It's About Time!

On April 25^th, the New York Times’ Emmarie Huetteman and Ashley Parker authored an article titled, House Panel Set to Offer Several Immigration Bills. The story reports that the “House Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that it would introduce a series of bills beginning this week to overhaul the nation’s immigration system,” which presents itself at the right time to apply pressure for debate on various parties who are already working closely with this topic. Furthermore, the group believes that “the best way to pass immigration legislation is actually a comprehensive bill, because that can achieve more balance and everybody can get much but not all of what they want.”

This push for a complete revamp for all facets of immigration legislation is something that, in my opinion, has long been overdue. Considering that we are the melting-pot culture of the modern age, the laws that govern immigration in this country and the issues that surround them must be recognized as one of our most pressing topics for discussion. Just as the article provides, there are already 11 million unauthorized immigrants here in the United States, and the House group that has been negotiating this has been doing so for about four years. So I believe it goes without saying that it’s about time to get the wheels spinning on legislation that will acknowledge our current situation and use it to everyone’s advantage as a people and a progressive country.

Let's Make Lemonade!

On March 29^th, Christian Rivera published a blog entry titled, “Should We Make Lemonade?” In his text he conveys that the illegal immigrants are “life’s lemons” and the United States should take this opportunity to “make lemonade,” or in other words further strengthen the nation and its economy, rather than continue to let it hinder.

I couldn’t agree more with Christian. He mentions that “Americans are concerned about legalizing illegal immigrants because they are afraid of them taking over all jobs, [and criminals roaming the streets.]” However, we know very well that these concerns do not hold water. First of all, as illegals, they already have the jobs that would supposedly be taken over because they do not have to be paid minimum wage thereby cutting out any competition. If they were legal citizens, jobs would be awarded to the most qualified. In addition, they would pay taxes on any income they earn; something they are not able to do right now even if they wanted to. Secondly, the small percentage of immigrants who are in fact criminals could be tried in American courts and penalized accordingly. All we are able to do with them right now is deport them back to their respective country and repeat the process when they come back.

We are wasting precious time, money and resources impeding something that could be very beneficial to our nation. So needless to say, let’s make lemonade!

Equality For All

Just yesterday on March 28, Ron Elving of National Public Radio published and very accurately titled an article, Reluctant Justices May Be Forced To Make History. The article touches on how the U.S. Supreme Court has faced very difficult and monumental hearings in the past that have forever affected the direction of our nation, and is now facing an issue that may very well have the same effect;  same-sex marriage. Elving notes that there is a certain level uncertainty which looms over the head of the court as they don’t really know “exactly how its decisions will play out — especially not in the long run.”

However, one thing that is certain is the drastic change in the attitude society has made in recent years in regards to this topic.  Elving writes, “As recently as 2008, every major Democratic candidate for president opposed same-sex marriage. This past week, Hillary Clinton joined President Obama and Vice President Biden in crossing over to the new party orthodoxy. So did half a dozen Democratic senators. As of this writing, only nine of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus are still opposed to gay marriage.” This fact alone sheds tremendous light on what the future holds for this country. What was held as popular opinion just five years ago is a way of thinking that is now considered obsolete.

It is no accident that Elving includes comparisons to pivotal Supreme Court hearings such as Brown v. Board of Education in his article, as this is just a modern form of segregation we are faced with today. Who we choose to marry is nothing more than a basic freedom we should all be able to exercise as we please. The very notion that marriage is something that should only be shared between a man and a woman is simply unconstitutional. It is a belief that was derived from religion, and every American citizen is entitled to believe in whatever they desire. Even to those who are set in their traditional ways, equality is the wave of the future, and they will have to come to terms with it eventually. Just as Elving provides, “Republicans' base has yet to shift on the issue, but their leaders know that among voters under 30 support for gay marriage now crosses party lines.” So even if the opposition isn’t able to come to terms with it now, they are very aware of it and must do so at some point in the very near future.

Obama Expedites his Legacy of Diversity

The Huffington Post recently released a political article titled Obama Pushing to Diversify Federal Judiciary Amid GOP Delays, which was followed up by a left-leaning commentary by Kevin Drum just yesterday, March 3, called Obama Plans to Pick Up the Pace on Judges. Drum begins by admitting that while Republicans are largely to blame for the slow pace of the judicial confirmations during the past four years, Obama had indeed made very little effort to nominate judges during his first term.  However, he quickly goes on to point out that now as his reelection was strongly backed by women, ethnic minorities and gays, Obama is establishing a much higher priority on this process, as well as setting a new precedent, by focusing on nominating judges from a diverse range of backgrounds, genders, ethnicities and sexual orientations. I particularly enjoyed Drum’s comment about “how, you know, [Republicans] don't object to diverse judges, but they are concerned about whether this is just affirmative action in disguise, so maybe we're not getting the high quality of judges that we should be, blah blah blah.” Drum’s take on their comments was humorous, yet it accurately conveys how I felt about them too. They are basically implying, and admitting, that they do in fact oppose judges from diverse backgrounds because they actually believe that their quality is inferior to their own. That comment alone by the Republicans made me very grateful for the diversity Obama is seeking to better reflect our melting-pot population, because it makes it very apparent that we desperately need it. Drum’s commentary is obviously intended for a liberal audience, and I completely agree with the main point he wants the reader to take away, which argues that “[t]here are plenty of good judges with other backgrounds.”

To Kill an American

A couple weeks ago on February 5, an editorial was released in the New York Times titled To Kill an American. Though no author was specified, the opinionated article was edited by Andrew Rosenthal, and it covers a controversial topic regarding the Obama administration’s recently released “white paper” which provides the legal justification for Obama’s power to order the killing of any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force.” The article claims that according to Obama and his lawyers, he has the power to do so under Constitutional and Federal law, and dismisses the idea that the other two branches of power have any right to review his decisions to exercise it before, or afterwards. While it is difficult to analyze the author’s credibility as their name has been omitted in the article, the text speaks to all Americans as it argues that regardless of the circumstances, every citizen has constitutional rights and a judge must ensure that they are being respected. It also adds that the document provided by Obama’s lawyers use very vague wording to justify his power and that the only “oversight” required resides within the executive branch, meaning that no justification has to be provided nor even the mere acknowledgement that the killing of such an American ever occurred. The article ends on the belief that going forward, such decisions should be handed over to Congress and the courts for review to, at the very least, provide these citizens the right of due process.

Although I completely understand that there is a justified need to keep decisions like this under a tight lid, I do agree with the author. He or she contributes a very good point when they mention that one possible solution is to create a special court to handle these types of sensitive cases, just like the one which was formed to review wiretapping. Just because someone might be affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization does not exempt them from the rights provided under the Constitution as an American citizen. I think that by not providing these rights, we defeat the very purpose of having them in the first place. Sure, it’s easy to look at it from the perspective that by pledging allegiance to an anti-American organization you basically forfeit your rights as a citizen, but this is America; we’re supposed to be better than. We should strive for equality all across the board – if at least at the most basic level.

Fat Cats to the Rescue?

The New York Times published an article on February 6^th titled Democrats Seek to Stave Off $1 Trillion in Cuts. This article surrounds the debate between the Democrats and Republicans over the imminent $1 trillion cut which will greatly and adversely affect the nations’ security as well as the economy; not to mention the life of the average American. This article is definitely a must-read for all of us in the United States because it not only mentions the key pieces, but also highlights the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost and what that will mean for us as Americans. The most terrifying part is that this issue could not have come at a worse time. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said, “These steps would seriously damage the fragile American economy, and they would degrade our ability to respond to crisis precisely at a time of rising instability across the globe.” To me though, the most controversial part is that if the Republicans were to stop protecting big oil companies and special interests, aka the wealthiest 1%, we wouldn’t have to make such drastic changes. The article states that both parties are showing resolve but as for what the outcome will be, we are yet to see.