http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/17/navarrette.immigrant.hunters/index.html
If you look at the comments at the bottom of the page, you see the rampant racism that has seeped into the national discourse on this issue.
I am certainly not happy that people enter this country illegally, or overstay their visas. I am not happy that many of them end up on welfare. I am not happy that the presence of illegal immigrants puts downward pressure on wages. I am not happy that my old elementary school has all classroom window decorations in Spanish.
There are plenty of things I am not happy about when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I am horrified at the putrid stench of racism that has worked its way into the public discourse on this issue.
I have some questions for my fellow citizens who would crucify the "illegals" and "illegal aliens".
1. Where was your outrage when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress did nothing?
2. Where was your outrage when employers were not punished for hiring illegal immigrants?
3. Where was your outrage when your beloved Reagan signed the amnesty law of 1986?
4. Where is your constitutional outrage over Arizona SB 1070, which clearly violates the 4th amendment?
5. Why has immigration come to a head when the GOP lost both houses of Congress, and the Presidency? Doesn't that timing seem strange?
6. What do you say to people like commenter "Arizona444" who refers to Latinos as "poop colored" people who "multiply like flies"?
7. Do you think that all illegal immigrants should be put through the same punishment? Should a mother trying to feed her family face the same punishment as the drug dealer and gang banger?
8. Why are you so eager to believe unsubstantiated claims (i.e. that illegal immigrants started the Arizona fires), when there is no evidence of that.
9. Why do you assume a hostile intent on the part of every individual that comes illegally?
10. Do you honestly believe that white people will be stopped in Arizona and asked to prove their legal immigration status?
11. Do you support a guest worker program?
12. What would you do to "secure the border"?
13. What other rights are you willing to give up in the hopes of rounding up a few illegal immigrants?
14. What will it take to open your eyes to the rampant racism involved in this issue?
I certainly hope that my fellow citizens will open their eyes to this evil cancer of racism before it gets out of control. I will not be silent while other human beings are dehumanized and demonized for political gain.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution
UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution
The headline of this article is a bit misleading. Here is what the UN Human Rights Commission website says about the resolution:
The headline of this article is a bit misleading. Here is what the UN Human Rights Commission website says about the resolution:
Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.
So, this resolution is to document, discuss, and study. It does nothing (yet) about violence and discrimination against LGBT people.
What is interesting is that the following 19 countries voted against even studying this issue:
Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda
Not surprisingly, most of these countries are in Africa and the middle east. Their excuses: respect for religious sensibilities, respect for "democracy", lack of precedent in current international law. One idiot actually claimed that being gay is a matter of "choice", so it is not a human rights issue.
There were three countries that "abstained": Burkina Faso (africa), Zambia (africa), China
The countries that voted for the resolution (23):Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay
It is interesting how CNN did not specify which countries voted which way...
I found this information on the following page:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraff: Raped? Pregnant? Get a spare tire, you baby!
While debating a bill that would ban healthcare insurance companies from paying for abortions, debate started on exclusions which would allow insurance companies to pay for certain abortions. The proposed exclusions were in cases of rape, and health risk to the mother.
During this debate, Rep. DeGraff argued to remove the rape exemption from the bill. He then argued that women would not be harmed by removal of the exemption, because they could buy "abortion only" policies. He then went on to compare being impregnated by a rapist to getting a flat tire. The solution, get a spare!
GOD DAMNIT! Is this what you pro-lifers want? Do you really want to force rape victims to carry the demon spawn of their rapist? If so, you probably blame the victim.
The bill passed without the rape exemption, and was signed by the governor.
This article on the "national right to life" website does not even mention the rape exemption being removed. It goes on to LIE, saying that the bill "protects women from dangerous abortion clinics". The danger at abortion clinics are the pro-life loons shooting and bombing the place.
Abortion, especially early abortion is a proven safe procedure which removes a zygote from the uterus. It is not dangerous. What is dangerous is forcing rape victims into the hands of witch doctors and back alleys to get unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the "dangerous clinics" that have come into the news lately in PA were the result of lax regulation and unwillingness for regulators to follow up on NUMEROUS complaints. The "house of horrors" described by pro-lifers is an accurate description. But comparing that to legitimate, legal, well regulated women's health facilities is just shameful lying. The best response to this kind of horror is regulation, not abortion bans to satisfy the pro-lifers on the right.
