|
|
|
May 6, 2010 Opinion |
|
|
—Editorial—
Arizona Law Better Than Nothing
All around the country the mainstream media has been heaping criticism on Arizona lawmakers for their recently passed immigration law. Critics deem the law "shameful." They say it will make authorities "suspicious of anyone with dark skin." One article reported that Arizonians are "reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques."
President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it threatens to "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
So what exactly does this law state?
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c)."
It's pretty straight forward, but what trips up critics of the law is that we don't know exactly how "reasonable suspicion" is defined.
In most settings, we think there would be very few visible signs of immigration status that would warrant "reasonable suspicion." What does illegal immigration look like? Is simply having Hispanic or Latino ancestry and being in Arizona cause for "reasonable suspicion?” Arizona's new law states race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
Will legal aliens be harassed? We don't think so, all they have to do is produce their papers.
This new law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying their legal registration documents with them. However federal law already states, "Every alien, 18 years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than 30 days, or both."
So this part of Arizona’s new law just re-enforces, by the state, a federal law that is already in place.
Will natural born citizens be profiled as illegal immigrants?
There may indeed be some people undeservingly detained while their immigration/citizenship status is being confirmed. But the law also states there must be "lawful contact," which defines what must happen before police even consider checking a person's immigration status. In most cases this would occur through a traffic stop after some type of traffic violation was observed.
We would hope that any natural born citizen or legal alien who is incorrectly subjected to an immigrant status check would share in our same desire to stop illegal immigration. We would hope that legal aliens would be incensed by those who stay here illegally, especially after they have put in the time and requirements to conform to our laws.
Although this new law could use some definition and there is room for improvement on how it is worded and more clarity on how it will be implemented, we don't see it as an entirely "bad" law.
More importantly, we view this new law as the state's desperate cry for help. Something needs to be done to halt the continuing flow of illegal immigrants and drugs from Mexico.
Our national immigration laws are failing miserably. If federal lawmakers would concentrate on finding better ways to improve border security and reforming our visa and entry process, there would not be a need for state-by-state immigration laws.
We realize a lot of the illegals slipping under the fence into the states are drug runners for the Mexican cartels, but if lawmakers would crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens and impose severe punishments to those who do, illegals who come here looking for work would no longer find it without going through the necessary steps to become legal.
States that border Arizona such as California and New Mexico had better be prepared because when illegal immigrants find out they are unwelcome in Arizona, they will find a more hospitable place to go.
The Arizona law may be “misguided” as Obama states, but at least the state is trying to do something.
—Guest Opinion—
Oil Slicks and Immigrants
By Steve Culley, Richland, Ore.
A big oil slick is working its way toward the shores of the Gulf Coast. Predictions are a spill worse than the Exxon Valdez. Who knows, at this time, whether it will be as bad as they say. But one thing is clear, it's going to have an effect on people who make their living from the sea, on future politics of off shore drilling and the stock market, BP stock anyway. Who's to blame? Immigrants of course. Gas prices have been rising. Who's to blame? Immigrants.
More and more chemicals invade our water, air and environment. Who's to blame? Immigrants. People, Oregonians especially, give up property rights to save the environment. Who's to blame? You guessed it. Immigrants.
Ok wipe the smirk off your face and see if you can follow a pretty simple explanation that even the most far left liberal and laissez faire Republican could understand. All of the things I just mentioned are a direct function of population, numbers of people, and the attempt to provide them necessities and a comfortable lifestyle. In the case of the oil slick we have now, and those of the future, keep in mind that even though we are thinking about alternative clean energy production those things are in the future, probably not the near future.
As it is now, and will be for quite awhile, we function on fossil fuels. The more people you have the more fossil fuels we will need. Believe it or not oil doesn't just come out of the spout naturally. We have to drill for it and we don't find enough on shore. That necessitates offshore drilling and foreign imports. The effect is potential devastating effects on the environment and a trade deficit that is staggering. There is such a thing as supply and demand. We demand more supply than we have. The more people demanding the higher the price. The more environmental risks we take to get it. The connection to immigration is that since the 1965 immigration reform act our population has been climbing at a rapid pace and it is immigration driven, 90 percent according to Numbers USA and other groups that keep track of such things. Native born Americans barely replace their numbers.
This is a "problem" that other countries like Japan, Russia, Italy and others have that don't allow such numbers to come in. I've never seen anyone break it down but say for instance you were paying $.80 to$1 a gallon more for gasoline because of our immigration policy would you see it in a new light?
Believe it or not immigrants, legal and illegal drive cars. They bum gas. Then of course there is Oregon's infamous statewide land use laws designed to save us from sprawl, all because we didn't want to Californicate Oregon. That Californicate term is exactly what I'm talking about.
Millions of people, mostly from our open border to the south made California their new home. Population boomed and the land and water use felt the impact. Oregon felt it because of white flight from California cities. Los Angeles became Mexico's second largest city.
