So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform. 


My Plan for Immigration Reform


For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

• They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.   

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

• Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
• Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.  
• They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
• Must undergo a background check.
• Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.  

• In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
• Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.   

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States. 

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes. 

• MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years 
• Paid their taxes.
• Must know English.
• Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
• A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status.  I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people  and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that... 

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do." 

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position.  Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since 

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh?  So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it.  Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Truax v. Raich
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
• Oyama v. California
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
• Graham v. Richardson

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope. 

Today & In response to Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

I am living in a peculiar situation when it comes to gay rights. For those who read this blog, you most likely know that I am a supporter of gay rights, especially when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to marry or not. I am also a Catholic, albeit a very liberal one. On June 24, New York became the sixth state to legalize Same-Sex Marriage by a very close vote, 33 in favor to 29 against. While I cheered this decision, let us just say that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the leader of the Brooklyn & Queens Diocese (which is the Diocese my church is situated) was not. In an editorial which appeared in the New York Daily News, he slammed the decision, calling it a tragedy in which we

....we no longer understand the primary purpose of marriage as the institution by which a man and woman bring new life into the world and teach the child to become a productive citizen....Marriage is reduced to an empty honor....

The following parts of this post will be a reply to the Bishop in charge of the Diocese in which I live in, thereby indirectly challenging a superior. And so I begin. 

He begins his argument by stating that society values it's young, no question about that. However, it is in the third paragraph in which he states that

Sociologists and psychologists agree that stable families where a mother and father live together in a loving union are a key predicator of a child's future health, well-being and success.

You may ask yourselves, Well, this paragraph is innocent, he's just saying that a children raised with both parents is crucial to success  No question about that. The problem here is that when you dig deeper into the argument, he is implying that a child raised with a gay or a lesbian couple cannot have raise a child as well as a straight couple can. Not so, states the American Psychological Association, together with the California Psychological Association,  The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, in which it stated in a brief filed in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there is no scientific basis to support the claim that Gay Couples cannot raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple, and in the case that they have children, their children are just as healthy or well adjusted as one raised with heterosexual parents. (Section IV, Subsection B.)  In their brief, they state

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature....Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

With just this excerpt from their massive 57 page brief, it smashes the poorly disguised argument of my dear Bishop. I mentioned earlier in this post that the bishop claimed that marriage had been reduced to an empty honor. To address this concern- when has marriage has ever been completely respected- it has almost never been. Men have always cheated on their wives and vice versa. People have always divorced people, maintained other spouses, etc- if marriage was ever sanity, Henry VIII would never split off from the church over some pathetic divorce.  Today, there is no doubt that marriage is not as respected, if it even was.  

-------------------------------------

Today is July 24, 2011. Today was the first day in which we extending the meaning of "with liberty and justice to all" to a group of people who were being denied those rights for years- the LGBT community. For the first time, same-sex couples were given the right to marry in the state, giving them equal standing with straight couples. Yet not everyone greeted this with open arms, of course. We had the usual protesters- the National Organization of Marriage, State Senator Ruben Diaz, and evangelicals. Even though I disagree with them, I usually would get along with them, as they are very civil. And then we have those who feel the need to stoop down to the level and behavior of a spoiled five-year old child. Those people, as we all know, is the good ol' Westboro Baptist Church. Most people heard of them in the landmark Supreme Court Case Synder v. Phelps in which a father of fallen solider sued the WBC for damages following their protest of military funerals, in which they carried signs saying "God hates Fags" and "God hates America" and all. After hearing that New York State legalized same-sex marriage, they decided to come to protest, stating their reasons in typical language suitable of people who demeanor appears to be those of again, a spoiled five-year old child. Here they go.

WBC will picket the reprobates of fag-infested New York state to remind them that God defined marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman for life.That means NO fag marriage, no dyke marriage and no divorce + remarriage! For their defiance of their Lord, New Yorkers will suffer the wrath of God being poured out on them from the sky, just as others in history who have followed this path experienced.

Right. If I'm a fag infested person, as they call, for supporting equality and fulfilling the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" so I'm proud to be one. If I am to be called a reprobate, so be it, and I'm proud of it, basking in the comfort that I'm being called this for supporting the civil rights of the LGBT community. These 'fags' as the WBC calls them, are real people, people who deserve the right to marry and love whomever they choose, who deserve the rights we all enjoy. If I'm defying the lord, so be it. If I have to suffer the wrath of god  from the sky, I'll be happy to to, because I'm doing so to guarantee rights for all.  I saw them today as I was going to the Brooklyn DA's office for my Mock Trial Meeting, and I just ignored them. Because that is what need to do. Ignore them, and take comfort at whatever names they call us, because we should be proud to be 'fags' if it means fighting for the rights of the LGBT community.

Just some food for thought. Enjoy.

Thoughts on Independence Day.

Today is July 4th, the 235th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which formerly symbolized the independence of the thirteen original colonies from Great Britain. It contains some some of the most inspirational words in the history of man, and with oft-quoted words being

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words have served as an inspiration for generations of people, from the French (see- French Revolution) to Germany, to Canada, and even Ho Chi Minh to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It represents a moral standard to which the United States of America must strive for, a ringing bell to improve the plight of those who suffer. Yet, when this was adopted, we couldn't completely say this phrase without keeping a straight face, because slavery was prevalent at the time, a stunning contrast to the phase that "all men are created equal." As time went on, we slowly began to push this phrase closer to reality, but we still couldn't say it  with certainty. Jim Crow was still around, making men unequal among us. Today, Jim Crow is gone, thanks to the civil rights movement who struggled make sure that this famous phrase was applied to the South. But today, we still cannot say with utmost certainty that "all men are created equal." Today, scores of new laws passed in states around the nation are tailored to deny that immigrants are among the men that are created equal, when the great majority come here to work and respect this country- and grateful to it for the chances it gives. Most of these laws are copycat versions of the original law enacted in Arizona, S.B 1070. Some of the most draconian laws, such as the one in Alabama, which requires, in a blatantly and discriminatory manner, requires public school districts to determine the immigration status of it's own students and their parents and report them states. Furthermore, it provides a challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government...Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation...Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 As The New York Times aptly states,

The state’s law seems designed to challenge that ruling, as it turns school officials into de facto immigration agents and impels frightened parents to keep their children home.      

We still have along way to go in order to ensure that "all men are created equal" and that all men are ensured with unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet, we closer to reaching those goals than most of the countries around the world are. We have a long way to go, but let us remember that we must strive to uphold those goals and that statement with the utmost regard, to everyone who lives and resides in this nation, in the United States of America. 


Happy Independence Day, people. Happy 235th birthday, America.