Regardless of your stance on this emotional issue, very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry the spawn of a rapist.
During this debate, Rep. DeGraff argued to remove the rape exemption from the bill. He then argued that women would not be harmed by removal of the exemption, because they could buy "abortion only" policies. He then went on to compare being impregnated by a rapist to getting a flat tire. The solution, get a spare!
GOD DAMNIT! Is this what you pro-lifers want? Do you really want to force rape victims to carry the demon spawn of their rapist? If so, you probably blame the victim.
The bill passed without the rape exemption, and was signed by the governor.
This article on the "national right to life" website does not even mention the rape exemption being removed. It goes on to LIE, saying that the bill "protects women from dangerous abortion clinics". The danger at abortion clinics are the pro-life loons shooting and bombing the place.
Abortion, especially early abortion is a proven safe procedure which removes a zygote from the uterus. It is not dangerous. What is dangerous is forcing rape victims into the hands of witch doctors and back alleys to get unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the "dangerous clinics" that have come into the news lately in PA were the result of lax regulation and unwillingness for regulators to follow up on NUMEROUS complaints. The "house of horrors" described by pro-lifers is an accurate description. But comparing that to legitimate, legal, well regulated women's health facilities is just shameful lying. The best response to this kind of horror is regulation, not abortion bans to satisfy the pro-lifers on the right.
Regardless of your stance on this emotional issue, very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry the spawn of a rapist.
Monday, April 18, 2011
How to balance the federal budget - my opinion
I grow very tired of the partisan mud slinging and posturing going on in Washington D.C. Even though I am a "liberal", I believe both parties share equal blame for this debt.
Tackling the budget is politically sensitive, but especially during an election year. Each party is putting forward ideas that serve only their narrow political interests. Politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups do what is in their best interest, even if it is bad for the country.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some ideas I have for balancing the budget and avoiding the political pot holes involved in the process.
1. Separate tax revenue by source. Gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.
2. Divert gasoline tax revenue to infrastructure improvement, building highways, and developing clean energy technology.
3. Divert cigarette taxes to health care, spending the money to offset the health damages caused by smoking.
4. Divert corporate taxes to paying down the national debt, placing Social Security and Medicare first in line to be replenished.
5. Take the remaining tax revenue, and set that amount as the federal budget for ongoing operations. Determine what percent would need to be cut to fit the government into this budget, and cut EVERYTHING EQUALLY. Nothing should be "sacred", not welfare, and certainly not military spending.
Let me explain a bit of my reasoning behind each of these ideas.
1, 2, 3: Separate taxes by revenue source. I have always thought it odd that gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes should go into the general fund. Afterall, we're paying these taxes to support / improve transportation infrastructure, and to offset some of the health costs of smoking. It is astonishing to me that these funds are not being used for those purposes.
4. Divert corporate taxes to servicing debt: I personally believe that corporate interests have been the main drivers of increased public debt. Corporate interests have been the root of most military interventions in U.S. history. I also think that corporations control the "job market", and are able to set "prevailing wages" low enough to keep employees on welfare, while providing obscene executive compensation and issuing huge dividends to investors. Corporations have managed to gain the status of "legal persons", so why not let them take responsibility for their actions as "legal persons".
5. Take what is left and shrink government to fit: I firmly believe that government should be as small and efficient as possible. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. If the federal bureaucracy is handed a slimmed budget that necessitates invention and innovation, I am certain they will find ways to work more effectively within the new budget. What bothers me about the current debate is that military spending seems to be "untouchable", while things like child healthcare and school lunches for poor children are touchable. You won't hear any complaint from me if military spending is cut equally to the other programs. But to leave that massive expense intact, and gut spending on Americans is unconscionable to me.
The social security and medicare laws would have to be changed to allow investment of those funds in non-treasury securities with lattered maturity dates. With a conservative mix of investments, and ensuring adequate "cash on hand" to handle economic shocks, the Social Security fund should remain solvent forever. Excess revenue from this fund could be accumulated and used to fund economic stimulus when it becomes necessary.
That's my humble opinion anyway...
