We do need to remember that we are dealing with actual people. Many of whom have very difficult circumstances that they are dealing with. A little Christian goodwill here and there would be nice.
Deseret Morning News Jan. 19, 2008
Read the full article here..
LDS Church officials "used the word 'call,' they made a call for humanity in immigration" debates and legislation, Litvack said. "We should not demonize" illegal immigrants. "In some cases, the debate has become so ugly, I heard, so hateful and dehumanizing. Let's bring back the element of humanity."
The worldwide church has many Hispanic and Latino members, and the church's missionaries in Latin America are some of the most successful in getting new converts to the church.
Across America, but especially in the West, the tone of immigration debates has, at times, turned harshfully critical of immigrants and of the politicians arguing for what they term reasonable immigration laws.
Especially in the Republican presidential contest, immigration hard-liners have been pushing for tough new laws and policies.
While LDS Church leaders did not support or oppose any specific piece of legislation that may come up in the 2008 Legislature, which convenes Monday for its 45-day general session, Litvack said they did say: "Take a step back, remember that human beings are involved here. As faith leaders in our community they have a concern for all human beings.
LDS Church officials "used the word 'call,' they made a call for humanity in immigration" debates and legislation, Litvack said. "We should not demonize" illegal immigrants. "In some cases, the debate has become so ugly, I heard, so hateful and dehumanizing. Let's bring back the element of humanity."
The worldwide church has many Hispanic and Latino members, and the church's missionaries in Latin America are some of the most successful in getting new converts to the church.
Across America, but especially in the West, the tone of immigration debates has, at times, turned harshfully critical of immigrants and of the politicians arguing for what they term reasonable immigration laws.
Especially in the Republican presidential contest, immigration hard-liners have been pushing for tough new laws and policies.
While LDS Church leaders did not support or oppose any specific piece of legislation that may come up in the 2008 Legislature, which convenes Monday for its 45-day general session, Litvack said they did say: "Take a step back, remember that human beings are involved here. As faith leaders in our community they have a concern for all human beings.LDS Church officials "used the word 'call,' they made a call for humanity in immigration" debates and legislation, Litvack said. "We should not demonize" illegal immigrants. "In some cases, the debate has become so ugly, I heard, so hateful and dehumanizing. Let's bring back the element of humanity."
The worldwide church has many Hispanic and Latino members, and the church's missionaries in Latin America are some of the most successful in getting new converts to the church.
Across America, but especially in the West, the tone of immigration debates has, at times, turned harshfully critical of immigrants and of the politicians arguing for what they term reasonable immigration laws.
Especially in the Republican presidential contest, immigration hard-liners have been pushing for tough new laws and policies.
While LDS Church leaders did not support or oppose any specific piece of legislation that may come up in the 2008 Legislature, which convenes Monday for its 45-day general session, Litvack said they did say: "Take a step back, remember that human beings are involved here. As faith leaders in our community they have a concern for all human beings.LDS Church officials "used the word 'call,' they made a call for humanity in immigration" debates and legislation, Litvack said. "We should not demonize" illegal immigrants. "In some cases, the debate has become so ugly, I heard, so hateful and dehumanizing. Let's bring back the element of humanity."
The worldwide church has many Hispanic and Latino members, and the church's missionaries in Latin America are some of the most successful in getting new converts to the church.
Across America, but especially in the West, the tone of immigration debates has, at times, turned harshfully critical of immigrants and of the politicians arguing for what they term reasonable immigration laws.
Especially in the Republican presidential contest, immigration hard-liners have been pushing for tough new laws and policies.
While LDS Church leaders did not support or oppose any specific piece of legislation that may come up in the 2008 Legislature, which convenes Monday for its 45-day general session, Litvack said they did say: "Take a step back, remember that human beings are involved here. As faith leaders in our community they have a concern for all human beings.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Jewish Americans...
The Jewish Americans is a PBS documentary that chronicles 350 years of Jews in America. It has been fascinating to watch. It is always inspiring to see the great challenges that immigrants must and do overcome in order to make a life in this country. With no more than a dream in their pockets, they can achieve liberty, education and wealth. It is sad however, to see the prejudice, unkindness and suspicion that immigrants many times encounter. Unfortunately, as so often happens when we study history, we find ourselves repeating it.
As a culture we seem to worry about every new and different group of people who try to come and make a home in this country even though each of our ancestors were part of a goup considered different and suspicious at one time. And, even though, the fabric of our nation would be less rich and I believe less strong without every one of these groups.
