Saturday, October 29, 2011

Reason for Voting Hatch Off the Island

Here's a story that has prompted me to consider jumping on the vote-Orrin Hatch-out-of-office bandwagon.

A bandwagon that might be emptying, admittedly, as both Jason Chaffetz and Jim Matheson have announced they won't run against him.

The story that brings my support into question comes from an obscure website (aren't there a million of them these days?) called "That's My Congress" to be found at

The author notes new medical imaging devices have poured onto the market recently, many being so easy to use that no radiologist even needs to be anywhere around. Of course, there are going to be those in the radiology world that don't like this, and, sure enough, there are. One group, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists is seeking legislation making it illegal to use radiology equipment unless you are a radiologist.

Maybe the legislation has been approved by now, I don't know. At any rate, the group has named Orrin Hatch as the biggest supporter of the Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act.

And, by coincidence, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists contributed $25,000 to Orrin Hatch's campaign. Now, I'm thinking the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, other than its members in Utah, has little reason to care who gets elected to the senate, or how Orrin Hatch will do in the 2012 election -- other than the fact he supports them.

Brilliant, Einstein! I hear you reacting. However did you ever deduce that, Watson?

Yes, it obvious enough. But sometimes what is going on deserves verbalizing. Influence is being sought with money, bought with money. As if, a penny for your thoughts, but for $25,000, your thoughts can become reality.

Since when do we want our congressmen passing legislation based on who gives them money?Legislation should not be a commodity to be bought and sold. Laws should be enacted to serve the public, that's all.

Do I hear someone reacting to me, again? saying, "John, this is the way it is done, the way it has always been done. Don't blame Hatch for this. Every congressman out there (or most every one), plays the game this way."

If so, when are we going to say, "Enough is enough. We aren't going to take it anymore. The game is over. If you do it, you've lost my vote."

I'm arm-in-arm with the Occupiers on this one. It makes me want to go down there and spend a night with them.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

How Much of $1.5 Million Goes to Jail Common Folk?

I read how Sen. Orrin Hatch wants the Department of Homeland Security to return immigration detainees to the Weber County Jail.

The jail lost the contract to house the undocumented Americans, you may have heard, after an audit found shortcomings in the way the jail treated the detainees.

But, here's the kicker: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid out $1.5 million a year to Weber County on the contract. It was $55 a bed per night, with 30-60 detainees on any given day.

That's $1.5 million, at a single county jail.

One wonders how much money we are spending nationwide detaining and jailing people simply because their paperwork wasn't in order -- and this in a day we need federal thrift.

Perhaps many of those in the ICE houses -- if I may call the jails that -- have also committed other crimes, more serious. Would be interesting to know. If so, maybe the cost is justified.

If not -- if these are by far and away just simple everyday people caught living where they aren't wanted, then we are wasting a lot of money jailing common folk.

Friday, October 14, 2011

I'll Cast My Own Vote, Thank You

The caucus system is a great idea, a great principle, because it is the involvement of people in the political process. But, what do we do when we get there? We elect someone to do our electing. We turn over our right to vote to them. We surrender our right to vote to the political activists.

It doesn't make sense to go to a meeting just to be being involved in the political process, only to cough that right up to someone else as soon as you get there. Let the people go to the conventions, everyone. We can teleconference between as many venues as necessary to fit them all in.

Let the caucuses morph into something bigger . . . the conventions, themselves.

Government for the people, by the people and of the people doesn't mean surrendering your right to vote to political activists. It means keeping that right for yourself. I'll cast my own vote, thank you, if you'll only let me.


Tuesday, October 11, 2011

What Part of the Word "America" Don't We Understand

How is it, that in America, of all places, any people should be considered illegal?

How is it, that we have criminalized the act of existing and breathing on American soil?

What part of the word "America" don't we understand?

Monday, October 10, 2011

Let Them Live Amongst Us

So many reasons for not having them.

We should not forgive them, for to do so condones dishonesty? There would be no forgiveness for anything if we felt that to do so would condone and we were unwilling to condone. They came without permission, without paperwork, which does not mean they are inherently dishonest. Let them stay.

They are our criminals, and our welfare recipients? There are, among them, criminals and welfare recipents, just as there are among those already here, criminals and welfare recipients? Such reasoning would get all of us kicked out of the county. Let them be here.

We don't have room for them? America has taken in a lot of people, and no one has spilled out yet. Let them come.

They will ruin our economy? Adding a people to your populace, even if it is a poor people, is still expanding the economy. Are we to say they are too poor, and their poverty will drag us down? Let them work.