Tackling the budget is politically sensitive, but especially during an election year. Each party is putting forward ideas that serve only their narrow political interests. Politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups do what is in their best interest, even if it is bad for the country.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some ideas I have for balancing the budget and avoiding the political pot holes involved in the process.
1. Separate tax revenue by source. Gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.
2. Divert gasoline tax revenue to infrastructure improvement, building highways, and developing clean energy technology.
3. Divert cigarette taxes to health care, spending the money to offset the health damages caused by smoking.
4. Divert corporate taxes to paying down the national debt, placing Social Security and Medicare first in line to be replenished.
5. Take the remaining tax revenue, and set that amount as the federal budget for ongoing operations. Determine what percent would need to be cut to fit the government into this budget, and cut EVERYTHING EQUALLY. Nothing should be "sacred", not welfare, and certainly not military spending.
Let me explain a bit of my reasoning behind each of these ideas.
1, 2, 3: Separate taxes by revenue source. I have always thought it odd that gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes should go into the general fund. Afterall, we're paying these taxes to support / improve transportation infrastructure, and to offset some of the health costs of smoking. It is astonishing to me that these funds are not being used for those purposes.
4. Divert corporate taxes to servicing debt: I personally believe that corporate interests have been the main drivers of increased public debt. Corporate interests have been the root of most military interventions in U.S. history. I also think that corporations control the "job market", and are able to set "prevailing wages" low enough to keep employees on welfare, while providing obscene executive compensation and issuing huge dividends to investors. Corporations have managed to gain the status of "legal persons", so why not let them take responsibility for their actions as "legal persons".
5. Take what is left and shrink government to fit: I firmly believe that government should be as small and efficient as possible. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. If the federal bureaucracy is handed a slimmed budget that necessitates invention and innovation, I am certain they will find ways to work more effectively within the new budget. What bothers me about the current debate is that military spending seems to be "untouchable", while things like child healthcare and school lunches for poor children are touchable. You won't hear any complaint from me if military spending is cut equally to the other programs. But to leave that massive expense intact, and gut spending on Americans is unconscionable to me.
The social security and medicare laws would have to be changed to allow investment of those funds in non-treasury securities with lattered maturity dates. With a conservative mix of investments, and ensuring adequate "cash on hand" to handle economic shocks, the Social Security fund should remain solvent forever. Excess revenue from this fund could be accumulated and used to fund economic stimulus when it becomes necessary.
That's my humble opinion anyway...
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Financial Burdens Forced on Gay and Lesbian Couples
Most Americans understand the overall gay rights issues, but one specific area is largely unknown.
So, as an insider to the "homosexual agenda" (what a joke), I will provide some details on the extra burden gay and lesbian couples face because we cannot get married. Keep in mind that there are legal means to alleviate these extra burdens without sanctioning equality through marriage. I think most people would agree that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be taxed differently than our straight counterparts.
Some of you will say, "but you choose to be gay, so it is fair". To that I say, BULLSHIT! Some people may be "attracted" to both genders, and they can choose. These people are called bi-sexual. But the vast majority of people cannot choose, and that includes most gay and lesbian people. We only choose companionship and affection over celibacy and loneliness. We cannot "choose" to fall in love with someone we are not attracted to. If we were to enter into a "traditional marriage", it would be a lie and neither partner would be happy (in bed or otherwise). Unless you are bi-sexual, you did not "choose" the opposite gender, so please don't assume that gay and lesbian people are any different.
Now, on to the extra taxes and fees we "homosexuals" are forced to pay:
Inheritance: Many states, and the federal government place massive taxes on inheritance. There is an exemption for married couples, which currently stands at 100%. For married couples, they share their lives and build wealth knowing that they won't be "double taxed" when one of them dies. Afterall, they already paid taxes on the wealth when they earned it!!! The estate passes 100% tax free to the spouse. For gay couples, we share our lives and build wealth, only to have half of it taken away for taxes when our partner dies.
Survivor Benefits: Social Security provides benefits to any surviving spouse beginning at retirement, and to surviving children. The surviving spouse can immediately claim survivor benefits regardless of age if they have a dependent child with the deceased spouse. Gay couples, even married ones, receive no survivor or child care benefits. Their beloved partner dies, and the money their partner paid into social security is given to others who were afforded the benefits of marriage.