The people who are attracted to this country, no matter where they originate, often have a thirst for freedom and for opportunity. They must overcome great odds to get here. The first generation most often does not really benefit; the sacrifice is made for their children who do benefit and their grandchildren who benefit greatly.
Two years ago, I read one of the best books I've ever read called Benjamin Franklin An American Life by Walter Isaacson. I wish that I could find the direct quote, but in that book there is a quote by Franklin where he says that America's wealth and greatness does not come from her gold or collective resources, but from her industry. Could anything be more true? Our wealth is truly the collective greatness of our people, of their creativity, and their collective labor. Our wealth is in the minds and hands of our artists and scientists, our laborers and farmers. In my neighborhood, I know the people in each home and can be amazed when I begin to think of what each person contributes to make our society, our neighborhood and our nation so much greater.
When we as a nation, and our politicians especially, finally understand that our wealth is in our people, our people of every variety, then we will finally and truly be, "One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty & Justice for All."
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Something you should know about illegal immigration...
This Story was originally broadcast by Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes Dec. 11, 2005
My note: We must create a way for Mexican Nationals and others to work in our country in a legal capacity. Is is imperative for humanitarian and economic reasons. Green cards and other methods are not enough and do not serve the numbers of people that we need to have here. Please write your representatives supporting a Guest Worker Program.
Excerpt from 60 Minutes:
"The University of California’s Wayne Cornelius, a national authority on immigration, predicted ten years ago that no matter what the government does to fortify the border, Mexican workers will still keep coming as long as there are jobs here for them. "They can earn more in an hour of work in the United States than they could in an entire day in Mexico – if they had a job," says Cornelius. The government says crossing the border through the desert is breaking the law, but Cornelius says the U.S. is sending a very mixed message. "The message that we’re sending them is if you can get past the obstacle course at the border, you’re essentially home free. You have pretty much unrestricted access to our labor market and there are employers out there eager for your labor," he says.
About six million illegal migrants are now working in the U.S. The meatpacking industry is one of the many that rely on illegal immigrant labor. Seven years ago, the Immigration Service cracked down on illegal migrants in plants in Nebraska and Iowa. Mark Reed was in charge of the operation. "What we did is we pulled together the meatpacking industry in the states of Nebraska and Iowa and brought them into Washington and told them that we were not going to allow them to hire any more unauthorized workers. Within 30 days over 3,500 people fled the meatpacking industry in Nebraska," says Reed. "We proved that the government without doubt had the capacity to deny employment to unauthorized workers," says Reed. What happened next? "We were invited to leave Nebraska by the same delegation that invited us in. The bottom line issue was, please leave our state before you ruin our economy," says Reed. "The reason is that by putting that factory out of business, not only do we put the unauthorized workers out of business, but we’ve put United States citizens out of business and we destroy, we have the potential to destroy, an entire community," says Reed. Reed says that this illegal work force is "essential" to our economy. So what are taxpayers getting for the billions of dollars spent on border security? "Getting a good story," says Reed. But not a secure border. "
Please read the full story here..
My note: We must create a way for Mexican Nationals and others to work in our country in a legal capacity. Is is imperative for humanitarian and economic reasons. Green cards and other methods are not enough and do not serve the numbers of people that we need to have here. Please write your representatives supporting a Guest Worker Program.
Excerpt from 60 Minutes:
"The University of California’s Wayne Cornelius, a national authority on immigration, predicted ten years ago that no matter what the government does to fortify the border, Mexican workers will still keep coming as long as there are jobs here for them. "They can earn more in an hour of work in the United States than they could in an entire day in Mexico – if they had a job," says Cornelius. The government says crossing the border through the desert is breaking the law, but Cornelius says the U.S. is sending a very mixed message. "The message that we’re sending them is if you can get past the obstacle course at the border, you’re essentially home free. You have pretty much unrestricted access to our labor market and there are employers out there eager for your labor," he says.
About six million illegal migrants are now working in the U.S. The meatpacking industry is one of the many that rely on illegal immigrant labor. Seven years ago, the Immigration Service cracked down on illegal migrants in plants in Nebraska and Iowa. Mark Reed was in charge of the operation. "What we did is we pulled together the meatpacking industry in the states of Nebraska and Iowa and brought them into Washington and told them that we were not going to allow them to hire any more unauthorized workers. Within 30 days over 3,500 people fled the meatpacking industry in Nebraska," says Reed. "We proved that the government without doubt had the capacity to deny employment to unauthorized workers," says Reed. What happened next? "We were invited to leave Nebraska by the same delegation that invited us in. The bottom line issue was, please leave our state before you ruin our economy," says Reed. "The reason is that by putting that factory out of business, not only do we put the unauthorized workers out of business, but we’ve put United States citizens out of business and we destroy, we have the potential to destroy, an entire community," says Reed. Reed says that this illegal work force is "essential" to our economy. So what are taxpayers getting for the billions of dollars spent on border security? "Getting a good story," says Reed. But not a secure border. "
Please read the full story here..
