samiam.com

[TC] This is a tough subject for me because I am of two minds on this issue. Perhaps my discussion with SAM on the subject will allow me to clarify and solidify my position on this issue.

I could argue both sides of this issue because I believe that both sides have valid arguments. I believe that money has too much influence in politics and therefore the money must be regulated. I also believe that you have every right to support the candidate of your choice in any manner that you choose. The problem is not money, the problem is politicians.

The problem with regulating the money is two-fold. First you have some first amendment problems by quashing free speech. By not allowing some groups to buy advertisement to express their viewpoint you are effectively censoring them, something the government is forbidden to do under the first amendment. Secondly, there is always a loophole that someone will be able to exploit. So in the end, did you really accomplish anything?

Now, assume that we take a lazie-faire attitude toward the money. Candidates can raise unlimited amounts of money; special interest groups can buy all the advertisements they can afford. Now for whom is a candidate going to work? You, one vote and a $25 campaign contribution or someone with piles of cash that can be used to back any candidate they choose?

Here is my solution. Unless the challenger is totally repugnant, I rarely vote for the incumbent. If Mr. Political Big-Wheel were to suddenly find himself living under the laws and regulations he helped pass, he may think again about where his best interests lie.

[Sam] I’m of two minds on this, as well. I think the first thing that needs to occur is to limit “official” campaigning to two months (or less!) before the election. I’d like to see regulations in place that prevent purchasing ads on TV and radio; rather each and every candidate will receive equal time and placement and costs will be handled as they are for PSA’s. These two measures, alone, would greatly curtail the headache that is worse than Christmas holiday shopping ads. Thankfully, the big elections aren’t every year! As a matter of fact, I’d like to see no ads at all. All candidates should receive a public forum, like a website, and that’s all they can propangandize on. Beyond that, interviews and articles are OK, but no print, Internet, TV or radio ads and no direct mailings, either. Period. Except… (There are always exceptions!) Citizens may place whatever they want on their personal stuff. (e.g. bumper stickers, ads on personal websites, yard signs, etc.) No businesses, however, should be allowed to do so. Of course, doing so is somewhat of a bad decision anyway in that they’re alienating part of their clientele. Personal contributions are limited to $500 per year, total for all political campaign donations. No donations are allowed from businesses, PAC’s or any other kind of entity. If it’s not a person, it cannot donate.

Here’s the kicker: Since there are weasels galore out there that seem to like nothing but to find ways around barriers like I’ve mentioned, use the courts liberally to keep a stranglehold on all campaign financing. The judges involved are dutybound to interpret not only the laws, but the intent of those laws and are also morally obligated to rule as conservatively as possible. In other words, if there’s any doubt about the legality of a donation or campaign expenditure, rule against it. Guilty until proven innocent for all campaign finance issues!

A grand plan is the Libertarian ideal of taking away the power of the politicians. If they’ve only the power granted to them by the people (not what they’ve written in for themselves), then they are not as attractive to the big money holders. If they can’t do anything for Big Money, then Big Money ain’t gonna give much of a damn about them.

My thoughts are evolving as I go…
One website for each candidate. For each election, one website that is available for all candidates to state their info and voters to compare apples to apples. One day that all newspapers provide information like on the election website. Equal time and placement of a limited number of TV and radio ads for all candidates. No snail mail. No email. No billboards, posters, or the like.

If every candidate is given the same resources and restrictions, the more likely it is that money will not decide elections. Severe restrictions will enable the voters to actually learn about candidates and greatly reduce the social manipulation so prevalent now.

Now, how do you punish those who will inevitably break the rules? Public caning sounds like a good start…

[TC] If it weren’t for those pesky amendments, namely the first, I could really get behind SAM’s ideas. Personally, I like the idea of limiting the campaign season to two months or less, but again it bothers me that the government, for all intents and purposes, is censoring individuals. That really sticks in my craw, even if it is for a noble cause. I have less problems with the limiting the contributions to individuals, removing or limiting the influence of “big money.”