Pensions: Most pensions will not pay survivor benefits to same-sex partners of deceased pensioners. Of the few that do, the benefits are taxable at the inheritance tax rate. Then the remaining amount is taxed at the surviving partner's individual tax rate.
Taxes: There is a tax benefit to being married, which becomes more beneficial the higher your combined income. Some people say this is to encourage couples to have children, but they forget about the tax credit for children. Given the existence of the child tax credit, this "for the children" idea loses all credibility. In reality, it is an additional tax on single people. But even straight singles have a hope of breaking loose from this discriminatory tax by getting married. Gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, cannot break free. We are taxed as single, even after decades of loving companionship.
Employers Sponsored Health Insurance: Straight married people can get health insurance through their spouse's employer. All the costs of providing those benefits are provided to the employee and family completely tax free. Many companies have started to provide health insurance for gay and lesbian couples, which seems fair. But, when the gay or lesbian employee gets their W-2 for the year, the cost of their partner's insurance (the employers actual cost) is ADDED TO THEIR WAGES! That extra "income", which the employee never sees, is now taxable at the higher single rate.
Employer Sponsored Health Savings Accounts: Employers often fund "Health Savings Accounts" or "Flexible Spending Accounts" with tax free money, to be spent on health related expenses. Even if an employer provides funds for an employee's same-sex partner, the government does not allow the use of those funds for the benefit of the unmarried partner.
Insurance: Most insurance companies provide a significant discount on most types of policies, if the policy holders are married. The underlying logic is, if you're married, you are more settled and less risky. I believe that is true for the most part, even for same-sex couples. Just as straight couples settle into a comfortable, safe routine; so do gay and lesbian couples. So, why should we be charged higher premiums for insurance? Why should we pay an average of 22% more for the same thing? And for homeowner's policies, why should one partner be treated as a "renter"?
These are just a few of the more expensive burdens, which are forced on gay and lesbian couples because we cannot be legally recognized as a couple.
It is true that gay and lesbian couples can inherit (at massive tax rates), assuming the deceased partner's family doesn't sue for the estate. In the event that the family sues, even more of the estate is lost to attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of the outcome.
Many gay and lesbian survivors lose everything when their beloved companion dies. We either lose everything in a lost court battle, or are forced to sell everything to satisfy the massive tax bill from the inheritance. After years of loving companionship, our surviving companions are often left destitute and homeless.
Losing your lifetime companion is emotionally very painful. A dying spouse can rest easier knowing their surviving spouse will receive federal and pension benefits on their behalf. Imagine losing your companion, losing their income, and facing a massive tax bill and court battle...
That is one reason why we "homosexuals" complain so bitterly at being denied marriage. We don't seek to destroy marriage as an institution, we seek to protect our loved ones and the assets we build thoughout our shared life.
Even if you are opposed to "marriage" for same-sex couples, you have to agree that these grievances are valid, and need to be resolved. If you really want to "protect marriage", please write your state and federal representatives and demand redress of these grievances. Laws can be passed to eliminate these disparities, even if they don't give us "marriage". Another option would be to allow us to have "civil unions", which would have similar benefits and responsibilities, but still reserve "marriage" for straight couples.
I understand that some people will never want "homosexuals" to have any legal standing, as individuals or as couples. However, I believe that the majority of Americans accept, respect, and support fairness for their "different" neighbors, coworkers, friends, and relatives. I urge this "silent majority" to stand with us in solidarity to demand redress of these grievances.
So, as an insider to the "homosexual agenda" (what a joke), I will provide some details on the extra burden gay and lesbian couples face because we cannot get married. Keep in mind that there are legal means to alleviate these extra burdens without sanctioning equality through marriage. I think most people would agree that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be taxed differently than our straight counterparts.
Some of you will say, "but you choose to be gay, so it is fair". To that I say, BULLSHIT! Some people may be "attracted" to both genders, and they can choose. These people are called bi-sexual. But the vast majority of people cannot choose, and that includes most gay and lesbian people. We only choose companionship and affection over celibacy and loneliness. We cannot "choose" to fall in love with someone we are not attracted to. If we were to enter into a "traditional marriage", it would be a lie and neither partner would be happy (in bed or otherwise). Unless you are bi-sexual, you did not "choose" the opposite gender, so please don't assume that gay and lesbian people are any different.
