to lead to violence should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Any attempt by them to do so, should be looked into.

7. Illegal immigration is illegal. It is a violation of our borders and our law. I don't care what race they are or what country they come from. If you are willing to break one major law, you are more open to breaking others. The law must be enforced on the illegals, as well as the companies who hire them. We do need immigration reform, but we do not need amnesty. Those who want to remain after reform should step in at the back of the line, behind those who have followed the legal process all along.

There is a lot more. From here on out I will dedicate individual posts to specific issues and events.