Re: Immigration is the issue of the day

As pointed out in "Immigration is the issue of the day," illegal immigration has risen sharply in recent years. However, I disagree with some of the points made in this article.

First, the onslaught of immigrants is likened to an "invading army." The objective of an invading army is to cause destruction in their target areas; immigrants do not share this goal. Most immigrants actually contribute to their new societies in a positive manner, playing a critical role in the function of the local economy. Most undocumented workers take lower-paying "working jobs," performing many functions that often go unnoticed by the public. For instance, many work in public service occupations such as building roads or constructing houses; without such workers, the metropolitan life as we know it would not be possible.

Second, the article suggests that immigrants should enter the US "through proper means," by waiting in line at an immigration office rather than by sneaking in to the country. However, this is not an option for everyone. People who are looking to migrate to the United States often come from difficult lives from which they would like to escape; many have no money of which to speak. The cost of applying for a visa and the fees associated with getting one exceed the means of many who desire a chance to make a decent life for themselves in the US. Immigration issues are far more complex than simply lacking a desire to wait in line.

I agree that illegal immigration is a huge issue right how. However, I believe the flaw lies more with the law than with those breaking it. Laws involving immigration are far too strict. The United States was created as a land to which those facing difficulty could escape to be free: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." That opportunity should not be denied to someone simply because he or she was born outside the country. The Founding Fathers, men who so valued the equality of all men, would be ashamed to see how modern America treats its immigrants.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the common name for a discriminatory policy that prevents openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members from serving in the military. Under the terms of the rule, military personnel cannot investigate a person's orientation without credible evidence of homosexuality or bisexuality; also, a gay, lesbian, or bisexual service member cannot disclose his or her sexual orientation to other military personnel. Any service member who does so will be dishonorably discharged from duty.

Although there are many reasons this policy should be repealed, one fact that may surprise those who approve of DADT is its financial cost. Since its introduction, more than 13,000 soldiers have been discharged under the terms of the policy. Recruitment costs and costs of training have deprived the US of nearly $200 million from its start until 2003; that number has likely doubled since.

The glaringly obvious reason that the policy should be repealed is that it discriminates against GLBT soldiers serving in the military. Our nation's history is scattered with discrimination against gays, blacks, women, and a variety of other minority groups. At the time, there was vast support for many of these policies; in retrospect, however, the majority of such laws seem senseless and just plain stupid.

Every day that goes by, DADT comes closer to being repealed. Many celebrities, such as comedian Kathy Griffin, actively protest it, encouraging their fans to do the same. Other notable figures such as Lieutenant Dan Choi, who was recently discharged after coming out during an interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, work to spread the word about the injustice of DADT. The day this discriminatory law becomes history will be a victory for those who value equality.

Immigration Reform

Mydd.com takes a stance opposing the recent immigration reform laws in Arizona in their article entitled "CNN and ABC stories show impact of unfair immigration laws." In this post, the author appeals to a more liberal audience by using evidence from various television programs to point out the flaws in the soon-to-be-enforced SB1070. This law, which essentially enables law enforcement officers to discriminate against people for the color of their skin, has been heavily contested around the nation and is obviously opposed by the author of the article.

While the author makes his or her position clear from the evidence presented, he or she does not do a very good job of persuading the audience to take a similar stance. The majority of the article simply gives a history of discriminatory policy in the form of a few short anecdotes that have been reported in the various media. It is not until the final two lines of the article that the author begins to use provocative language to describe the law, citing it as a series of "due process violations, racial profiling and an even more broken immigration system."

All in all, the author makes a clear statement about his or her opinion of the law and presents logical evidence to support that position. However, using more incendiary language throughout the article may give readers a more clear call to action; this way, the article would be much more effective in garnering support to bring down an unfair law.

Changing the Courts?

David S. Broder of the Washington Post published an article Wednesday, July 21, claiming that the addition of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is going to cause significant changes to the Court's functioning. The article, written in an obviously negative and pessimistic tone, likens the addition of Kagan to the Court to the integration of women into the journalism business. This is the time he believes the "realm of privacy" began its decline. In my opinion, the addition of a third female Justice will help give balance to the Court. I do not believe for a second that Kagan will contribute to the demise of the integrity of the Supreme Court, as Broder seems to suggest. On the contrary, providing a more well-rounded Court will help ensure that the American population is more accurately represented on the Supreme Court. Women make up half the population of the United States - why should they be represented by nine men? Just as Sotomayor gave a voice to the Hispanic population, so, too, will Kagan help to give a voice to women. Rather than bringing down the Court, Kagan will help achieve a balance to make sure the American people are fairly and equally represented by the Supreme Court Justices.

Stopping the Bailouts?

House GOP Leader John Boehner has come out saying he supports a halt on federal regulations of private business, CNN reports. He believes, and some experts agree, that government interference in the private sector has contributed to the recent deceleration of our economy. A representative from the National Association of Manufacturers, Jay Timmons, stated that the US is "becoming one of the most risky places in the world in which to do business." Many believe that decreasing government involvement in private business would encourage growth in the business sector and jump start our economy once again. In order to do so, however, would require rallying support from members of both major political parties in Congress, which could take a substantial amount of time. Even if support is mustered to pass such a measure, whether it will be effective in boosting the economy is a question only time can answer.