Now, on to the extra taxes and fees we "homosexuals" are forced to pay:
Inheritance: Many states, and the federal government place massive taxes on inheritance. There is an exemption for married couples, which currently stands at 100%. For married couples, they share their lives and build wealth knowing that they won't be "double taxed" when one of them dies. Afterall, they already paid taxes on the wealth when they earned it!!! The estate passes 100% tax free to the spouse. For gay couples, we share our lives and build wealth, only to have half of it taken away for taxes when our partner dies.
Survivor Benefits: Social Security provides benefits to any surviving spouse beginning at retirement, and to surviving children. The surviving spouse can immediately claim survivor benefits regardless of age if they have a dependent child with the deceased spouse. Gay couples, even married ones, receive no survivor or child care benefits. Their beloved partner dies, and the money their partner paid into social security is given to others who were afforded the benefits of marriage.
Pensions: Most pensions will not pay survivor benefits to same-sex partners of deceased pensioners. Of the few that do, the benefits are taxable at the inheritance tax rate. Then the remaining amount is taxed at the surviving partner's individual tax rate.
Taxes: There is a tax benefit to being married, which becomes more beneficial the higher your combined income. Some people say this is to encourage couples to have children, but they forget about the tax credit for children. Given the existence of the child tax credit, this "for the children" idea loses all credibility. In reality, it is an additional tax on single people. But even straight singles have a hope of breaking loose from this discriminatory tax by getting married. Gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, cannot break free. We are taxed as single, even after decades of loving companionship.
Employers Sponsored Health Insurance: Straight married people can get health insurance through their spouse's employer. All the costs of providing those benefits are provided to the employee and family completely tax free. Many companies have started to provide health insurance for gay and lesbian couples, which seems fair. But, when the gay or lesbian employee gets their W-2 for the year, the cost of their partner's insurance (the employers actual cost) is ADDED TO THEIR WAGES! That extra "income", which the employee never sees, is now taxable at the higher single rate.
Employer Sponsored Health Savings Accounts: Employers often fund "Health Savings Accounts" or "Flexible Spending Accounts" with tax free money, to be spent on health related expenses. Even if an employer provides funds for an employee's same-sex partner, the government does not allow the use of those funds for the benefit of the unmarried partner.
Insurance: Most insurance companies provide a significant discount on most types of policies, if the policy holders are married. The underlying logic is, if you're married, you are more settled and less risky. I believe that is true for the most part, even for same-sex couples. Just as straight couples settle into a comfortable, safe routine; so do gay and lesbian couples. So, why should we be charged higher premiums for insurance? Why should we pay an average of 22% more for the same thing? And for homeowner's policies, why should one partner be treated as a "renter"?
These are just a few of the more expensive burdens, which are forced on gay and lesbian couples because we cannot be legally recognized as a couple.
It is true that gay and lesbian couples can inherit (at massive tax rates), assuming the deceased partner's family doesn't sue for the estate. In the event that the family sues, even more of the estate is lost to attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of the outcome.
Many gay and lesbian survivors lose everything when their beloved companion dies. We either lose everything in a lost court battle, or are forced to sell everything to satisfy the massive tax bill from the inheritance. After years of loving companionship, our surviving companions are often left destitute and homeless.
Losing your lifetime companion is emotionally very painful. A dying spouse can rest easier knowing their surviving spouse will receive federal and pension benefits on their behalf. Imagine losing your companion, losing their income, and facing a massive tax bill and court battle...
That is one reason why we "homosexuals" complain so bitterly at being denied marriage. We don't seek to destroy marriage as an institution, we seek to protect our loved ones and the assets we build thoughout our shared life.
Even if you are opposed to "marriage" for same-sex couples, you have to agree that these grievances are valid, and need to be resolved. If you really want to "protect marriage", please write your state and federal representatives and demand redress of these grievances. Laws can be passed to eliminate these disparities, even if they don't give us "marriage". Another option would be to allow us to have "civil unions", which would have similar benefits and responsibilities, but still reserve "marriage" for straight couples.
I understand that some people will never want "homosexuals" to have any legal standing, as individuals or as couples. However, I believe that the majority of Americans accept, respect, and support fairness for their "different" neighbors, coworkers, friends, and relatives. I urge this "silent majority" to stand with us in solidarity to demand redress of these grievances.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Misinformation on Illegal Immigrants
There seem to be two sides of the immigration debate, and citizens are expected to choose one side or the other. I believe both sides are wrong, and are purposely misleading the public.
