Showing posts with label immgration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immgration. Show all posts

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Candidate Profile: Nathan Deal for Governor




John Nathan Deal is a native of Millen, Georgia. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Mercer University in Macon, before joining the US Army. He served as a Democratic Georgia state senator from 1981 to 1993, before being elected to the US House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1992.

After the landslide Republican victory in 1994, Deal says that he became uncomfortable being the most conservative Democrat in the Georgia congressional delegation. In April 1995, four months after beginning his second congressional term, Deal changed parties and became a Republican. He served continually as a congressional Republican until he resigned to run for governor. Deal announced his resignation on March 1, 2010, but delayed leaving office in order to vote against President Obama’s health care reform bill.

At the time of his resignation, Deal was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for using his influence as a congressman to preserve a no-bid contract for his salvage business. Deal was accused of using his congressional email account to discuss personal business with officials of the Georgia senate and Department of Revenue. Deal was concerned with changes that Revenue Commissioner Bart Graham had proposed to a program that earned Deal’s company an estimated $300,000 per year. Deal’s company had worked with the state for twenty years (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scandal-surrounding-Rep-Nathan-Deal-R-Ga-79319837.html ). After his resignation, the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report that said Deal may have exceeded congressional limits on outside income and used his US House office and staff to preserve a private stream of money coming from a no bid state contract (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35154.html).

Deal has said that the deal was not improper and that he had reported it each year to the House Ethics Committee. Deal also says that the report is incomplete because neither Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle nor Revenue Commissioner Graham cooperated with investigators. Cagle refused to cooperate and Graham said that he could not provide the information requested by the investigators without a subpoena. Since Deal resigned, the matter never went to the next level, which would have been the House’s Committee on Standards.

Here are some of Deal’s positions on prominent issues:

Life: Deal is endorsed by Georgia Right to Life. He is rated 100% by National Right to Life and 0% by NARAL. He also earned a 93% rating from the Christian Coalition.

Gun Rights: Deal has an A rating from the National Rifle Association.

Jobs and Economy: Deal is rated 93% by the US Chamber of Commerce. This indicates a pro-business voting record. His rating by the AFL-CIO was 20%. He would like to fuel growth in biotech and medical services through private lending and state capital investment company. He would also like the UGA’s Small Business Development Centers to offer technical and advisory assistance to complement venture capital investment.

Education: Deal is rated 17% by the NEA. This indicates a voting record against the education establishment.

Taxes: Deal was rated 69% by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), which they consider a satisfactory rating. He would like to cut Georgia’s corporate tax rate, the corporate “net worth” tax, and allow exemptions for business inventory. He would also exempt businesses from taxes in their first ten years. For individuals, Deal would enact a 6% flat tax, exempting those who earn $7,000 or less. He would also eliminate the marriage penalty. Finally, Deal has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge to not raise taxes.

Immigration: Deal has said that he would work to pass legislation in Georgia similar to Arizona’s immigration law. On the federal level, Deal would like to close the “anchor baby” loophole, in which children born in the US are automatically granted citizenship, even if they are here illegally.

Sources:
http://www.dealforgovernor.com/index.aspx
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nathan_Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Deal
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scandal-surrounding-Rep-Nathan-Deal-R-Ga-79319837.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/2010/03/29/ajc-investigation-report-finds-deal-violated-ethics-rules/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35154.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Nathan_Deal.htm
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/04/27/nathan-deal-says-hed-implement-arizona-style-immigration-laws/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Candidate Profile: Ray McBerry for Governor


Ray McBerry is a native of Atlanta. He is an avowed Christian who considers himself to be a constitutionalist. According to his website, he is a life-long Republican, but that he does not support “the globalist, socialist policies of either the Democrat or Republican parties at the national level.”

McBerry is a former youth minister at a Stockbridge church as well as a teacher in the Henry County school system at Patrick Henry High School. Currently, Ray McBerry is the president of Ray McBerry Enterprises in Atlanta. He produces radio and television commercials for the Atlanta market.

A brief search of Mr. McBerry’s history did turn up two hints of scandal. In one, McBerry’s teaching certificate was briefly suspended (for one week in 2004) for counseling a girl who was not a student at his school. The girl’s father attempted to bring charges against McBerry, but, according to the campaign, the local judge refused to even allow charges to be filed [http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_171542.asp ]. The report notes that McBerry has a valid teaching certificate to this day.

