Arizona Immigration Law and Immigrant "rights"

I'll be the first to admit that I think the term undocumented immigrant is silly. We have immigration laws in the U.S. and if someone is in violation of them, then they are breaking the law and are illegal. While I have laughed at the term unfinanced bank customer, it still holds true that the person is a bank robber and if caught, is subjected to jail.


How could one law in a single state, be so decisive to the nation? Or is it? If one is to believe the polls, 55 - 60 percent of Americans support the new Arizona laws and another poll by Rasmussen says that the Immigration Rights supporters only have the support of 25% of Americans, while 50% views the protesters unfavorably, with 25% undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/25_have_favorable_opinion_of_immigration_rights_protesters_50_unfavorable
While not all illegal immigrants are Latino, the majority are so I'm going to make an assumption here, and that is a large majority of Latinos would support Immigration rights. Since Latinos make up nearly 20% of the American population, it doesn't appear that they have a lot of wide spread support in other racial groups in the U.S.

Personally, if you enter the U.S. illegally, you should be deported. Period. It shouldn't matter if you were brought here when you were a day old and are now Americanized, that is the risk your parents choose for you when they brought you here.

Take the case of Jessica Coloti, brought to the U.S when she was 11 years old and was stopped by Kennesaw State's campus police. She had no driver's license and reportedly gave the police officer false information, a felony in Georgia. So, Jessica has broken three U.S. laws and the Civil Liberties Union of Georgia has called the actions of the Police, "yet another outrageous example of the unaccountable local law enforcement of immigration laws...". Ummm what about Jessica's accountability?

On all levels this statement is plain wrong. She was stopped by the campus police and then produced an expired passport from Mexico. She the gave the officer a false home address. Her lawyer has said, "the car's registration simply reflected her old address and she provided her new address." Funny thing, I checked and Georgia law says you must provide a drivers license to register a motor vehicle in Georgia. Jessica has no license, so her lawyer is lying (surprise). See the requirements below.

http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/motor/AddressChangeonly.asp

In any case, she committed a felony, was in fact an illegal immigrant and was turned over to ICE for processing. Exactly how were the actions of the local police wrong?

Does an illegal immigrant have the same "rights" that a legal citizen enjoys?

In a nutshell no. As with the Arizona law, if you are here illegally, you don't belong here and need to go home. As the ACLU correctly pointed out, they are "law enforcement officials", and as such are sworn to enforce the laws, enforcement of the immigration laws, as well as the laws of the State in which they reside is part of their JOB.

Jessica said, "I'm just trying to live the American dream and get my education".

I'm sorry Jessica, you are from Mexico and should be living the Mexican dream.

Trying to close the "Gates" on military pay raises

In a surprise to no one who understands where Democrats go to get money when the well is dry, the Obama Administration, via the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Gates, has asked Congress to limit pay raises to military members, whom they feel are overpaid.

Their proof? From the Washington Post: "Under current scales, an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, a figure that includes basic pay, housing and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits." Let me put this paragraph to bed right now. A sergeant with 10 dependants makes the same money. If the same guy has no dependants his pay will be closer to $24,000 because not all members qualify for housing or subsistence.

As a retired member of the Armed Forces, I read the article in the Post with some dismay, as the Post tries to make comparisons between the pay for civilians and military members, saying the members of the military are better paid than their counter parts in the civilian world.

First, it is my opinion that these studies are flawed and try to cover all the services with a broad brush. The GAO admits as much, saying comparing the pay scale for each military function to a civilian job is impossible, because the military has jobs that don't exist in the civilian world. I could spend days on this, but in a nutshell, even if the GAO report IS accurate, military members pay and benefits average somewhere around $13,300 more than their civilian counterparts.

Let's take a moment to focus on what the government (and you) gets for their $1,100/month.

First, as a uniformed military member, you immediately give up most of your Constitutional Rights and are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the UCMJ. You can only attend a protest IF your appearance can not be associated with the military in ANY way. You must get permission to get a tattoo. You are subject to double jeopardy, where you are tried by a military court, then again by a civilian court for the SAME charges. You can be fined or imprisoned without a trial by jury. Charges in a civilian court can result in reduction in pay rank. You cannot go to bars or other establishments the military has placed "off limits", these include gay bars, places that may or may not have drug activity, etc. I could go on, but you probably get the point.

You can no longer run for public office, even to become a member of a school board in your community.

You can't sue the military health care system even if the care you receive is substandard or outright negligent. While we are on this topic, let me touch upon the military "health care" system that is such a valuable benefit. On ships the size of a cruiser (400 crew or less), there are no doctor or nurses. The quality medical care touted by the GAO is a high school educated crew member practicing medicine without a license. That is correct, 3/4 of the U.S. Navy ships don't have a doctor on board. If you are lucky enough to have a doctor assigned to your vessel, his speciality may not be relevant to the crew. I once had a pediatrician and then a gynacologist on the U.S.S. Texas (all male ship) as the ship's doctor.

In prison you share a 70 square foot cell with one other person, the average size of personal space on a Navy ship for enlisted is 21 square feet and on aircraft carriers you can have over 200 "roomies".