Side One: Conservatives, tea partiers, and most Republicans use rhetoric like "illegal aliens", and "illegals" when referring to individuals in this country illegally. They lump everyone, regardless of circumstance, into this group of "illegals". People who overstay visas, and parents coming to work to feed their families are lumped in with the criminal, gang, and drug elements. They seem to focus on enforcement, without any regard to the 4th amendment (which guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure).
Side Two: My fellow liberals often like to refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers". While this seems to be more politically correct than "illegal aliens", I don't think it accurately describes the situation. It sounds very much like someone who just "lost" their immigration papers, rather than someone who overstayed their visa or illegally entered the country.
The truth is, people come to this country illegally for many different reasons. Some people cross the border illegally to make money to send home so their family can survive. Some do it in search of a better life. Others come to join gangs and sell drugs.
There is another group of "illegal immigrants" that also get lumped in with the other groups: People who overstay their visas. These people come into the country legally on a visa, and don't leave after their visa expires. There are many reasons for this. Some people are fleeing oppression, rape, genocide, or murder in their own country. They may be in the process of filing for a green card when their visa expired. They may have had children, gotten married, or just fell in love.
So, is it reasonable or moral to lump all these different circumstances into one group? Is it reasonable to punish these crimes as though all of them had the intentions of the drug / gang / criminal elements? Should a gang banger be put through the same process and punishment as the mother working to support her family? Should the person who overstayed their visa be put through the same process and punishment as the drug dealer?
Illegal immigrants also fall into five categories when it comes to taxes.
Group One: Those who's employers have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. They work "under the table", being paid cash. They haven't stolen anyone's ID. Their employer has to pay taxes on that money because the expense is not deductible from the employers taxes. The employer receives a benefit from their labor, and often generates revenue from their labor. The employer has to pay taxes on those funds. The only taxes that are not always fully paid are the FICA tax and medicare, because of taxable income limits for those taxes.
Group Two: Those who make up a social security number, and give that number to their employer. These individuals pay taxes, including fica and medicare, which are taken out of their paychecks. From time to time, they may accidentally make up a social security number that actually belongs to someone. This fact comes to light when the "real" owner of the SSN gets a notice from the IRS saying they didn't claim all their income.
Group Three: Those who knowingly steal or purchase a real SSN and SS card. Again, they pay taxes out of their checks. The difference between groups two and three is the intent. One group knowingly steals an identity, while the other does not.
Group Four: Those who get an EIN (employer identification number) from the IRS, which issues these numbers to businesses for tax reporting. These individuals also pay taxes out of their paychecks.
Group Five: Those who do not "work" perse. They support themselves by engaging in gang / criminal / drug activities. These individuals do not pay taxes either directly or indirectly.
As you can see, not all these groups are the same. Except for groups three and five, there is no intent to harm or defraud another person. In all groups except five, taxes are paid directly from the worker's paycheck, or as part of the employers (usually higher) taxes.
I firmly believe that lumping all these disparate groups into one, and labeling them "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers" does a disservice to the public, and applies the punishment and social stigma of the criminal / drug / gang elements to otherwise good, hard working people.
If we are going to remain a welcoming, compassionate beacon of freedom in the world, we must insert some truth in the immigration debate. Otherwise, we empower evil and racist elements in our culture. These evil and racist elements are a danger to all liberties and human dignity, not just those of illegal immigrants.
I beg my fellow citizens to call out politicians, news organizations, and talk show hosts when they spread misinformation and demonize illegal immigrants. We must not allow the public discourse to be hijacked by evil, xenophobic, racist elements.
Side One: Conservatives, tea partiers, and most Republicans use rhetoric like "illegal aliens", and "illegals" when referring to individuals in this country illegally. They lump everyone, regardless of circumstance, into this group of "illegals". People who overstay visas, and parents coming to work to feed their families are lumped in with the criminal, gang, and drug elements. They seem to focus on enforcement, without any regard to the 4th amendment (which guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure).