In the second case, an Atlanta woman claimed in May 2010 that she had an affair with McBerry when he was a youth minister. The woman, who is now twenty-four, claims that the affair took place eight years ago when she was sixteen. She claims that they had sex one time. McBerry denies the affair and says that the charges “came out of nowhere” [http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/woman-admits-relationship-with-mcberry-050410 ].

Here are McBerry’s stances on several prominent issues:

Taxes: McBerry proposes to abolish income and property taxes and replace them with a sales tax. He opposes any linkage of taxes to income, and would decrease the size of government.

Jobs: In addition to tax reform, McBerry would place renewed emphasis on vocational skills in Georgia schools to provide a ready work force for employers. Additionally, he would resist federal encroachment of intrastate commerce. He is one of the authors of the “State Authority and Intrastate Commerce Act” [http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hb-879-georgia-732992 ] which has been filed in the Georgia House of Representatives.

Gun Rights: McBerry opposes any effort to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. He also supports legal immunity for firearms manufacturers in Georgia.

Life: McBerry is staunchly pro-life and is endorsed by Georgia Right to Life.

Education: McBerry is a former teacher with ten years teaching experience. First, he would move away from centralized federal and state control of schools, and return control to the local level. Second, he supports tax credits for school tuition as a means of increasing school competition. Finally, he would like Georgia schools to focus more on vocational skills.

Immigration: McBerry would use all state resources available to secure Georgia’s borders and apprehend illegal immigrants already here. He would bill the federal government for their detention. He would increase fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and would limit their ability to file nuisance lawsuits against the state.

Mr. McBerry also states that he will take a strong stand against federal encroachment into areas that the constitution preserved as the rights of the states. He notes that the federal government should be subservient to the states, not the other way around, and would use the tenth amendment to resist unconstitutional federal mandates, whether they are by federal legislation, court rulings, or executive orders.

Sources:
www.Georgiafirst.org
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_171542.asp
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/woman-admits-relationship-with-mcberry-050410

Friday, May 7, 2010

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration has been on a lot of people’s minds lately. Recently this issue resurged with the passage of a new law in Arizona designed to give local and state law enforcement more tools to combat illegal immigration. Some on the right sound almost xenophobic in their opposition to immigration. On the other hand, some on the left seem to want totally open borders and no enforcement of immigration law.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Arizona law, the federal government does need to step up and enact immigration reform. If the current system were working, Arizona would not have felt the need to enact legislation to do what is the federal government’s role. In spite of the media firestorm, the law has strong support among Arizona’s voters [4].

Most of us would agree that even in our current recession the United States remains an attractive alternative to many other countries. Who among us can blame immigrants for wanting to better the lives of their families by coming to the United States? The economic opportunities and freedom found in the US are unparalleled anywhere else on earth. The truth is that most immigrants, legal and illegal, are decent people who only want to make life better for their families.

I have had personal experience with illegal immigrants as an Athens, Georgia insurance agent. We routinely sold auto policies to men with Mexican driver’s licenses since we were one of the only agencies in town that represented a company who would insure a driver with a foreign license. The men often worked in the chicken processing plants around Athens and would usually pay cash for a six-month policy. Several months later, when they had earned enough money, they would sell the car to another immigrant and return to Mexico.

The fact is that the current situation is our own fault. Yes, it is illegal to sneak into the country, but by ignoring the problem, we have given tacit approval to the practice. Illegal immigration is similar to speeding. Driving too fast is illegal, but since it isn’t taken seriously, it is a frequently broken law. If you get caught, expect only a slap on the wrist. And so many people are doing it that the chance of getting caught is miniscule.

The first step to reaching a common sense solution would be to eliminate the extremes. First, we must acknowledge that we are not going to stop all immigration, illegal or otherwise. Immigrants bring a lot of new talent and ideas to the US and have throughout our history. We are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Even American Indians migrated here from Asia in prehistoric times. We should also acknowledge that we are not going to round up and deport all illegal aliens. The public would not stand for splitting up families and placing otherwise innocent people into internment camps to await deportation. Nor should they.

On the other end of the spectrum, we are also not going to leave the border undefended and ignore the potential threat to national security of having millions of unknown people within our borders. Additionally, public opinion dictates that the US can no longer ignore with a nod and wink the fact that employers are skirting tax and employment law by hiring and paying illegal aliens under the table.

The first step in any immigration fix must be to secure the border. This is a national security imperative. The 9/11 attacks are almost a decade behind us yet it is still commonplace to have people cross into the US illegally. This is inexcusable. It would be absurdly easy for terrorists to enter Mexico or another Latin American country legally and then use the services of a “coyote,” human trafficker, to cross into the US illegally. If people and drugs can be smuggled into the US, so can weapons and terrorists.

