What are we saying when we say those who are here without their paperwork are illegal, and in our country of laws, they should obey?
Well, consider what they are illegal for. They are illegal simply for being here on our soil, simply for being here without paperwork.
Check in on this make-believe conversation between someone who opposes illegal residents and the a person who doesn't have his paperwork:
"You know you are illegal, don't you? You are breaking the law."
"Why am I illegal. What have I done to break the law?"
"You are illegal because you don't have your paperwork. You have broken the law by not applying for citizenship or a visa or a passport."
"Oh, so I am an illegal person?"
"Yes."
"Well, do you know why I don't have my paperwork?"
"Why?"
"Because you won't give it too me."
"Well, what does that tell you? Maybe we don't want you here."
"I guess not. So, it would seem I'm illegal just for being, just for existing, just for being here when you don't want me to be here. I haven't shot anyone, stole from anyone, or commited any other offense against anyone, but I'm illegal for just standing here in front of you, on your American soil."
"You're not understanding. You're illegal because you didn't go through the process. We have millions of people here who have applied and gotten permission to be here legally, but you haven't."
"You charged some of them a lot of money for their visas, thousands of dollars. I came looking for a job. If I had thousands of dollars, I wouldn't be a poor farm worker looking for a job. Your visas might help a person with more money, but not the poor and downtrotten."
"Just do it legally. That's all I'm asking."
It is not an idle thought that illegal immigrants are discriminated against. If they are illegal just for being here without paperwork, and if we refuse to give them that paperwork, then we are making it illegal for them to be here, period. If there is no real reason not to give them paperwork, why don't we just give it to them?
What's the phrase, "Forgive me for living"?
Existing should not be a crime. Existing on American soil should not be a crime. Screening out terrorists and drug-traffickers and criminals is one thing, but making it a crime for the typical immigrant to be here is not necessary.
Let's not make people illegal. Crimes should be illegal, not people. Let's legalize more people simply by giving them their paperwork.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Obama, along with Springsteen, Born in USA
More than 25 years ago, Bruce Springsteen sang his famous song about being born in the the USA. And, almost twice that long ago, Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the USA -- State of Hawaii, city of Honolulu, to be exact.
Now, there continues to be controversy about whether Obama was born here in the U.S. or over in Kenya. But there shouldn't be. It's been documented. And, a witness has stepped forth to say she remembers the birth.
"Well, the first kick I took is when I hit the ground, . . . Till you spent half your life just a-covering up," so sang Springsteen in 1984. And, true to the song, Obama may have had points of poverty in his early life.
But, he was Born in the USA.
Snopes.com satisfies me of this. In a post last updated Aug. 3, 2009, Snopes notes Obama's U.S birth is attested by a certification of live birth that was posted on the Internet, accounted for in newspaper listings of births for that day, and attested to by a lady who remembers hearing of the birth.
That's enough for me. Others may argue the certificate of live birth is a forgery. Argue that if you must, but its markings have been found consistent with others issued at the time, and would Obama forge a document with his political career surely ruined should state of Hawaii officials be unable to find record of the certificate of live birth?
Then, how about the newspaper records?
They show he was born Aug. 4, 1961. Both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin reportedly reported the birth, Snopes reproduced one, not saying which of the two it was. "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6055 Kalanianaole Hwy., son. Aug. 4."
The story from the lady who remembers? Barbara Nelson is her name, and, as a friend of the daughter of the the doctor who delivered, she remembers being at dinner with the doctor. Someone asked the doctor if anything interesting had happened that day and he replied, "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about." Stanley was the name of Nelson's father, but it was also the name of Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Snopes also dealt with the allegation that a birth certificate from Kenya has been found, noting it is the birth certificate found to be a fogergy.
The notion Obama was not born in the U.S. should be put to rest. Opposing Obama for his spending, for the health care bill, and for his politics can be done without turning to attacks that are so unjustified.
The Snopes post can be found at www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp.
Now, there continues to be controversy about whether Obama was born here in the U.S. or over in Kenya. But there shouldn't be. It's been documented. And, a witness has stepped forth to say she remembers the birth.
"Well, the first kick I took is when I hit the ground, . . . Till you spent half your life just a-covering up," so sang Springsteen in 1984. And, true to the song, Obama may have had points of poverty in his early life.
But, he was Born in the USA.
