It is interesting that the Tea Party can get so upset about the new Health Care law and how it abuses the citizens of this country, yet ignore the most obvious signs in other countries that they are abusing their own citizens.
The Tea Party, for the most, grew out of the anger from the Health Care legislation. There were, of course, many other reasons that the Angry Crowd finally organized to try and “take back” America. (As if someone had actually “taken it” in the first place.) We all remember the angry faces at the health care town meetings around the country claiming that the legislation was taking away our freedoms. There are also a big reason the conservatives won many seats in congress in the last election.
Part of the mantra the party use was to cut taxes, thereby, cutting the size of government. The size of the America government, or so they say, had grown to the point that it threaten our civil liberties. By cutting the flow of cash, governments would have to make deep and dramatic cuts, reduce the bureaucracy and let the people take more control over their lives.
But, the moment we apply that philosophy to another issue, the same people that want to cut the flow of cash to their own government, will not take the necessary steps to stop the flow of cash to many other truly illegal governments around the world.
What is the other issue? Oil. It is the heroin of our culture. We don’t care what the pusher man does as long as the oil continues to flow across the ocean to keep our way of life going. It is believed that only oil can fuel our way of life and to lose it would cripple us in such a way that our economy would collapse around us like castles of sand on a beach.
But, the reason there is such unrest in the parts of the world right now is because we have supported governments that really do oppress their citizens. The only reason we do this is because they have oil that we want or because they support us in making sure the oil keeps flowing.
This blog is not about economics and only occasionally has anything been written about it. This particular post is not about the economics of oil directly. This post is about oppressing people indirectly and not taking any responsibility to stop it.
Some say that we should leave it to the market to guide our actions. But markets aren’t always correct. If it were, the cost of oil would be higher than it is now because it would somehow include the cost of oppression, the oppression that the countries that supply our oil visits on their citizens. All those countries that supply oil to the world such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocracies and outright totalitarian regimes would not be able to sell their oil on the market if it included the cost in human suffering because it would be so much higher. Countries that supply oil that are legitimate governments would be able to sell their oil much cheaper.
But that isn’t to say that we should ignore markets all together. We can use them in a responsible way that helps us realize the true cost of a product, in this case, oil. By raising the cost of oil artificially in a steady, regulated way, the market would know that in a year or two what the cost of oil would be. So would the average person in the community. The economy could plan ahead instead of blindly watching the cost of oil on a daily basis and making decision that are short term.
We should tax oil and perhaps other energy supplies in a modest, but growing amount each year, if not monthly. The increase in cost would push the market in the direction that we need it to go, to other sources. The additional revenue would help pay for the deficit.
With less oil being purchased, especially from countries that suppress their population, there would not be the funds to maintain oppressive governments that now exist.
We would also not be surprised one morning to wake up to the news that more and more countries that supply our heroin is now in turbulence.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?
Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.
GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.
Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:
The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.
The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?
If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.
Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.
-----
GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.
Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:
- “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.
The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.
The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?
If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.
Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.
-----
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Let's not make it legal to kill abortion providers
So, you tell me what this means, especially the lines that are in bold…
The lines that are in bold are the proposed changes to South Dakota’s law on justifiable homicide. State representative Phil Jensen is the author of the bill. Anyone reading the current law with the proposed changes can clearly interpret the meaning, that someone could kill an abortion doctor and claim that it was justifiable homicide.
In Rep. Jensen’s defense, he claims that he is merely attempting to bring consistency to current law. That, “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.”
Well, it can be seen that he pretends to be correct in his statement about the proposed changes. But, in my reading of the changes it has everything to do with abortion.
Abortion is the most divisive issue in America today. It is legal in this country as Rep. Jensen points out. Those that want to keep if that way are not willing to compromise. Those that oppose abortion find it difficult to slide in the direction of making some abortions legal. Their wish is to stamp it out completely.
So, those that mean well for their point of view, make end runs. Attempts are made to control abortion, to slow it down. Policy and laws are created that laden the activity with bureaucracy that will at the very least limit those that seek an abortion. But, responsible communities must be very careful about the unforeseen consequences of any law. In the beginning, a law may have the best intensions. Bu, as the law works its way into everyday life, a downside often presents itself.
To focus on the conservatives in this issue, the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was envisioned as a way to break up organized crime. It made it illegal to create an organization that manages illegal activity. Great, it worked on getting many people involved in organized crime off the streets. The surprise came when anti-abortion organizations began feeling the sting of RICO charges for their illegal activities (although in some cases minor, like protests that trespassed on private property or more concerning activity like releasing names of abortion providers).
No matter what Rep. Jensen says about the changes he is proposing, just like the authors of the RICO act, it will have a downside. To provide anyone a defense (or for that matter, a crazed zealot reading between the lines) for killing a doctor or any other person working in a medical setting that provides abortions is not the right direction.
All of us should work at limiting the amount of abortions, such as preventing pregnancies. But, let’s make sure our best intentions don’t create more problems.
-----
- Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
- Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
The lines that are in bold are the proposed changes to South Dakota’s law on justifiable homicide. State representative Phil Jensen is the author of the bill. Anyone reading the current law with the proposed changes can clearly interpret the meaning, that someone could kill an abortion doctor and claim that it was justifiable homicide.
In Rep. Jensen’s defense, he claims that he is merely attempting to bring consistency to current law. That, “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.”
Well, it can be seen that he pretends to be correct in his statement about the proposed changes. But, in my reading of the changes it has everything to do with abortion.