Securing the border should also done to protect the immigrants themselves. The illegal journey across the southern border into the US is fraught with danger [3]. Many illegal immigrants die each year in the attempt. Some starve or die of thirst in the harsh climate of the southwestern desert. Others fall victim to the very coyotes to which they had paid an exorbitant fee to guide them into the US. Coyotes routinely rob or murder their charges. Sometimes the immigrants are held captive until their families pay additional money to the coyotes in exchange for their release. In other cases, the illegal immigrants enter the US to life of virtual slavery working for unscrupulous employers or illegal businesses.

The process of securing the border was begun by President Bush who dramatically increased the number of Customs and Border Protection agents [1]. President Bush also began construction of a fence along the US border with Mexico and stepped up enforcement of laws banning the employment of illegal aliens.

The second step, which should be taken after the border is mostly secure, is to deal with the issue of those immigrants who are already here illegally. To deport these people would cause a host of problems. First and most obvious is the expense and cost of locating, detaining and deporting them. This would be hugely expensive and a drain on law enforcement resources that are needed elsewhere. It would also be a public relations nightmare.

Mass deportations would also cause significant difficulties to American businesses. Even though unemployment is at a very high rate currently, many of the unemployed American citizens do not want to work at the jobs that illegals routinely perform. This is especially true since congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. Deportations would stress the many segments of the economy, significantly food production.

A better alternative would be to focus enforcement efforts on illegal aliens who are caught committing other crimes. If immigrants, legal or illegal, are found to be guilty of crimes such as murder, robbery, or drug trafficking then they should be deported.

The only realistic course for illegal immigrants is to bring them into the light. In aviation, a common procedure in a malfunction is to match the switch position to the condition. For example, if an item is switched, but not working, often the procedure will call for turning the switch back off. Similarly, if aliens are already here and working, we should acknowledge that reality by having them register as guest workers, pay a fine, and become legal aliens. This would not make them citizens or grant them amnesty, but it would allow them to stay here and work legally.

When this process is complete, the federal government should begin requiring employers to verify citizenship and immigration status for prospective employees. Employers that continue to knowingly hire illegal aliens should face stiff penalties.

Another following step would be to deal with the problem of “anchor babies.” Current law gives illegal aliens an incentive to come into the country illegally and have a child. When a child is born within the United States, it automatically becomes a citizen and its family is allowed to remain in the country to care for it. Congress should pass legislation that stipulates that citizenship is only granted in cases where aliens are within the US legally. This may require a constitutional amendment, or at the very least a favorable interpretation of current law by the Supreme Court. Sealing the border and enforcing visa time limits would also help to resolve the issue of anchor babies.

We also have to realize that the Mexican border is not the whole immigration problem. A more insidious problem is the number of people who enter the US legally on a temporary visa and then remain past the visa expiration date [2]. The list of people who overstay visas is long and is made up of citizens of countries all around the world, including four of the 9/11 hijackers. Additional oversight and follow up of visa visitors to the US is needed to make sure that people don’t enter the country legally and then remain illegally.

Finally, to complete the reform, the US needs to make it easier for immigrants to come here legally. The US is an immigrant nation and we should continue to welcome the “poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Immigrants built this country and made it prosper. They are also important for its continued success. We should welcome legal immigrants and help them to assimilate into the American melting pot.

There are also a few things that we should definitely not do with respect to the immigration debate. First, we should not allow racist language or beliefs to shape what is essentially a national security debate. Immigration reform is not about keeping out people who look or speak different from us; it is about keeping out people who want to kill us. Second, we should avoid any attempts to extend federal benefits to those who are here illegally and who refuse to come into the open when reform is passed. Likewise, the right to vote, even in local elections, should be reserved for citizens, not mere residents. We should also not push immigrants into separate ghettos or barrios or cater services to a dozen different languages. We should encourage them to assimilate into society and learn English. Speaking English is and always will be a key to success in the US.

Most importantly, the American people have to make sure that the politicians don’t let the politics of competing for Hispanic votes obscure the need for true immigration reform and border security. Hispanics have nothing to fear from legitimate reform and will even benefit from the opportunity to work and live in the US legally.

Sources:
1 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1066122/posts
2 http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back208.html
3 http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17768
4 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/poll-most-az-voters-support-states-immigration-law/1

Chicago IL
May 7, 2010