Snopes.com satisfies me of this. In a post last updated Aug. 3, 2009, Snopes notes Obama's U.S birth is attested by a certification of live birth that was posted on the Internet, accounted for in newspaper listings of births for that day, and attested to by a lady who remembers hearing of the birth.
That's enough for me. Others may argue the certificate of live birth is a forgery. Argue that if you must, but its markings have been found consistent with others issued at the time, and would Obama forge a document with his political career surely ruined should state of Hawaii officials be unable to find record of the certificate of live birth?
Then, how about the newspaper records?
They show he was born Aug. 4, 1961. Both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin reportedly reported the birth, Snopes reproduced one, not saying which of the two it was. "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6055 Kalanianaole Hwy., son. Aug. 4."
The story from the lady who remembers? Barbara Nelson is her name, and, as a friend of the daughter of the the doctor who delivered, she remembers being at dinner with the doctor. Someone asked the doctor if anything interesting had happened that day and he replied, "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about." Stanley was the name of Nelson's father, but it was also the name of Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
Snopes also dealt with the allegation that a birth certificate from Kenya has been found, noting it is the birth certificate found to be a fogergy.
The notion Obama was not born in the U.S. should be put to rest. Opposing Obama for his spending, for the health care bill, and for his politics can be done without turning to attacks that are so unjustified.
The Snopes post can be found at www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Mosque Financier Also Gave to HLFRD
So, we've wondered who the financiers are of the Islamic mosque to be built near Ground Zero. Today, news came that one also donated to a foundation that was subsequently shut down for links to the terrorist anti-Israel group Hamas.
The lead partner in the building of the mosque, Sharif El-Gamal, said money from terrorists will not be used for the mosque. An Associated Press story quoted El-Gamal as saying, "All of these investors are committed, as I am, not to receive funding from any organization that supports terrorism or is hostile to America."
While the identity of that one investor was found out, El-Gamal has thus far declined to say who the other financial backers are.
The Associated Press said tax records show that the investor, Hisham Elzanaty, gave $6,050 to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in 1999. At that time, the foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the U.S., telling donors the money was going to schools, orphanages and welfare programs.
Two years later, the U.S. government froze the assets of the foundation's assets, saying it was fundraising organ for Hamas.
The lead partner in the building of the mosque, Sharif El-Gamal, said money from terrorists will not be used for the mosque. An Associated Press story quoted El-Gamal as saying, "All of these investors are committed, as I am, not to receive funding from any organization that supports terrorism or is hostile to America."
While the identity of that one investor was found out, El-Gamal has thus far declined to say who the other financial backers are.
The Associated Press said tax records show that the investor, Hisham Elzanaty, gave $6,050 to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in 1999. At that time, the foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the U.S., telling donors the money was going to schools, orphanages and welfare programs.
Two years later, the U.S. government froze the assets of the foundation's assets, saying it was fundraising organ for Hamas.
Let the Mosque be Built
Let the mosque at be built.
Freedom of religion and property rights trump concern terrorists might be building the mosque as a victory monument to 9/11. Islamic mosques have at times been built to celebrate conquests.
One such celebration being the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain in the 10th century. Cordova was at that time one of the great cities of the world. A Christian cathedral had just been built when the Muslims conquered Spain. The Great Mosque of Cordoba was built in its place, and was hailed as one of the wonders of the world at that time.
The Imam behind the mosque to be built near Ground Zero has an effort he dubs the Cordoba Initiative, which builds interfaith relations between Muslims and others.
Did the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf select an unfortunate choice of names for his initiative, not realizing people would connect the mosque at Ground Zero to the Great Mosque of Cordoba, saying that since the Great Mosque was a victory monument, so the Ground Zero mosque will be?
Or, did the Rauf choose "Cordoba" because it reflects the conquering of a Christian people?
I don't know, but he must known the significance of the Mosque of Cordoba, and that it was one of the great conquest mosques. Even as Cordoba was one of the great cities, then, so is New York one of the great cities, now. Still, while we sure must wonder if selecting "Cordoba" is a way of celebrating a conquest in 9/11, we do not know. It is only conjecture.
It has also been pointed out that the Rauf is officed next to an office of the organization representing Hamas in the United States. That, too, is circumstantial evidence. It is what it is, a bit of evidence, but not a strong connection to terrorism.
