Any reader who has been around awhile, knows I lean left on many issues but not all. I am a strong believer in having realistic laws that the average citizen actually does obey. Don't make a law because it looks good or it sounds nice but rather do it because it makes life better for more people. We have too many laws now that are being overlooked-- our government leading the way in the supposed name of protecting us. Not sure who is going to be the one to protect us from them.
My concern for the law is why I favor sending back to their native country all those who illegally entered here-- not taking into consideration how critical their jobs are, nor how nice they are. Yes, I know it'd be very expensive and disruptive. It also won't happen. I realize it would be a cruel burden on many families. We got into something and now it's hard to see a benevolent way out. Sounds a lot like Iraq, doesn't it? But for me, where it comes to illegal immigration, hasn't it been setting a precedent where our laws are ending up more like suggestions?
The question of law is important not only because of the people who illegally entered, but also because of those in this country who looked the other way and benefited. We have a history of using people for cheap or even free labor. Some say oh no, I didn't do that back then and I'd never do it now, but they know they are getting work done through a contractor who hires illegals. They don't care because it is saving them money. The rule of law be damned.
Recently Senator McCain (candidate for president) said we have to offer a path to citizenship for illegal workers who have been here long enough because otherwise there will be riots. An example of this method of reasoning is when I was the mother of small children and they were misbehaving in a restaurant (not breaking the law but breaking the peace) should I have shrugged my shoulders helplessly and said-- Sorry I can't stop them or they'll have a temper tantrum? Why bother pretending we have laws if riots decide which ones are enforced? What is this teaching our children and grandchildren? That it's okay to exploit people because we did it for so long and it'd be expensive to change our ways.
I believe in closing our borders and putting more pressure on employers to be sure all their employees are legal. I would favor setting up an extensive system to decide which jobs legitimately needed to be done. I would allow those who had originally come here illegally to go home and apply for those jobs and citizenship or a work permit, their choice, equally with their brothers who didn't break the law in the first place. It would have to be done more effectively than government usually operates. I know it'd be hard, but what price are we paying for thumbing our noses at any law that doesn't suit us? And having a sizable illegal population in this country isn't working to strengthen us even if some do think they are making money as it is.
I am one of those who believes when you don't like a law, you change it. You don't break it and then decide to rewrite it to escape consequences. How can we say we have any respect for law and order if the law is only obeyed when it's easy?
I felt the same way about Paris Hilton's jail sentence. I want the law to be the same for everyone. I feel strongly that rich should not be given special privileges; but in her case, it looks like it went the other way and she was made an example. I don't believe in examples. Rich, poor, black, white, purple, whatever the law is, it should be enforced equally. The fact that it isn't right now, does not make it okay to keep letting that happen.
Which the long way around brings me to the reason for this blog. Unfortunately it's still about 17 months away-- not that I am counting-- but an election is approaching again for the presidency of the United States. I have listened to what the different candidates say, the way they present themselves at the so-called debates (which seem more like presentations). As I read their statements or watch them speak, I am looking for certain things-- someone who respects our Constitution, the rule of law, and has the brains to see where things are going before they become disasters. Experience would be a bonus. I want someone with genuine character, not religious piety that when nobody is looking goes out the door for a higher good-- their own. I want to see strength of character-- the kind you see a lot in people but seemingly less and less in politicians. I won't vote for anybody who defends the use of torture.
My biggest concern, given the media we have today, is that we will elect another image. Pretty faces are nice in magazines or films. I am not saying that a handsome person couldn't be an effective leader, but looking presidential is no reason to vote for anyone. Recently it seems it's been all about creating an image, not about ability. I heard a journalist on television discussing one of our problems. He said, the skills that make someone good at running for office aren't necessarily the same ones that make them good at governing.
I hope we have learned something about what matters in a president and don't elect another president because people think he/she would be fun at a barbecue (that is an even worse reason than whether they are good looking. Can you imagine someone saying I sure hope our new CEO is a fun guy?