Monday, January 7, 2008
The New Hamshire Debates Part 3...
I learned a new word from Gov. Bill Richardson.. I also thought his solution for Pakistan was very polite.
Technocracy ("techno" from the Greek tekhne for skill, "cracy" from the Greek kratos for "power") is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.
Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions.
MR. GIBSON: Well, you led me right up to the point of what you'd do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and therefore were in control of nuclear weapons, and then you went away from there. But I'll come back to that in a moment.
Governor Richardson.
Me: Really, diplomacy first. Islamic radicals take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and we are going to use diplomacy first. That doesn't sound right to me.
GOV. RICHARDSON: In any foreign policy decision, I would use diplomacy first, in response to your question. And that basically means that the last thing we need in the Muslim world is another action like Iraq which is going to enflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way.
Now, here's what I would do. First, with Pakistan, here's an example of a country, a potentially failed nation-state with nuclear weapons. What a president must do is have a foreign policy of principles and realism. And the Bush foreign policy, with Musharraf, we get the worst of all worlds. We have a situation where he has not gone after al Qaeda in his own country, despite the fact that we've given him $11 billion. And he's also severely damaged the constitution. He's basically said that he is the supreme dictator. So we have the worst of all worlds.
What I would specifically do as president is I would ask Musharraf to step aside. There is a provision in the Pakistani constitution --
GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, for a caretaker --
MR. GIBSON: And what -- (inaudible)?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Because we have the leverage to do that.
MR. GIBSON: Hasn't worked so far.
GOV. RICHARDSON: We have the leverage to do that, and I -- I would send a high-level envoy to ask him to step aside. There's a provision in the Pakistani constitution for a caretaker government of technocrats. This happened when a previous prime minister died. And I would make it unmistakably clear that he had to have elections.
Now, elections are scheduled tentatively for February. A broadly based government, it's what's best for the United States.
Me: I didn't know that dictators with nuclear weapons would just "step aside" if you ask nicely. Please.
MR. GIBSON: I understand your point about diplomacy. But Senator Obama's postulate was, we have actionable intelligence, the Musharraf government won't move; do we, should we, go in to western Pakistan and essentially try to take him out?
GOV. RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. However, Charlie, first you use diplomacy. And diplomacy is to try to get what is best for the United States. And that is, a democratic Pakistan with free and fair elections and a concerted effort on the part of Musharraf or whoever is in the leadership in Pakistan to go after terrorists in those safe havens, which they have not done.
Me: WHeeeew! And, I thought it was going to be much more difficult than that. I bet President Bush hasn't thought of just asking Mr. Musharraf to "step aside". (this is me being hugely sarcastic)
Technocracy ("techno" from the Greek tekhne for skill, "cracy" from the Greek kratos for "power") is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.
Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions.
MR. GIBSON: Well, you led me right up to the point of what you'd do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and therefore were in control of nuclear weapons, and then you went away from there. But I'll come back to that in a moment.
Governor Richardson.
Me: Really, diplomacy first. Islamic radicals take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and we are going to use diplomacy first. That doesn't sound right to me.
GOV. RICHARDSON: In any foreign policy decision, I would use diplomacy first, in response to your question. And that basically means that the last thing we need in the Muslim world is another action like Iraq which is going to enflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way.
Now, here's what I would do. First, with Pakistan, here's an example of a country, a potentially failed nation-state with nuclear weapons. What a president must do is have a foreign policy of principles and realism. And the Bush foreign policy, with Musharraf, we get the worst of all worlds. We have a situation where he has not gone after al Qaeda in his own country, despite the fact that we've given him $11 billion. And he's also severely damaged the constitution. He's basically said that he is the supreme dictator. So we have the worst of all worlds.
What I would specifically do as president is I would ask Musharraf to step aside. There is a provision in the Pakistani constitution --
Me: While you are asking supreme dictators to step aside. Would you please ask Hugo Chavez to step aside as well and Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? That would be lovely!
MR. GIBSON: Ask him to step aside?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, for a caretaker --
MR. GIBSON: And what -- (inaudible)?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Because we have the leverage to do that.