And, today's news on a mosque investor who donated to what turned out to be called a terroristic organization hardly draws a connection at all, to terrorism. The investor, himself, is not being said to be a terrorist. Those attacking him for giving to a terrorist group are going back more than a decade to find his giving to a terroristic organization, and even then they only come up with an organization he may have thought was just a legitimate charity for schools, orphanages and social welfare.
Even without bringing up freedom of religion and property rights, the case for a connection between the mosque and terrorists just isn't strong enough to justify standing in the way of the mosque being built. There are connections, yes, but they are not strong enough.
Let them build. Let them built because it is their right to build, even though we might not like what they are doing, and let them build because we don't have enough evidence to support us in not liking what they are doing.
Freedom of religion and property rights trump concern terrorists might be building the mosque as a victory monument to 9/11. Islamic mosques have at times been built to celebrate conquests.
One such celebration being the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain in the 10th century. Cordova was at that time one of the great cities of the world. A Christian cathedral had just been built when the Muslims conquered Spain. The Great Mosque of Cordoba was built in its place, and was hailed as one of the wonders of the world at that time.
The Imam behind the mosque to be built near Ground Zero has an effort he dubs the Cordoba Initiative, which builds interfaith relations between Muslims and others.
Did the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf select an unfortunate choice of names for his initiative, not realizing people would connect the mosque at Ground Zero to the Great Mosque of Cordoba, saying that since the Great Mosque was a victory monument, so the Ground Zero mosque will be?
Or, did the Rauf choose "Cordoba" because it reflects the conquering of a Christian people?
I don't know, but he must known the significance of the Mosque of Cordoba, and that it was one of the great conquest mosques. Even as Cordoba was one of the great cities, then, so is New York one of the great cities, now. Still, while we sure must wonder if selecting "Cordoba" is a way of celebrating a conquest in 9/11, we do not know. It is only conjecture.
It has also been pointed out that the Rauf is officed next to an office of the organization representing Hamas in the United States. That, too, is circumstantial evidence. It is what it is, a bit of evidence, but not a strong connection to terrorism.
And, today's news on a mosque investor who donated to what turned out to be called a terroristic organization hardly draws a connection at all, to terrorism. The investor, himself, is not being said to be a terrorist. Those attacking him for giving to a terrorist group are going back more than a decade to find his giving to a terroristic organization, and even then they only come up with an organization he may have thought was just a legitimate charity for schools, orphanages and social welfare.
Even without bringing up freedom of religion and property rights, the case for a connection between the mosque and terrorists just isn't strong enough to justify standing in the way of the mosque being built. There are connections, yes, but they are not strong enough.
Let them build. Let them built because it is their right to build, even though we might not like what they are doing, and let them build because we don't have enough evidence to support us in not liking what they are doing.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Reggie Could do Life
Reggie Campos of Bluffdale received three years to life today for shooting David Serbeck, paralyzing him.
Serbeck says he was on an unofficial community watch. Serbeck's daughter, feeling Serbeck was following her, notified her dad and the dad went out searching for Serbeck.
And, found him. And ended up shooting him.
Serbeck says he was on an unofficial community watch. Serbeck's daughter, feeling Serbeck was following her, notified her dad and the dad went out searching for Serbeck.
And, found him. And ended up shooting him.
Gun Control Not Constitutional
Both Reginald Campos and David Serbeck bore guns the night Campos shot Serbeck. Where do I stand on gun control?
I believe it should take a Constitutional amendment before we have any gun control. The Second Amendment does not allow any curtailment of the right to carry weapons.
That amendment, in its entirety, reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I also believe in property rights. When churches and schools (or stores or anyone) say, "That's fine, your right to bear arms, but you can't bring them in here," they are within their rights, just as much as you and I have the right not to let someone enter our homes if they are carrying a gun.
I believe it should take a Constitutional amendment before we have any gun control. The Second Amendment does not allow any curtailment of the right to carry weapons.
That amendment, in its entirety, reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I also believe in property rights. When churches and schools (or stores or anyone) say, "That's fine, your right to bear arms, but you can't bring them in here," they are within their rights, just as much as you and I have the right not to let someone enter our homes if they are carrying a gun.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
For Better Economy, Elect John Jackson
Although this blog site has hardly caught on, I continue to post a news item every day or so, accompanied with a stand on an issue. So, I offer you below a review of a USA Today news story and I follow it with a stand on what should be done to save our economy.
-- John Jackson, candidate for Utah House District 41
-- John Jackson, candidate for Utah House District 41
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)