I am not thrilled with either party's candidates at the moment. It's easier for me to go ballistic on the ones I dislike than talk about the ones I am thinking hey maybe that person would be good. For me, the irony is the Republican or Democrat who look best, at the moment, have very different views on the issues.
On the Republican side, for Dr. Ron Paul, the pluses are his intelligence, understanding for how we got where we are with the Iraq debacle, but mostly his respect for the Constitution (the rest seem to see things like the Bill of Rights as impediments). My concern is his libertarianism, possibly too narrow a view of the Constitution, and that he won't support a federal right to choose abortion.
On the Democratic side, Senator Barack Obama offers as pluses his intelligence, the hope that he is a man of character, his seeming ability to see the big picture. My concerns are is it all image? With his lack of experience in a lot of areas, we have to trust in his judgment of people who have that experience. How is he doing on that?
So is anybody standing out to you? What are the main characteristics for which you will be looking? Is there one issue that is a deal breaker? Are you ready to support one candidate with your contributions and working the phones?
20 comments:
This is another great "political" post, Rain...And I don't know what to say, because like you, I don't see ANYONE that consistantly junps out at me and says...YES, that's my candidate. I agree with you on both Ron Paul and Barack Obama...bothg intereting and maybe even good possabilities...The rest of the Republicans...well, none of them would ever get my vote...no how, no way.
Hillary? I don't trust that she is who she is except to say, I don't know WHO she really is....Kucinich is an interesting man and I would like to read more zbout his convictions---I need to go to his Website...!
As far as the Immigration question...What do you do about the illegals who have had children and those children are actually American Citizens? This is a deeply complex problem with no easy answers, whatsoever....OY!
From an ideological standpoint, this could be my post. But you write it in a way that I could not. I was particularly taken by the phrase "our laws are ending up more like suggestions." That hurts deeply because the Bush administration has made such a mockery of the rule of law, the law itself, all the way up through the Constitution, or "that damn piece of paper" as Bush called it.
As far as the candidates, it is far too early for me to settle in. Obama, though short on experience, is very appealing, but is beginning to look stymied by the Clinton machine and the media.
Thanks Rain for all of your political entries. I actually have you classified in my folders as a Spiritual blogger. Spiritual not taken in any defined religious sense but meaning one who cares deeply about issues, both inner and outward.
As a first generation American, amnesty for illegal immigrants is a lightning rod issue. I think of my parents who came to this country from Spain, struggling to learn to read, write and understand the English language. They played by the rules, followed the law and became citizens, one of the proudest days of their lives.
Seventeen months to go is a long time for the gears of the political machinery to slickly go forward. I am a Democrat and no candidate yet, has caused me to dial for dollars, spend my time to help get them elected but I continue to look at Barack Obama. Fresh face, words of conviction, lack of experience. What will be most telling to me will be to see who become his advisors. Most recently, it is Colin Powell.
No one issue is a deal breaker for me because there are so many vital issues: Ending the war, universal health care; illegal immigration, energy independence, protecting a woman’s right to choose,affordable education for all.
I am looking for: Vision tempered with practicality; Courage but not hawkish strength; Understanding coupled with realistic solutions; Solutions not dogmatic posturing – Real ideas not sound bites.
Marti
I'm an Al Gore fan. I keep hoping he'll run. I've seen him interviewed several times these past few months and his politics are where mine are. He has the sense to know that he is not a good campaigner, that he does not run well. He's right. He's pedantic and boring, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't make a great president. So, I'm holding out for him. My dream ticket: Gore/Richardson or Gore/Obama.
I know we could be doing immigration a lot better than we are. My grandparents came here in the early 1920s the legal way. I think that is the only way it should be done. What to do with the 12 million who are already here illegally, I don't know. A tough stand might send just the right message to others who are enjoying our porous borders. I think we should be prosecuting employers who hire illegals. Unless that is done, there will always be an incentive for an illegal to cross our borders to find work. In fact, I think we should start with the employers, that would let me know our country is serious about illegal immigration.
