Immigration Updates

After I wrote my last blog, I found out that Obama succeeded in striking down the most controversial parts of the new Arizona immigration law. He claimed that asking people to prove their immigration status is illegal. The Judge, Susan Bolton, also struck down the part of the law that made it a crime for an immigrant not to carry around immigration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an ILLEGAL immigrant to seek and perform work. So, now, Arizona can have stricter laws regarding immigration but they have no way of finding out who is an illegal immigrant and in the mean while, illegal immigrants can work as much as they want. I think what Obama is missing is the fact that they are ILLEGAL, which means against the law. They take jobs from Americans and take our tax money without giving any in return. In Texas, illegal immigrants don't have to provide a birth certificate to attend public school while US citizen must provide a valid birth certificate, if they cannot, they may not be able to attend public school. How is this fair? In my previous blog, I pointed out that Mexico has stricter immigration laws than anywhere in the US, including Arizona. Why is it so unjust to prohibit illegal immigration, especially when illegal immigration is prohibited to US citizens. Maybe Obama is just soft because his roommate in college was an illegal immigrant, or, maybe he doesn't comprehend the term "illegal." I think Arizona is completely within bounds to enforce all proposed laws, including the ones shot down by Bolton. I think the country would be in a lot less debt if we had stricter border control. I'm not saying America for Americans or anything like that. There is a process in place for becoming an American citizen and people wanted to become one should follow the process, become a citizen legally and pay into the system just like all other American citizens.

Immigration Hypocracy

I've had to listen to countless bleeding hearts say how "wrong and amoral" Arizona's immigration laws are. How we pride ourselves in being to country of opportunity and then deny it to immigrants. They believe that Arizona is being too harsh on the illegal immigrants in the state and that the law must be abolished; that it is an embarrassment to America. This article points out that Mexico itself has immigration laws that are much more strict an much more harsh for violators. "Anyone, especially close to the border, can be stopped without reason and must show proof of citizenship." If they cannot to so, they are at the mercy of the Mexican army. The author's audience is the population of Americans opposing the Arizona immigration laws. His purpose is to inform them that Arizona is not only completely within its rights to create and enforce these laws, but they are also completely justified. One radio host said that Arizona should have mirrored the Mexican immigration laws in their act. The Americans opposing the news laws would NEVER head on over to Mexico and oppose the racist government for fear of getting killed on the spot. As the article points out, they just want to support the "cause" without actually informing themselves of the law in place, which in fact, does not state that the police can pull you over with no just cause. Arizona's laws are completely within bounds and are not amoral, unjust or racist.

How Many Economists Does it Take to Change a Florescent Lightbulb?

On July 20, 2010, Dan Turner of the L.A. Times wrote an article bashing some of the people opposed to Californian proposition 23. His targeted audiences were 1) the "scientists and economists" who put together the list of "scientists and economists" opposing proposition 23, to let them know that their "list" has no significance whatsoever and 2) the American people. His claim was that getting 118 "leading economists" to agree on an issue as controversial as global warming is impossible and doing so makes even the biggest believer of global warming raise their brow. He backed up his claim by pointing out that leading economists don't agree on anything and certainly not something as huge as global warming. He also pointed out that Americans are already skeptical when it comes to trusting organizations with academic sounding names and the Union of Concerned Scientists won't get a second thought.

I love this article because it highlights the real problem of the global warming debate. According to the IPCC, "long term climate prediction is not possible" so all of these scientists stating otherwise are bafoons. The problem arises when American citizens see all of these scholarly articles and consensus performed by "doctors and scientists." With all the skewed data and graphs being thrown around, it would be a miracle if anyone could actually put out 1 chart that goes along with all the "data" being thrown around. I'm not quite sure why these panels of scientists are so eager to throw around data and sign petitions, but in doing so they are making a mockery of the institute of science. The economists mentioned in the article are pushing for action again climate change now when it has already been said, and is actually quite obvious, that we don't know what the climate is going to be like so far in the future. It would be a risky venture financially and the last thing we should be thinking about during an economic depression.

Barack Obama Proposes New Death Tax

I think this is a really interesting article because it really shows how far the President is willing to go when it comes to tax increases. Every dime you've earned in your lifetime is taxed and now, Obama wants to tax it all again when you die, decreasing the inheritance you pass down to your family. This tax is not only on your savings, but also any businesses or properties you owned. During the Bush administration, the tax was repealed and now Obama is trying to bring it back. Where is the justification in taxing money that has already been taxed at LEAST once?