I don’t like the web idea at all. Sure, I use and like the web so it would be fine for me, in fact I prefer it. But I think about all the people like my parents and grandparents. With the exception of allrecipes.com and email my mom doesn’t use her computer at all. My grandfather thinks computers are an evil plot by aliens to take over the planet (ok, not really, but you get the idea). How would they get their information?

[Sam] I am acutely aware that America is a giant melting pot. The only natives of this land are the Native Americans; the rest of us are immigrants or the progeny of immigrants. I welcome new immigrants to our country - legal immigrants. If one wishes to be welcomed here, one shouldn’t immediately break our laws upon entering our country. Currently, the greatest influx of illegal aliens is from Mexico. North Carolina has become a mecca for these criminals and the problems they create are growing. Our lax driver’s license issuing requirements have turned NC into a hub of illegal immigrant activity, attracting many that come here to stay and many more that come for their ID and then move on to other states.

[TC] I agree with SAM in that most of us are immigrants and I support that. A friend that I have lost touch with is an immigrant from Costa Rica… a legal immigrant. Rykin is a smart, articulate man who will be a great contribution to our society and I was proud to call him friend. I wish I knew where he was now so that I could get his views on the wave of illegal aliens. I would suspect he would not be pleased that having waited 6 years for his paperwork to wend it’s way through our bureaucracy that others are simply walking across our borders. How fair is that?

[Sam] I just read an article by Maggie Finneran, a police officer, describing some of what she’s encountered with illegal aliens:

Americans for Legal Immigration - Illegal immigrants: The truth (Police Officer’s View)

As a law enforcement officer, statistically, more than 50 percent of all cases I investigate involve illegals as either suspects or victims. Unfortunately this is not distinguishable on reported statistics because we can’t discriminate among those we help.

Most of these cases are child sex crimes and identity theft. Many convicted sex offenders are illegals that were not deported after conviction, or who have sneaked back across the border. And most of my rape and child sex cases are perpetrated by illegals.

Identity theft and financial crimes have become a nightmare to investigate. Real estate fraud is king with the housing market and interest rates what they are. Everyone involved stands to get rich, from the real estate agent/broker, notary, buyer and seller. It’s far more lucrative than peddling methamphetamine. Why run the risk of arrest when you can waltz away with $100,000 in proceeds on a sale, all in someone else’s name?

In the last six months, in every single high-dollar fraud case I investigated, the suspect was an illegal alien. And if that doesn’t sting, you should see the Hummers, Navigators and Escalades these people are driving. And who ends up responsible for the loss? Surely not someone who doesn’t have a peso to his name anyway.

Though I’ve not researched the impact of illegal aliens on our local, state and national economies, I’ve read enough articles and conversed enough with people to know it is negative and it is not minor. I have no degree in economics or political science. I don’t have “workable” solutions for our country’s ills. However, I do know that the first thing one does when one is trying to recover from virtually anything is to stop adding more harm. Stop illegal immigration. Do not provide amnesty for the illegals already here; send them home. There should be no reward for entering our country illegally, and especially not the reward of getting to stay. If you want to be an American citizen, a resident or even a guest, obey our laws. It’s not an unreasonable thing to do.

[TC] I agree with SAM, the United States has to stop the illegal immigration. If this were any other situation it would be called an invasion and would be considered an act of war. I have a few thoughts on how to stop the illegal alien problem.

First, tighten security on the borders as much as possible. This would reduce dramatically the number of people that are able to successfully cross illegally into our country.

[Sam] I wholly agree with this. Porous borders are nothing but invitations for illegal entry.

[TC] Second, remove temptation to try the crossing at all. Several things can be done in this regard, namely by conducting all government business in English, refusing to provide social services to those without proper documentation, stiff fines and other penalties for employers employing people without proper documentation, and for those with proper documentation, follow up regularly to ensure they do not overstay.