So you would think that after many years of trying to save the land our environmentalists would catch on to something. You are losing. Eventually you will lose it all because believe it or not you can't put an infinite number in a finite space. Oh you might try stacking them up like cordwood, build up not out and all that crap, take away rights until you resemble the old Soviet Union, but eventually while you try to provide for the extra millions, you have to exploit the countryside for food, fuel and energy. As long as you buy into the old recycle a tin can mentality or buy a better light bulb and everything will be fine, your non thinkers with agendas will be happy. The elites will always have their Hyannis Ports, The Hamptons, the Vales, and getaways in the Bahamas and you will always be on the road to less and less.
I know its hard for young people to pay attention to this, but your future is being determined by some not too bright older people. The attitude, especially among young men has to change if you want a life for kids. It's not enough to have the beer cold, the women hot and all the ESPN channels. You might even call up Major League Baseball and tell them if they follow through with an Arizona boycott you will start watching the History Channel. You are going to have to find the time to go see a State Representative or a US Senator sometime when they come to town and ask them some questions and make sure what passes as newspaper reporters these days actually print the answers. Ask them straight out, "How many people do you think the U.S.A. can hold without causing a collapse of the environment or my kid's lifestyle?" Keep in mind that when they arrive they have been lobbied by agriculture telling them why they need millions more Mexicans. The left has assured them that the new arrivals are good people just wanting to escape the crappy country they just came from and they have the right to profile you as racists red necks if you think your sovereign country should have a say in who and how many come here.
Do you like to eat? Keep something in mind. The American rancher, fanner is now on average 58 years old. Forces of urbanization policies have made it where it's impossible for young people to compete with the rich on land ownership. They move to town looking for work. The result is that we are not training any new people to plant crops or raise livestock. We will be and are being told that we have to have the peon from other countries because a white man won't work. B.S. You might not find a lot of willing workers at minimum wages like the new arrivals but if people could own small pieces of land they would be vested in it and we could reverse the trend.
Killing off gods like Tom McCall and his Thousand Friends would be a necessary first step. There were negatives associated with saving, or putting off the destruction of land and open space. A federal policy of constant population growth overrides any state attempt to mitigate the damage. Where we once were self sufficient on food we now depend on imports for a good percentage of our food. There are those who will benefit from a tight food market, but it won't be you or your kids. That saying on the Statue of Liberty "give me your tired and poor,” etc. should be changed to "sorry we're full up, no vacancy." The time is now to get around all the arguments on profiling and discrimination. We should adopt a new policy of no more immigration across the board until our population stabilizes at say 300 million.
I caught the Democratic debate for governor. No Americans there. In fact with John Kitzaber running there is a good chance that Oregon's land use dictatorship will get worse. No chance of getting an Arizona type immigration enforcement law here. Both Democratic candidates have the pro amnesty talking points down pat. As for the Republican candidates, ask them their stance on the question. Pin them down. Make them answer.
It's time to wake up. Tea baggers expand your horizons to include the immigration policy. Why can a foreigner buy large blocks of Oregon land but a young Oregonian can't buy a small farm? Environmentalist why aren't you joining the Minute Men? Who are these people who set the numbers of new arrivals? Do you have any say? The globalists trade policies, trade with anybody at any cost, dictatorships, enemies with oil and those who solve their poverty problems by shipping their excess poverty stricken people here has to change and it has to start locally, like in Arizona. We let China dump its products here until our own manufacturing base was destroyed. We let Mexico take home 40 billion dollars a year in the illegal drug trade. The development of gonads from the local county court, sheriffs office, and local cops and city councils has to be part of the American agenda. A little less animal rights and a lot more American rights from the Portland T.V. channels would be nice. Pay attention to jackasses like Bill Richardson of Arizona.
This guy could have become president. He says if "you build a 10 foot fence they will build an 11 foot ladder." Damn you get a guy 11 feet in the air in the middle of the dessert it would fit a profile of an illegal alien. Turn him over to Joe Arpio. Make it plain to those who came here illegally their only right is a right turn towards home. Keep an eye on local law enforcement. If there is a story in the paper about a van full of people stopped on the highway and no one has a driver's license and no English, did they call ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?
Make good choices when voting for a senator because you are stuck with him for six years. Elect an American, not a globalist. Representatives count on you not remembering for two years. Try to pay attention for that long and vote accordingly. Ballots are less messy than bullets so it's important to get it right. Civil conflict, like what's in our future can only be headed off by demanding a future that you are part of, not one forced on you by elites. They count on ignorance and apathy. Don't give it to them. Speak up. It will get you on a government list, but in this day and age if you ain't on a list you ain't trying very hard.