Standard navy ship deployments are 6 months deployed and 18 months home. At sea we worked 6 days and got Sunday off, except you still have 10 or more hours of watch EVERY day. I did a deployment where I stood watch six hours on and six hours off and during the six hours off during the work day, I still had to work. Home is relative, because the DESIRABLE inport time is 50% of the "home" time. Sea shore rotation is 6 years at sea and 2 to 3 years assigned to a shore duty station. Most people that serve 20 years will miss 3-5 Christmas' at sea and have duty for one or two more. Missing holidays and birthdays is very common. I missed the birth of my second son as I was in Hawaii on the ship training. Funerals, forget it unless it is a parent, spouse or child.

There is no overtime, period.

One of the "tax benefits" the article mentions deserves discussion. Social Security tax is not charged on subsistence or housing and while this does reduce the tax burden of the uniformed member, it also reduces their social security earnings and thus the social security retirement check when retirement age is achieved.

The value of the retirement "benefit" is hard to gage. In most cases you must have 20 years on active duty to retire, and if you leave the service before the 20 years is up, unlike the civilian world, you CAN'T take your retirement with you.

Duty assignments... you go where the Navy needs you.

Do I need to mention getting shot at?

You tell me, is this worth $1,100 per month?

Kagan and the rashness of the Obama Administration

Wow, how many out there thought we would wake up this morning with a candidate for the Supreme Court with zero judicial experience? I bet there are a lot of judges out there feeling pretty bad that they couldn't make the cut against someone without experience on the bench. What does that say about the judicial system in America?

Honestly based on experiences with this Administration so far, I thought we would have another John Paul Stevens clone, instead we have the Sarah Palin of the Judicial world, except Palin actually held elective offices, however brief.

Her road to the bench appears to be a rocky one as she is already being marked as both anti-gay and pro-gay, if you can believe it. Kagan as you might remember tried to block recruiting on the Harvard campus because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. On the other side of the coin, she is on record saying gays don't have the Constitutional right to marriage, which doesn't earn her friends in the gay community.

As one would expect, the Democrats are saying she is superbly qualified to be one of the top nine Justices in the land. Because remember, arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court is the same as judging a case on the court, right? I'll have to leave that up to my son who wants to be a lawyer, but to me if arguing cases in front of the court is just as good as being a Justice, shouldn't we pick the person who has argued the most cases in front of the court?

The Republicans are saying they won't rubber stamp her nomination and will give her a fair hearing. Meaning they will use every resource they have to block her nomination, based solely on the fact she was nominated by a Democrat.

Final thoughts: Thinking back to Obama's first Supreme Court Justice, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, Justice Sotomayor probably had the most cases overturned in the Court, why not try someone without all that Judicial baggage?

Oil spills, finger pointing and politics

A benefit of working in heavy industry most of my life has provided myself and others like me, a useful tool called root cause analysis. This tool is used in many companies to pin-point the cause of failure of equipment, accident investigation and generally get to the bottom of a complex problem.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is certainly a big problem, at least for BP, Transocean, the Department of the Interior (through it's Mineral Management Service (MMS)) and the people along the shore caught in the middle (pun intended).

A true root cause analysis can take days, weeks, or even longer, I plan to do mine in the space of this blog.

All oil drilling rigs have a blowout preventer installed, which is designed to stop the flow of oil in the event of an accident. The blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon failed and oil continues to flow from the well. In 2004, the MMS had a report which suggested the reliability of the blowout preventers may not be reliable. Because these devices could fail, other countries, such as Norway and Brazil require a backup device, know as a remote-controlled shut off switch, which wasn't used or required on this well.

Many companies in the real world employ backup devices on a daily basis, probably the best example you are probably familar with are the TWO engines (or more) on the passenger jet you flew to Orlando for vacation. If one engine fails, the back up allows the plane to continue to fly and land the plane safely.

So, who determines if a remote-controlled shut off switch must be used? MMS or better yet, the Department of the Interior (DoI), i.e. the Federal Government. Through the permitting process, the DoI receives a request to drill, looks at the company's environment impact statement and if they agree, issue a permit to drill.

So had the DoI required BP to install the remote-controlled shut off switch, they would have been required to do so and this whole problem might have been avoided. So why didn't they require the device? Did the Doi expect BP to regulate themselves and install a device that costs roughly $500,000? News flash, generally no company will spend any additional capital on safety or environmental devices unless required to do so by a law or regulation. Which is why we have OSHA, MSHA, EPA and all the other regulatory groups and laws in our government.

So the DoI didn't require a backup device, did they require BP to have a plan in place to stop or minimize the effects of a spill if one were to happen? No, they didn't.

Does the DoI have an oil spill plan in place? I mean after the Exxon Valdez, you would think the government would come up with some sort of response plan wouldn't you? Well, they don't, unless you consider "burning of the oil" as a plan. Seriously, if you aren't going to require the drilling company to have backup devices and an oil spill clean up plan, shouldn't the Department of the government that is charged with the "protection and management of the Nation's natural resources" have a plan in place, you know, just in case?

Shocking to no one, both political parties are trying to use this disaster for political gain, and personally I think both parties should avoid throwing rocks in a glass house. The Democrats, Robert F. Kennedy via Huffingtonpost.com have said it is the fault of the Bush Administration. But he seems to forget, the Deepwater Horizon was completely permitted during the Obama Administration, and at any point the DOI could have required BP to use the devices but didn't. In fact, the DOI granted BP a waiver from doing a detailed environmental analysis. The Republicans are calling it Obama's Katrina, but seem to forget the requirement for the devices disappeared during the Bush Administration.