A: Effective methods of immigration and naturalization are in place to provide opportunities for those desiring to become a citizen of the great United States. To offer complete amnesty to illegal immigrants, whether South American (Mexican), North American (Canadian), European, Asian, or otherwise would be a “slap in the face” to those who have completed the naturalization process. Anyone coming to the United States should have a purpose and every immigrant should have possession of proper credentials. Anyone found to be in the States illegally should be detained and ultimately deported. Anyone found to be providing employment to illegal immigrants should be fined and/or imprisoned. Anything short of this will only perpetuate the problem.
The Arizona law, although not “politically correct” is Constitutional and is already producing the desired results: illegals are threatening to leave the State (and the law is not expected to take effect until the summer of 2010).
Here’s a humorous, yet truthful, view of how some compare the U.S. with other nations:
If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.
If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.
If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded as a spy.
If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison.
If you cross the U.S border illegally, you get:
- a job;
- a driver’s license;
- a social security card
- food stamps;
- subsidized rent;
- free education;
- free health care;
- and the right to carry your country’s flag while you protest against the United States.
Lastly, prolific writer,Jeannie DeAngelisasks a pointed question: If someone 9 months pregnant broke into your house, gave birth in your living room and then claimed to own the house because the baby was born there, would you set up a nursery, move out of the top floor into the basement and keep paying the mortgage?
Sound familiar? This is a picture of what happens when illegal immigrants make their way to the States, deliver a baby and stake claim to our country! Let’s help them find their way back home! Kudos to Arizona!
People work to provide for themselves and their families’ needs; and to prosper: to save; to invest; and to increase personal wealth. Oppressive taxation and unnecessary regulation stifles production and punishes individual efforts to earn greater amounts of money. As a result, loop holes are searched for and created to circumvent the tax laws. While this “creates” jobs for some, especially those in the government sector, it chokes the life out of a healthy economy. The best thing the government can do to promote economic growth and private sector jobs is to allow business to do what it does best by taking a “laissez-faire” (leave it alone) approach, reduce taxation, and unnecessary regulation.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?
A: Eliminate the federalDepartment of Educationand return complete control of education to the States. The primary responsibility of educating children lies with parents. Placing all education decisions under parental authority will allow parents to be in control of their children’s education. This renewed influence will foster more parental involvement, resulting in the student’s desire to learn, and stimulate competition between schools. In time, the United States will rise to the top when compared to the educational standards of competing nations.
A: Article 1.8.1 of the Constitutiongives Congress the authority to tax and … “promote the general welfare” of the United States. The word general refers to the whole as in all the States of the Union. The founder’s original intent was to distribute the money collected by taxation among the States according to population, not to a specific State, a specific district, a specific business, or a specific individual. The process of earmarking changes the original intent of the founding Fathers. Earmarking promotes a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” mentality among elected officials, an approach of bringing home the “pork” to a specific district (despite the Nation’s economic condition), and breeds corruption.
A:Article 1.8.17 of the Constitutiongives the federal government authority to own a 10 square mile section of land, presently Washington, D.C., and “over all places purchased by consent of the State legislature… for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings….”
According to the1787 Northwest Ordinance, when new territories were granted statehood, the people of the state would be given the opportunity to acquire all but a small area of land to be use by the federal government for the aforementioned purpose. The federal government owns 96% of Alaska, 87% of Nevada, and extremely large portions of other western states. These federally owned lands have not been used for the purposes authorized in the Constitution and, therefore, should be sold to the citizens of the respective states (proceeds from the sale could be use to reduce our national debt). The decision to drill for oil would then be in the hands of the legislature of the respective States. Energy independence is within our reach. This would be a step in that direction.
Oil companies should take every precaution to avoid an oil spill. If/when a spill occurs, the company should be held responsible for clean-up and restoration.
Americans, for the most part, appreciate the liberties and freedoms we have come to know and enjoy. Most realize trading security and protection for freedom and liberty results in a loss of freedom and liberty. It is also apparent that a fine line exists between the over-reaching arm of government and the private lives of U.S. citizens. The opportunity for abuse is ever present. The IV Amendment to the Constitutionaffords protection of our personal property from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Certainly, no freedom-loving U.S. citizen wants another 9/11. At the same time, no clear-thinking U.S. citizen wants intrusive government (including unbridled wire-tapping, the search of personal records, etc.). In the end, for our government to be able to fulfill its duty to “provide for the common defence” it appears that we must allow our military and law enforcement agencies some leeway in securing necessary intelligence of our enemies – both foreign and domestic. Still, there must be checks and balances between necessary government and the precious freedom of the people. To ensure the balance, we must elect representatives we trust to keep the government in check. Then, and only then, will we be able to rest easy, knowing that our freedoms are protected without unnecessary invasion.
A: Many Cabinet-level positions could be eliminated to cut spending and in turn reduce the federal debt. I would begin with the Czars (in alphabetical order): Afghanistan, Aids, Auto Recovery, Border, Car, Domestic Violence, Drug, Economic, Energy and Environment, Faith-based, Great Lakes, Green Jobs, Guantanamo, Health, Information, International Climate, Mideast Peace, Regulatory, Science, Stimulus Accountability, Sudan, Tarp, Terrorism, Technology, Urban Affairs, Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The following is an incomplete list of departments and agencies to consider cutting:
Various agencies with the Department of Health and Human Services
Small Business Administration
Ambassador to the United Nations (and dues paid to the U.N.)
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Housing and Urban Development
The Social Security Administration must be phased out to allow younger workers to plan and fund their retirement and pay promised benefits to older workers and those already retired.
The responsibility of welfare and other entitlements must also be returned to the States. Local controls will allow for better oversight and elimination of fraud.
There are hundreds of additional agencies which must be scrutinized for Constitutional authority, necessity, and effectiveness. The money saved from these programs should be used to pay down the debt.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
Promises made to U. S. citizens must be honored. A plan to privatize Social Security without reneging on prior commitments is necessary because the plan, as it stands today, is not sustainable. Furthermore, the amount of money paid by the plan will not sustain individuals during retirement. Currently, there are three workers contributing to Social Security for each recipient. By 2030, it is estimated that there will be only two contributors for each recipient. Following retirement from regular employment, supplemental retirement plans are necessary for most individuals to maintain the chosen lifestyle. It is logical then, to allow workers, especially those just entering the workforce, to invest their earnings in an account of their choosing – and enjoy the freedom of taking full responsibility for their retirement earnings. This is the American way!