MR. GIBSON: Hasn't worked so far.
GOV. RICHARDSON: We have the leverage to do that, and I -- I would send a high-level envoy to ask him to step aside. There's a provision in the Pakistani constitution for a caretaker government of technocrats. This happened when a previous prime minister died. And I would make it unmistakably clear that he had to have elections.
Now, elections are scheduled tentatively for February. A broadly based government, it's what's best for the United States.
Me: I didn't know that dictators with nuclear weapons would just "step aside" if you ask nicely. Please.
MR. GIBSON: I understand your point about diplomacy. But Senator Obama's postulate was, we have actionable intelligence, the Musharraf government won't move; do we, should we, go in to western Pakistan and essentially try to take him out?
GOV. RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. However, Charlie, first you use diplomacy. And diplomacy is to try to get what is best for the United States. And that is, a democratic Pakistan with free and fair elections and a concerted effort on the part of Musharraf or whoever is in the leadership in Pakistan to go after terrorists in those safe havens, which they have not done.
Me: WHeeeew! And, I thought it was going to be much more difficult than that. I bet President Bush hasn't thought of just asking Mr. Musharraf to "step aside". (this is me being hugely sarcastic)
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The New Hampshire Debates Part 2...
These are my impressions in no particular order, so please forgive. Barack Obama, likable.. you just can't deny it. He looks Presidential and wouldn't it be cool to have the first African American in the White House. Yes, but please not Senator Obama. He's confused about a few things and Charlie Gibson did a great job pointing that out plainly so that we all could see.
Mr. Gibson:...Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.
What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant -- proliferation strategy -- something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
Me: Senator Obama if you think that President Bush has not been working hard with the Pakistani Government, you must never watch the news. So tell me please, what specifically you would do that President Bush has not done to "work with the Pakistani government"?
MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
Me: Exactly Charlie. What about that Senator?
SEN. OBAMA: No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.
Me: No um.. that still sounds exactly the same. Since if you recall the government of Iraq claimed to have nuclear weapons at one time, they also claimed to have biological weapons and chemical weapons (and they did have chemical weapons at one time with which Saddam Hussein killed atleast 100,000 of his own people). Then, when U.N. Inspectors tried time and time and time again to get into the country to verify this information, they were blocked. Iraq was given warning after warning which they ignored. And, like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein made many threatening speeches. Most democrats, even Senator Clinton (this is a very good article on her record) voted to go to war. I guess the difference is possibly how we define "actionable intelligence". You think waiting until a madman has killed 3,000 of our own people is enough intelligence to say that he is probably dangerous, and I think that when a madman has killed 100,000 of his own, he most likely can't be trusted either.
Mr. Gibson:...Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.
What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.
Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant -- proliferation strategy -- something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
Me: Senator Obama if you think that President Bush has not been working hard with the Pakistani Government, you must never watch the news. So tell me please, what specifically you would do that President Bush has not done to "work with the Pakistani government"?
MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
Me: Exactly Charlie. What about that Senator?
SEN. OBAMA: No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.
Me: No um.. that still sounds exactly the same. Since if you recall the government of Iraq claimed to have nuclear weapons at one time, they also claimed to have biological weapons and chemical weapons (and they did have chemical weapons at one time with which Saddam Hussein killed atleast 100,000 of his own people). Then, when U.N. Inspectors tried time and time and time again to get into the country to verify this information, they were blocked. Iraq was given warning after warning which they ignored. And, like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein made many threatening speeches. Most democrats, even Senator Clinton (this is a very good article on her record) voted to go to war. I guess the difference is possibly how we define "actionable intelligence". You think waiting until a madman has killed 3,000 of our own people is enough intelligence to say that he is probably dangerous, and I think that when a madman has killed 100,000 of his own, he most likely can't be trusted either.
The New Hampshire Debates in several parts... 1
Every so often I hear the "good news" that more and more young people are becoming part of the political process. We hear about "Get Out The Vote" & "Rock the Vote" (please) rock concerts and blah, blah, blah. I'm not convinced. It's great to hear that young people are so interested in the poltical process and are spending their time watching debates and educating themselves about the candidates. Right? NO! No, they are not. Advertisers know their demographic. They do. It's their business to know and they spend millions to do it. What type of advertising was viewed during the New Hampshire Debates? If you were also watching, you know advertisers were pushing sexual performance drugs and adult diapers. That tells me if young people are going out to the polls, they must be going uninformed. This does not excite me. Youth and inexperience + uninformed = Please, do me a favor. Don't vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