The law has been put on the shelf. There is a dearth of good candidates for President. Sad times. Immigration laws are haphazardly imposed. :(
My feelings on the immigration issue is that if they don't care about the laws that say how to be here legally, then why should they care about the rest of the laws that govern society? Isn't letting them stay also telling them that our laws don't really matter, or they can pick and choose which ones they want to obey? I feel for the parents who have American children, but they (the parents) are still illegal, and their children should go home with them. They are still minors and should be with their parents. JMHO
Boy, you write it down so much better than I could articulate.
Winston you crack me up that the Bush Administration seemingly is the first in this country to make a mockery of the rule of law. I would have to say Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all had "illegal" activities going on.
For me a big item which lead to disrespect for the law by the common man was the national 55 mph speed limit put in place by Jimmy Carter. Especially out here in the wide open west where we drive on freeways with an 80 mph design speed that had a 70 or 75 mph speed limit before suddenly became 55. And in Nevada you didn't even get a real ticket if they ever even stopped you, it was an environmental infraction and a $5 fine, so they could tell the Feds that yes we are enforcing the national speed limit. That fiasco sent a message to all Americans that some laws are to be obeyed and some are not that important.
Another thing I deal with at work is environmental laws. I have always been a "law and order" kind of person, so when I am dealing with environmental laws, I thought they were real laws. But what I have found out is that if you deal with the correct people or you pay some kind of fee or do some kind of mitigation then the rules are just a good idea that they would like you to follow and you can get around them for the right price.
Here comes the part you may not like Rain. Other than the politicians of both parties who skirt the rule of law from what I have seen in my personal life is that liberal people seem to pick and choose which laws should be followed. I had a guest speaker from the local environmental council in a class I took in college and the purpose of him being there was to get us to not scar the earth as engineers but in his story he told about this beautiful place that he was hiking on while trespassing. I thought at the time so he gets to tell others how to live but doesn't follow the law himself. What if I decided that I didn't like a law about protecting the environment. What would he think about that.
Liberals also smoke a lot of pot around here. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but it is the law. Work to get it changed if you don't like it. These are the same people that get so riled up when a right-to-lifer says that the right to abortion is a bad law and tries to interfere with family planning clinics. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
On immigration there are a couple of news stories out how teens are having a hard time finding summer jobs because immigrants are taking them all.
I think Ron Paul has some good ideas, but cannot get elected. He has stated that he hopes to at least bring his issues to the national table. I was talking politics with some friends over the weekend. Two other conservatives and one liberal and after the liberal made a comment about how when Clinton or Giuliani win they are going to clean up the corruption in New Orleans I had to laugh. I threw out that Ron Paul was my guy and he would clean things up better than either of those corrupt politicians and everyone just nodded with that "clearly this guy is nuts if he thinks that guy has a chance" look. And Rain I don't know for sure but a true libertarian would say at worst that it is up to the states to decide about a womens right to choose. But I really don't think that Roe v. Wade will ever be turned over as even most Republicans except the ones on TV don't want to go back to back alley abortions.
Whew that was a rant. Thanks for having such a wonderful and thought provoking forum.
Last night we had a 1997 alumnus speak to the seniors who were being inducted as alumni. Jenn was the first editor in chief I advised when I began advising the school newspaper. Bright, funny, opinionated and obviously a young girl who would make a difference. Now a Stanford law grad, she is working on Hillary's campaign in DC and made a compelling case for her candidate. Jenn researches all campaign donations to make sure there are no gifts being accepted that would compromise Hillary.
I haven't the slightest idea who to vote for--or what the helll is going on in politics, and I especially remain totally mystified as to why Bush hasn't been impeached. You always write so succinctly about political issues and you can sway me, so I'll just keep reading and seeing what your analysis of candidates, laws, etc. morphs to.
Thanks to everyone for your comments on this topic. It is a difficult one, and while people want to see justice done, there is a lot of disagreement about what that means. If we can't close the borders and stop illegal hiring, nothing we do will solve it anyway.