Side Two: My fellow liberals often like to refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers". While this seems to be more politically correct than "illegal aliens", I don't think it accurately describes the situation. It sounds very much like someone who just "lost" their immigration papers, rather than someone who overstayed their visa or illegally entered the country.
The truth is, people come to this country illegally for many different reasons. Some people cross the border illegally to make money to send home so their family can survive. Some do it in search of a better life. Others come to join gangs and sell drugs.
There is another group of "illegal immigrants" that also get lumped in with the other groups: People who overstay their visas. These people come into the country legally on a visa, and don't leave after their visa expires. There are many reasons for this. Some people are fleeing oppression, rape, genocide, or murder in their own country. They may be in the process of filing for a green card when their visa expired. They may have had children, gotten married, or just fell in love.
So, is it reasonable or moral to lump all these different circumstances into one group? Is it reasonable to punish these crimes as though all of them had the intentions of the drug / gang / criminal elements? Should a gang banger be put through the same process and punishment as the mother working to support her family? Should the person who overstayed their visa be put through the same process and punishment as the drug dealer?
Illegal immigrants also fall into five categories when it comes to taxes.
Group One: Those who's employers have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. They work "under the table", being paid cash. They haven't stolen anyone's ID. Their employer has to pay taxes on that money because the expense is not deductible from the employers taxes. The employer receives a benefit from their labor, and often generates revenue from their labor. The employer has to pay taxes on those funds. The only taxes that are not always fully paid are the FICA tax and medicare, because of taxable income limits for those taxes.
Group Two: Those who make up a social security number, and give that number to their employer. These individuals pay taxes, including fica and medicare, which are taken out of their paychecks. From time to time, they may accidentally make up a social security number that actually belongs to someone. This fact comes to light when the "real" owner of the SSN gets a notice from the IRS saying they didn't claim all their income.
Group Three: Those who knowingly steal or purchase a real SSN and SS card. Again, they pay taxes out of their checks. The difference between groups two and three is the intent. One group knowingly steals an identity, while the other does not.
Group Four: Those who get an EIN (employer identification number) from the IRS, which issues these numbers to businesses for tax reporting. These individuals also pay taxes out of their paychecks.
Group Five: Those who do not "work" perse. They support themselves by engaging in gang / criminal / drug activities. These individuals do not pay taxes either directly or indirectly.
As you can see, not all these groups are the same. Except for groups three and five, there is no intent to harm or defraud another person. In all groups except five, taxes are paid directly from the worker's paycheck, or as part of the employers (usually higher) taxes.
I firmly believe that lumping all these disparate groups into one, and labeling them "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers" does a disservice to the public, and applies the punishment and social stigma of the criminal / drug / gang elements to otherwise good, hard working people.
If we are going to remain a welcoming, compassionate beacon of freedom in the world, we must insert some truth in the immigration debate. Otherwise, we empower evil and racist elements in our culture. These evil and racist elements are a danger to all liberties and human dignity, not just those of illegal immigrants.
I beg my fellow citizens to call out politicians, news organizations, and talk show hosts when they spread misinformation and demonize illegal immigrants. We must not allow the public discourse to be hijacked by evil, xenophobic, racist elements.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Gay Adoption
For some reason some people have the misguided belief that they should have a say in whether or not I can have a family of my own. Below you will find my letter to these people:
Dear tea bagging douche bags,
You have no right to deny me the ability to adopt a child.
If the tables were turned you would be screaming about your liberties and pulling our your guns. But you are content to judge my worthiness to be a parent. I am sure the Republicans will turn this into yet another ballot making issue drawing conservatives to the polls.
Let me say this: You may keep me from marrying the man I love. But when you use my family (or future family) as a political game, you will find yourself the target of my unending and unlimited wrath. Proceed at your own peril!
Sincerely,
Irate Liberal
Dear tea bagging douche bags,
You have no right to deny me the ability to adopt a child.
If the tables were turned you would be screaming about your liberties and pulling our your guns. But you are content to judge my worthiness to be a parent. I am sure the Republicans will turn this into yet another ballot making issue drawing conservatives to the polls.
Let me say this: You may keep me from marrying the man I love. But when you use my family (or future family) as a political game, you will find yourself the target of my unending and unlimited wrath. Proceed at your own peril!
Sincerely,
Irate Liberal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)