Abortion is the most divisive issue in America today. It is legal in this country as Rep. Jensen points out. Those that want to keep if that way are not willing to compromise. Those that oppose abortion find it difficult to slide in the direction of making some abortions legal. Their wish is to stamp it out completely.
So, those that mean well for their point of view, make end runs. Attempts are made to control abortion, to slow it down. Policy and laws are created that laden the activity with bureaucracy that will at the very least limit those that seek an abortion. But, responsible communities must be very careful about the unforeseen consequences of any law. In the beginning, a law may have the best intensions. Bu, as the law works its way into everyday life, a downside often presents itself.
To focus on the conservatives in this issue, the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was envisioned as a way to break up organized crime. It made it illegal to create an organization that manages illegal activity. Great, it worked on getting many people involved in organized crime off the streets. The surprise came when anti-abortion organizations began feeling the sting of RICO charges for their illegal activities (although in some cases minor, like protests that trespassed on private property or more concerning activity like releasing names of abortion providers).
No matter what Rep. Jensen says about the changes he is proposing, just like the authors of the RICO act, it will have a downside. To provide anyone a defense (or for that matter, a crazed zealot reading between the lines) for killing a doctor or any other person working in a medical setting that provides abortions is not the right direction.
All of us should work at limiting the amount of abortions, such as preventing pregnancies. But, let’s make sure our best intentions don’t create more problems.
-----
Monday, February 14, 2011
No rights to marry for prisoners
Would you marry a man or woman that is in prison for second degree murder and a weapons charge?
Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.
A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.
Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.
So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.
On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.
Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.
-----
Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.
A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.
Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.
So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.
On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.
Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.
-----
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Keep school activities equal
Little Jane should have the same opportunities as little Johnny, well, unless of course it interferers with the good ol’ boy sports programs.
If you listen to the good ol’ boys of sports, you would think that football is on the way out of high school sports. The panic is nationwide. The warnings come from none other than The College Sports Council, a organization created to support college sports.
A months ago, the National Women’s Law Center asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights investigate 12 school districts nationwide that they suggest are violating Title IX. It is a portion of the former Education Amendments of 1972, now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author. It states in more precise legal language that no person should be denied equal opportunity in education on the basis of their gender.
The Pacific Legal Foundation recently filed a counter suit asking that the department of education not only reject the request to investigate the 12 school districts but suggested that the act doesn’t apply to K-12 education. Pacific Legal Foundation’s staff lawyer, Joshua Thompson, says that there is nothing in the act or in this regulation that applies to high school sports.
None of the school districts in question are in Michigan. But, every school district in the state will be watching the events. The outcome of the fight will effect districts by either loosening the regulations or by making them stronger.
Since 1972 every challenge of this act has been rejected. Every presidential administration, Republican and Democratic, have supported the Title IX and its regulation of high school sports. That includes the Reagan administration that was the inspiration for the founding of the lead challenger in this latest barrage, The Pacific Legal Foundation.
Whatever the legal outcome of this fight and those that may follow, a responsible community should not support any policy that discriminates by gender. Within that policy, it would not be expected that if a school district determines that there isn’t enough participation in a sport to field a team, then let it go. But, if there is, it should be treated as fairly as any other sport.
The National Women’s Law Center is right to asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the school districts. The calls of foul by the Pacific Legal Foundation is off base.
The National Women’s Law Center, in their own words, champion laws and policies that work for women and families.
Pacific Legal Foundation is an organization, in their own words, that is rescuing liberty from coast to coast.
-----
If you listen to the good ol’ boys of sports, you would think that football is on the way out of high school sports. The panic is nationwide. The warnings come from none other than The College Sports Council, a organization created to support college sports.
A months ago, the National Women’s Law Center asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights investigate 12 school districts nationwide that they suggest are violating Title IX. It is a portion of the former Education Amendments of 1972, now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author. It states in more precise legal language that no person should be denied equal opportunity in education on the basis of their gender.
The Pacific Legal Foundation recently filed a counter suit asking that the department of education not only reject the request to investigate the 12 school districts but suggested that the act doesn’t apply to K-12 education. Pacific Legal Foundation’s staff lawyer, Joshua Thompson, says that there is nothing in the act or in this regulation that applies to high school sports.
None of the school districts in question are in Michigan. But, every school district in the state will be watching the events. The outcome of the fight will effect districts by either loosening the regulations or by making them stronger.
Since 1972 every challenge of this act has been rejected. Every presidential administration, Republican and Democratic, have supported the Title IX and its regulation of high school sports. That includes the Reagan administration that was the inspiration for the founding of the lead challenger in this latest barrage, The Pacific Legal Foundation.
Whatever the legal outcome of this fight and those that may follow, a responsible community should not support any policy that discriminates by gender. Within that policy, it would not be expected that if a school district determines that there isn’t enough participation in a sport to field a team, then let it go. But, if there is, it should be treated as fairly as any other sport.
The National Women’s Law Center is right to asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the school districts. The calls of foul by the Pacific Legal Foundation is off base.
The National Women’s Law Center, in their own words, champion laws and policies that work for women and families.
Pacific Legal Foundation is an organization, in their own words, that is rescuing liberty from coast to coast.
-----
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Courts must rule from the Constitution and not religion
What many of us mean when we say freedom of religion is really freedom of our religion at the exclusion of others.
An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.
Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.
The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.
This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.
It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.
-----
An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.
Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.
The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.
This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.
It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.
-----
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Right idea, wrong target
The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem.
Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.
Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.
If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.
Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.
-----
Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.
Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.
If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.
Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)