We've come to a point in the immigration wars where the guy wearing a uniform, not military, only means he makes more money than you do. Enforcement of our immigration laws and not political correctness should be the agenda. Watch Arizona and the new law. It will end up in the Supreme Court and it wouldn't surprise me to find it's illegal to deport the illegal. It will be O.K. to "profile" people like me who write letters like this but not a car full of people with backpacks and no English speakers. It's time to start "profiling" those we put in power and voting them out if they don't take this invasion seriously.
Watch the debate on national ID papers. You have one. It's called a Social Security number. You wouldn't even have to give the whole number, just the last 4 digits. Most American corporations ask for it to verify you if you call. Verizon just did it to me. If I order medication from the VA they want my last 4 digits of my Social Security Number. They profile me to see if I am who I say I am. I say profile until we have this thing under control.
We are letting in lots of people from the Middle East and guess what we get — terrorist attacks. My what a surprise! Ask for verification of citizenship. This power could sunset in say 2 years after we have gotten a handle on the immigration invasion. It's simple, no match, no job, no driver's license, public services. The federal government has a voluntary website called EVERIFY, it should be mandatory. Within minutes an employer can check to see if a Social Security number matches a name. If a cop stops me on the road and I have a concealed weapons permit the computer "profiles" me. If profiling is good enough for someone who's ancestors were in Oregon before it was a state it's good enough for the guy who hopped the border last night.
In the next few months things are going to heat up and politicians and public employees will be trying to walk a tight rope. Make them come down to earth and take a stand.
—Letters To The Editor—
Forest Service Using Another Form Of Intent Boot Strapped To An Impairment Standard
To The Record-Courier:
In reading an article in local mining newsletter recently about the “Ranger” of the Wallowa Whitman National Forest required an environmental assessment statement (E.A.) for a 20 acre mining claim, open to federal mining claims, of the Public Domain within the National Forest. The fact is there is no need to the requirement of an E.A. for the use (land use) of a federal mining claim by the federal courts.
In Terry Maley’s mining and mineral law book, field edition (1990), pg. 386 that states; a notice does not require an E.A. (assessment).
The case law, Sierra Club vs. Penfold, civil no. #A86-083, Jan. 29, 1987, the federal court of Alaska held that the filing of a notice is not a federal action. The E.P.A. (40 CFD 1501.4(b) and 1508.18) – because no approval is required by P.O.O. (Plans of ops.) These N.E.P.H. documents are not required where there is no federal action. The Sierra club had contended that no mining can proceed until an E.A. is completed, excluding the Wilderness study area (WSA) status.
The federal judge of Anchorage, Alaska, Judge James Von der Heydt, that environmentalists should have raised the issue when the mining regulations were written in 1979.
Instead plaintiffs appear to have acquiesced in the creation of a system that allows many miners to operate on federal lands without federal approval as Judge Von der Heydt stated in decision.
Miners were pleased with the ruling while the (3rd parties) environmentalist were disappointed. Predictably, miners in Alaska were elated that no unnecessary performance to environmental assessment (E.A.’s). The miners insisted that had the (3rd party) suit been successful, it would have shut down much of the industry because of expense and time required to perform the individual assessments.
This would appear an E.A. would only apply to Wilderness study areas (W.S.A.) as directed by Congress and Dept. of Interior.
The forest service is using another form of “intent” (boot strapped) to an impairment of standard by “proclamations” that indicate forest service lands (systems?) are W.S.A. status? by fiat. (administrative); See Art IV, full faith and credit clause to case laws and property clause of U.S. constitutional law? Vs. proclamations? Nobility??
Bruce Parke
Sumpter, Ore.
Aircraft Carriers In Jeopardy
To The Record-Courier:
An article in the Navy Times titled “Strike group mission expands far beyond simple escort” has me concerned.
The aircraft carrier strike group is composed of a carrier and air wing, a submarine, and five or six escort destroyers and cruisers. The escorts protect the carrier by interdicting enemy units attacking the group.
Unfortunately, at times the carrier has only one escort because the other ships are dispersed hundreds or even thousands of miles from the carrier to carry out “patrol missions, exercises and port calls”. An example of this policy occurred in 2008 when the Carrier Theodore Roosevelt visited South Africa while some of its escorts were in the Mediterranean and another escort went to France for a D-Day event.
As stated, the Navy is comfortable dispersing the ships because we are not “facing direct, hot war threats,” but what would happen if Russia or China with its submarines and missile delivery systems decides to launch surprise attacks against our carriers? One escort and the air wing cannot protect a carrier from a large scale attack.
Our carrier strike groups should remain intact when they are deployed, and ancillary events should be handled by other ships in the fleet, or possibly not at all.
We currently have 283 naval ships, which is the smallest U.S. Navy since 1916, and it is 17 ships short of the recognized minimum of 300 ships. It is a woefully inadequate number of ships.
We need more ships.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Londonderry, NH
|
|
|