[Sam] I agree, mostly. Some government business must be multilingual (e.g. law enforcement) and other essential services are simply going to have to be multilingual because the consequences of inability to communicate can be very dire (e.g. life-threatening injury or illness). Still, I have truck with businesses that offer services in Spanish, our new National language. Selling tires does not need to be a multilingual affair. Neither does marketing a package of toilet tissue. If I were to move to Germany or Italy, I’d make every effort to learn the language there. I would greatly appreciate knowing I could effectively communicate with emergency human services, but I would learn the language. I would carry a translation dictionary with me until I became fluent in that language. Why is this such an outrageous request here? Why are the Hispanics, in particular, so unwilling to do this? Money. Because businesses cater to them and give them no reason to learn English. I wish they’d stop it.

[TC] I think you are missing the point SAM. When I was living in Germany I had to quickly learn a few phrases in German for emergencies. Where does the language thing stop? Do we have to have French speaking, German speaking, and Chinese speaking emergency personnel in addition to Spanish speaking personnel? As far as private business goes, if they want to cater to a Spanish speaking cliental, fine with me. If they want to exclude the majority of the population, so be it. I won’t shop there.

[Sam] Not so much missing the point as acknowledging that, right now, we have a huge Hispanic population that does not speak English. Had we a huge French population, then I’d advocate the implementing of French in emergency services. Mind you, I’m not saying conversationally fluent multilingual skills, but adequate to obtain basic, relevant information.

[TC] Remember, they are engaged in criminal activity… we should do nothing to encourage it. When you’re a criminal you are operating outside the social safety net. Call me a Social Darwinist, but as far as I’m concerned, you are on your own. We owe our fellow countrymen and guests a certain amount of help. We owe criminals nothing.


Third, deport all illegal aliens immediately when caught and empower local police officials to detain illegal aliens if discovered. When a person is caught illegally in our country, before deportation, fingerprint the individual. If the person returns illegally a second time, he is deported this time to Gitmo for an all expense paid vacation by Uncle Sam.

[Sam] Yes on all but the Gitmo vacation. Throw them out everytime. Use of fingerprinting is fine with me. Have biometric scanners at all entry points and help keep them out that way. This gets into the national ID thing, but we are basically already there. I’m OK with that, at least on first thought. I’m sure there are reasons I wouldn’t like it, but they don’t immediately come to mind.

[TC] In the United States if you are caught doing something illegal you are not (normally) told Don’t do that again, it’s not nice. You are incarcerated the first time. I thought I was being generous by not wanting to incarcerate them the first time. After spending a year or so in jail they may think again about trying to cross into the United States. I chose Gitmo just to spit in their eye… they are in jail and still they are not in the United States.

[Sam] My thoughts on the punishment is in the realm of, “Why should we pay to keep them up?” Now, if they’re going to be working to sustain themselves there, I can support confining them. But, why should they get better than some of our poor? Kick them out and continue tightening the borders. Can we sue Mexico for maintaining an environment that encourages its citizens to repeatedly, illegally enter our country? (Kinda kidding on that, but sighing wistfully…)

[TC] Making them work to earn their parole… works for me. I bet the navy has some ships that need painting.

Lastly, we need to dismantle the welfare state as it exists in the United States. The reasons for this are many, but let me explain how it would help the illegal immigration problem. If I own a business and I want to hire low paid workers, why would an otherwise able-bodied worker come to work for me when they can earn nearly as much drawing welfare? This creates an artificially high demand for people who will take the lower paying jobs… immigrants.

[Sam] Excellent point, TC! Less government yielding less problems… Imagine that.

[TC] The problem of the wave of illegal immigration is not insurmountable. But it does take political will, something that members of both parties are lacking. But until the American People wake up and send politicians to federal, state and local government who have the cojones to do something about it, the problem is going to continue.