These are people, same as you and I. If we find faults in them, look in the mirror at other social groups, and the same faults will exist. Let them live amongst us.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Perhaps We Should Call them 'Undocumented Americans'

   I would call them "undocumented Americans." No, they are not "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens." Oh, those terms will be used, and I will, indeed, use them myself, at times, as they are terms leaving it clear as to who is being referred to.
   In calling them "undocumented Americans," the listener or reader might not make a full connection, thinking you must not be speaking of those here illegally, for they are not "Americans" if they are not citizens.
   But, I use the term not to say they are citizens, but to say they live in America, just like everyone who lives in Utah is a Utahn.
   Calling them "Illegals," I do not like. Crimes are illegal. People are not. "Illegals" is an offensive term.
   Calling them "aliens" is also offensive. When I think of an alien, I think of someone from outer space.
   "Undocumented residents"? It offends some to have them called by that name. Call a spade, a spade, they say. They are illegal aliens, so that is what we should call them. The law books even call them "illegal aliens," so if we are to call them by the correct name, "illegal aliens," it is, we are told.
   If government terminology is always right, then consider that once there was a government program for deporting them (1954) called "Operation Wetback." We can see we shouldn't call them "Wetbacks," so let's use better judgement and find a different term than, "illegals" and "aliens."
   So, I might call them "undocumented Americans," acknowledging that they do live in America. Some will say, "Well, that's the point. They don't have the right to live in America, so we shouldn't be calling them "Americans'."
   "Undocumented Americans" is an oxymoron, to them, as would be "illegal Americans."
   Fact is, they do live in America. So, if I am using the term in that context, it is not an oxymoron.
  Just as we are allowed to speak kindly and favorably about anyone, I am choosing a term that is favorable towards them.

Is Poverty Reason Enough for Getting Rid of Them?

Are we to say, Get rid of the illegal immigrant, for he is too poor to be an American?

It does seem to me that one of the arguments for deporting the illegal immigrant is that he is an economic liability.

Comes this comment on a thread about undocumented residents: "They are NOT an economic asset. They are an economic liability. The vast majority of illegals are desperately poor, and like all poor people, they consume far more in government services than they pay in taxes."

One does not need to be following the illegal immigration debate too closely to realize that how much money the undocumented residents are racking up in social services is being used as an argument against them.

Another thing a poor person does, besides taking government assistance, is to work for a pittance, pulling down the wage scale, and winning away the job from others. Just like at an auction, where the item goes to the highest bidder, so in a free market will the job go to the lowest bidder.

But, should that be argument for not legalizing the illegal immigrant? It should not, for to lock him out because he is so poor he will work for a pittance is to say he is too poor to be allowed in America.

We have other poor among us, others who pull down the standard wage, others who take jobs away from us because they are willing to work for less, and others who are on government assistance. Are we to take all our poor, and boot them out of our country?

All the poor are a liability. Cut off the bad, and keep the healthy? Is that the criteria for deciding who shall live in this nation? It's not exactly the sentiment of, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

The poverty of a people should not be reason for getting rid of them.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Alabama is Not Worst Our Nation has Treated Them

What is happening in Alabama is troubling to me, people being chased from the state, and parents holding their children out of school (fearfully hiding their children from the government, if you will). But this is hardly our nation's lowest point, in terms of how we have treated these people.

At the onset of the Great Depression -- without search or arrest warrants -- people were rounded up, including some who had legal papers to be here and some who were even citizens. The Wickersham Commission called what was done to these people "unconstitutional, tyrannic and oppressive."

Why must we treat people this way? Why cast them out from living amongst us? Some come seeking only to work. Others come to join family here. Yet others come simply to be in America, the land of the free. These things should not be crimes.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Here's the Part of Illegal I Don't Understand

What part of the word "illegal" don't I understand?

I don't understand the part about why coming to America should be illegal, or the part about why joining family members here should be illegal, or the part about why it should be illegal to work, even when no one else wants the job.

I don't understand the part about having a welcome sign at our country's entrance, saying, Give us your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, but when they arrive, we tell them to seek their refuge elsewhere. I don't understand how it is suppose to be patriotic to oppose these people when truth be told one of the reasons listed in the Declaration of Independence for declaring war against England is that the king was restricting immigration. I don't understand how the first naturalization laws (1790 and 1795, I believe) required people to have been living here a few years in order to be granted citizenship (indicating there was no restriction on coming), yet having such open borders now is considered outlandish. I don't understand how one of the freedoms this nation once enjoyed was the freedom to come here, but now it is not.

I don't understand why the freedom to come to America should be a lost freedom.

I don't understand the part about them being normal, simple, everyday people as long as they stay in Mexico, but if they drift too far to the north, they become fierce criminals, capable of destroying our nation's rule of law if allowed to remain.

I don't understand the part about how poor people coming to America qualifies as an invasion.

I don't understand how it is that the Declaration of Independence speaks of certain inALIENable rights, yet the only people we won't grant those rights to are called, coincidentally, aliens.

No, I don't understand word one about it. Since there is only one word in "illegal," I guess that means I don't understand the whole of it. What part don't I understand? What part do I understand?!