Ingineer, environmental and drug laws are exactly what I am talking about. We should not have laws we can't or won't enforce. Laws about marijuana are the worst of all because people go to jail, our jails are full of drug offenders, and why is it different than alcohol? It's like the ones who want abortion made a crime but they wouldn't like actually treating women who had an abortion as murderers and putting them in prison for lengthy sentences. To me, laws should be when we really mean it and enforce them.
On the $5 fine for speeding, I think that was Montana not Nevada as I traveled a lot in both states through those years. Now it's gone to real fines in Montana, shocking a lot of past speeders when they find out the speed limit has meaning. It always should. Say what it is and enforce it.
On the children of illegals, that is one of the things I thought of that is tough also, old lady. If we sent back the parents, I would send back the family. If the children currently have American citizenship through birth, allow them to come back when they are 18. Some are suggesting that when a child is born here, and neither parent is a citizen, that child should not automatically have citizenship in America. It's a tough issue and one that should be talked about.
I saw a program today on TV about a small town that was trying to do something about illegals, got sued, and now have set up places where the illegals can come and people who want day laborers can hire them. To me this is exactly why we have this problem. People to whom the dollar they save is more important than their borders having meaning.
The problem won't be solved until, as Robin Andrea said, we enforce it with the employers. It probably will take a citizenship card which I hate (especially given our current government with its rush to do away with habeas corpus-- and ingineer, it is mostly this government that has been abusing their power, and you know it. If others wanted to, they didn't get the chance. 9/11 gave the Bush administration that power and they are running with it), but I don't see any other alternative if we want to stop this.
actually that's not totally true. the Reagan administration with Iran-Contra was also doing what they wanted regardless of the laws but at least then it was considered illegal... Same with Nixon. It does seem to be a problem with Republican administrations who claim to be so much for the law but then are the first to decide the law doesn't apply to them...
It sounds like we agree, which I thought we did, on the rule of law. We need to throw out most of the laws and start over. They pass 5000 new ones a year in California. Lets have laws about the important stuff and enforce them.
On the children being citizens because of birth and the parents not sending them all home sounds like a great idea. When the children are 18 they can come back. Just because you got here to have your baby born does not give you a free pass to stay here and sponge off the system.
A bunch of women from Hong Kong did exactly this when China was getting ready to take over. They came to San Francisco to have their babies so the kids would have US citizenship so they could come here if it got bad under Chinese rule. But they went back home to raise the kids they didn't try to stay here because they now had a US citizen child.
Iran Contra was exactly what I was talking about, but you only named republicans. I watched an in depth show on the CIA on National Geographic and you should have seen the things that were going on during Kennedy and LBJ with Cuba and Southeast Asia. Not much different than Iran Contra except it didn't make the news while it was happening.
For me, it's...Obama, Obama, Obama. Has been even way before he announced he was running.
Experience today, in my opinion, isn't as important as wanting to bring change, as wanting to get this country back on track, as wanting to look out for those most forgotten in our society. His "experience" will be there with those he chooses to surround himself with.
I also feel that a certain lack of experience is to his benefit. He won't be as jaded when making decisions on all of our very important topics. Obama is my choice and I've contributed to his campagn.
am i able to take a automobile insurance business to small claims court? The insurance company rejected my claim, (I would go ahead and take at fault driver to small claims though I've no address to serve them or send a requirement letter). The additional driver was at fault but their insurance company claims there is actually a difference in our claims so that they have to take the word of their insured vs. my word. I believe they acted in bad trust and did not accomplish a proper investigation would this certainly be a valid claim in small claims court? I want to make to blame drivers insurance carrier (not my own) to small claims for those damages to my car.
Hiya, a chum only just said to me relating to this discussion board and so I thought i will occur and take a appear and present me, Seems an excellent web site with a a lot of extra subscribers!
how many time i do not do what i want to do but do what i dont want to do
It’s truly a great and helpful piece of info. I am happy that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment