The Immigration Debate

True story . . .

A young woman slips across the border between Mexico and the US, determined to earn money to send back to her family. Any wage in the US is better than what she would earn in her native country. While in the US, she bears two children - both of whom are now US citizens. One child is born with special needs. Without proper care and services, he will die, but he is eligible for Medicaid and similar services. His mother just needs to be very careful about not getting caught.

The woman has a job on an assembly line where she is treated cruelly by her boss. She drives a car without a license or insurance because she must get her children to daycare and treatments. The three of them sleep in one bed in a run-down apartment, yet she continues to send what money she can to her family in Mexico.

If she is discovered to be in the US illegally, she will be deported. Her children will not. If she desires to become legal, she would first have to return to Mexico, without her children, and try to enter the US through proper channels - something that might take as many as three years. Even if her children were allowed to return with her, her special needs child would die for lack of necessary services in Mexico.

I listened to Mike Gallagher and Ralph Bristol on Talk Radio yesterday. The topic was the proposed Immigration bill that was approved by the Senate sub-committee with four Republican Senators voting along with all the Democratic Senators. The bill would pave the way for people living in the US illegally to pay a fine and apply for US citizenship without first having to return to their native country and re-enter legally, a lengthy process. Republican listeners were outraged; they felt they had been sold out by their representatives.

"What is it about 'illegal' that these guys don't understand?"

"A bill to grant citizenship to the illegal aliens is a slap in the face to those who have gone through the proper channels to be in the US legally."

As a rule, I tend to agree with the stauch conservative talk radio hosts. In this case, however, I think there's more to consider than may meet the eye.

1. There are perhaps 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, with more arriving daily. We made a big mistake by allowing this many people to cross out borders illegally in the first place. But now they're here, and they're reproducing. We have to do something about it.

2. Think of the sheer cost of rounding up 11 million people, assuming you could find them all, and deporting them. Now consider the children born on US soil who are, by birthright, US citizens. We can deport the parents, but not the children. What happens to them if their parents are sent away? Our already overloaded foster-child programs would explode. Furthermore, would you not go deeper into hiding if threatened with having to leave your children behind?

3. Even the most menial job in the US is better than most of those in Mexico. Immigrants will gladly do the labor that some in the US consider beneath them. The question to ask is: why do we US citizens consider these jobs beneath us? Perhaps because it is more desirable, or profitable, to be on welfare than to get a job doing menial labor. We have created a society of entitlement.

4. Illegal immigrants are unaccounted for in our system. It is a threat to our domestic security to have millions of people living here anonymously. They pay no taxes; their employers are not required to meet standards on their behalf; they may not receive welfare or government services, yet they are still living among us quite easily. Could it not be as easy for a terrorist to do the same thing? We need to know who lives in the United States.

So this proposal would open the door for "guest workers" to acquire US citizenship and all the rights and services enjoyed therewith. Okay. That might work fairly well if the open window was temporary and, at the same time, we strictly enforced border control.

Allow the illegals to pay the fine (essentially, back taxes) in installments. Allow them to apply for citizenship over a two year period. Make it very unattractive for employers to hire anyone in this country who is here illegally. Make it equally unattractive for someone to live in this country illegally; furthermore, if they are caught, deport them with no way to ever enter legally. Deny citizenship to anyone who has been convicted of criminal activity in the US; in fact send those people back to their native country with no hope of ever being allowed to return.

I do have a problem with the gangs that immigrants are bringing with them. Anyone who is convicted of a crime, even after they have received citizenship, should be stripped of it and deported. What we don't have to tolerate is illegal activities committed by illegal or illegal-turned-legal immigrants against our society. This policy should have no exceptions.

Realistically, there is no way to deport 11 million people. It is in our best interest to account for all those living within our borders. It protects the legal immigrants as well as the US citizenry. We need to incorporate them into the system for tax purposes as well as for security reasons. Then deport those unwilling to come forward of their own accord, and afford them no chance of returning.

This unfortunate dilemma could have been avoided in the first place if we'd had more control over our borders. But, in fact, we did not. Now we have a problem, and we have to deal with it realistically. Forget the wage issue. Forget the partisan issue. There are 11 million people who are in our country illegally. This poses a threat to our society, economically and security-wise.

Lastly, though not leastly, politicians who enjoy the perks of being an elected official and who would like to stay in that positition, are no dummies. Think of the voting power of 11 million people who are given a chance at US citizenship because of your favorable vote on a proposed bill. US citizens are also US voters. Hmmm. Let's just hope these politicians cast their vote for the right reasons.

What Are We Thinking?

In Afghanistan, a former Muslim was arrested after his family accused him of converting to Christianity. The man confessed to converting 16 years ago while working as a medical aid worker for an International Christian group. If convicted, he may face the death penalty. The judge in the case said that, while they are not against any particular religion of the world, this was against Afghanistan law and was considered an attack on Islam. The prosecutor offered to drop the charges if the man converted back to Islam. When the offer was refused, he said, "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty."

Be very grateful to the soldiers who are risking their lives so this sort of thing doesn't happen to us.

*****

I think those t-shirts with the warning "Don't Snitch" on it are sending a bad message to our kids. This sort of attitude is exactly why so much criminal activity goes unpunished. Who would want to encourage such a thing? unless it's the criminals.

*****

Where are the consciences of the creators of graphic, violent video games and movies? An entire generation is now desensitized to pain, suffering, and murder at the hands of thugs or so-called enemies. Who would want this to happen? Who would consider this entertainment? except the devil's operatives. In my opinion, anyone who would promote such violence has no consideration for the effects it has on society.

*****

Faith in God is becoming overshadowed by greed. Anyone with solid beliefs in their respective religions would not become involved in harmful pursuits such as those listed above. If more people stood by religious doctrines that do not encourage violence or criminal activity, it stands to reason that our world would be more tolerant and much safer. It would be so because people would be more concerned with the well-being of each other than in making a buck or maintaining power at any expense.

As I've said before, Satan is alive and thriving in our own back yards, and his army is growing exponentially by the lure of money and power. How else can we explain the infusion of drugs, gangs, violence, crime, and death that we are experiencing nowadays? Why try to do good works when it's so much more profitable to do otherwise?

I expect there is Standing Room Only in the canyons of hell. For me, I prefer to earn my spot on the back row next to the potted palm tree in the garden of heaven.

Gizmos

As we were growing up, we used to laugh at my dad for having so many gizmos. No gift delighted him more than some sort of gadget designed to make life easier. He was the first to have a weed popper - a stick with prongs on the end to insert beneath the dandelion roots, then step on the lever to pop them out of the ground. He had a yellow flag on the mailbox that sprung up when the door was opened, letting him know that the mail had arrived. He had a knob on his steering wheel that enabled him to turn it with one hand. He claims he never had a clapper to turn on lights, but I'll bet he wished he had. These were just a few.

Now my children laugh at me. I am my father's daughter.

Perhaps this explains why I am such a computer geek - after all, the computer is one big gizmo with countless ways to make life easier, but there are more.

I have the fork that registers internal meat temperatures. I have the Bluetooth earpiece with voice commands for my cell phone. I have the litter locker that encloses cat litter waste in cellophane for odorless storage until the bag gets thrown away. I have a SpotBot, which, by the way, works beautifully.

Gizmos with timers are great. I can set the dishwasher to start in 2 hours if someone is in the shower. I love waking to the smell of brewing coffee from my preset coffee maker. I can set the timer to turn on and off Christmas lights. If I knew how to program it, and if I watched TV, I could set the DVD to record a television show. The sprinkler is set to come on at certain times and on certain areas of the yard.

I don't have one, but I think those projection alarm clocks that display the time on the ceiling in big numbers would be great for someone like me who is, for the most part, blind as a bat. I wish I had one of those bird feeders that swings around an invading squirrel until it is slung off into the bushes. I really wish I had an ice maker that would make crunchy ice in large quantities. Crunchy ice like soda fountains used to serve is hard to find these days.

I do have some favorite gizmo selling websites for your perusal: check out The Vermont Country Store. They offer things many of us boomers will remember from our childhood - like the bun warmer that I remember seeing on my grandmama's stove. I had to have one of those. Remember Lanz pajamas? They got 'em. Remember ribcord beadspreads? Got 'em. Remember Rock'em, Sock'em Robots? Adams Sour Cherry or Sour Apple gum? Tangee lipstick? Ipana toothpaste? I love this store.

Another site with cool stuff is Improvements. Here you'll find solutions to storage dilemmas, holiday decor, outdoor decor, kitchen gizmos, and much more. Its loaded with neat stuff.

Of course, Current is adding more gizmos to its stock of cards, wrapping paper, scrapbooking supplies, and stationery. I particularly like the insurance and car registration holders to fit in your glove compartment.

Sharper Image has expensive gizmos, but they're fun to look at.

If you have a favorite gizmo or favorite gizmo store, let me know. I'm always open to things to make life easier. And, yes, I have a weed popper. But no clapper.

Harry Potter Fever

I don't care what anybody says, Harry Potter books are entertaining books. If you ever want to carry on a conversation with a young person, of nearly any age, just mention Harry Potter. My nephew is 10. He, his mom, and I have great discussions as to what will happen next in book seven. J.K. Rowling does a magnificent job of creating characters whose lives are entertwined in and out of all the stories. My daughter is 25; my son is 23. They join in the discussions enthusiastically as well. We all anticipate the next book and the next movie.

I was disappointed in the recent movie, The Goblet of Fire. I felt like director, Mike Newell, was more interested in making an action/love film than in telling the story. While the special effects were undoubtedly some of the best ever, too many important plotlines were omitted from the movie. I don't see how future films can provide continuity, given some of these important omissions. Happily, filming has begun on The Order of the Phoenix. Photos of the newly cast Luna Lovegood and Bellatrix LeStrange are available online.

After reading book six, The Half-Blood Prince, I reread all the books, in order. I highly recommend that Potter fans do the same. It's even more interesting to "watch" things unfold without having to wait years in between. I was reminded of facts I'd forgotten; I tied things together that I'd previously overlooked. I may repeat exercise when book seven is published.

There are some really good websites for Harry Potter fans. My favorite is JK Rowling's own site: www.JKRowling.com. Ms. Rowling does a great job of answering FAQ's from fans without giving anything away. It's an interactive site with cool sound effects. Occasionally you may get a teasing of information about the future of Harry, Hermoine, Ron, and other characters.

Another favorite site is the Harry Potter Lexicon (www.hp-lexicon.org). Therein are all the details one could imagine about things like: Sirius Black's family tree (could R.A.B. possibly be Sirius' brother, Regulus? or perhaps Amanda Bones?) or who's who among the wizarding world, or a handbook of Quidditch or a complete guide to magic. Potter fans can get lost in time perusing this website.

Some questions from inquiring minds: Is Dumbledore really dead? Could he have a horcrux? Is Snape really a bad guy? was killing Dumbledore part of a larger plan? Will Hogwarts open for Harry's seventh year? and will he really return there? What role will Neville play in the elimination of Voldemort? Could Snape actually be related to Dumbledore in some way?

Stay tuned.

State of Fear

Unquestionably, author Michael Crichton has a brilliant mind. His fiction is supported by detailed scientific information, even if you do not always agree with it. He must read innumerable scientific journals and reports to have such a vast array of knowledge. Furthermore, unlike simple folks like me, he understands what he reads!

His novel, State of Fear, is primarily a vehicle through which to expand some of his theories about rabid environmentalists and the political-legal-media influence on the thinking of the population. While the plot lends itself to the making of an edge-of-your-seat action movie, once Crichton makes his point, he quickly and predictably wraps things up. In doing so, he leaves some loose ends dangling. No matter. What I want to talk about is the thought-provoking ideas he puts forth.

One of these ideas is expounded upon in Chapter VI by a (seemingly) nutty professor. He rails about the "notion of social control."

". . . the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile. . .To keep them paying taxes. And of course, we know that social control is best managed through fear.

. . . For fifty years, Western nations had maintained their citizens in a state of perpetual fear. Fear of the other side. Fear of nuclear war. The Communist menace. The Iron Curtain. The Evil Empire. And within the communist countries, the same in reverse. Fear of us. Then, suddenly, in the fall of 1989, it was all finished. . . . The fall of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. Something had to fill it.

. . . Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. . . of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. . .germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. . . . They are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them.

. . . How has that been accomplished?

. . . for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of . . . (a) complex, . . . powerful and . . . pervasive,. . . . the politico-legal-media complex. . . . it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population -- under the guise of promoting safety.

. . . it unites so many institutions of society. Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media need scare stories to capture an audience. Together, these three estates are so compelling that they can go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless."

The professor then gives examples like: breast implants causing cancer and autoimmune diseases. Despite evidence to the contrary, there were "high-profile news stories, high-profile lawsuits, high-profile political hearings." Four years later, definite studies showed beyond a doubt that breast implants did none of these things. But by then, the politico-legal-media complex had moved on to other fears and terrors, with no system of checks and balances. And millions of dollars had been spent and/or wasted.

". . . If it is not all right to falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, why is it all right to shout 'Cancer!' in the pages of The New Yorker? When that statement is not true?"

Other examples of perpetuated fears that never materialized are: killer bees, power-line cancer, global warming, and rising sea levels. And in his Appendix I, Crichton reminds us of a theory widely held a century ago, globally, by scientists, politicians, philanthropists, research institutes, and more. This theory was called eugenics. It claimed that the human race was deteriorating because the "best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones--the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit and the 'feeble minded.'" Fear spurred the deaths of millions of innocent people. Of course, after World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist - details conveniently left out of biographies and college courses.

State of Fear focuses primarily on environmentalism - global warming, rising sea levels, the need to manage nature. But through it, Crichton raises some interesting questions.

What do you think? Could this politico-legal-media machine truly be controlling how we think, make laws, spend taxes, vote, and face our daily lives?

I'm afraid it makes a lot of sense.