A common sense approach to immigration reform

By now it should be clear to everyone that the current immigration system is broken and beyond repair. Illegal immigrants flock across the border with seeming impunity. Businesses depend on the labor of these immigrants, even as many US citizens leave the work force or are forced to work part-time jobs. Even legal immigrants like the Tsarnaev brothers can travel between the United States and terrorist training camps abroad without the knowledge of federal authorities. Perhaps worst of all, at President Obama’s implicit invitation, many unaccompanied immigrant children have made a dangerous journey the southern border to throw themselves on the mercy of the American welfare state. A solution to these problems requires a common sense approach and a bipartisan compromise

Democrats and Republicans disagree on the solutions to these and many other problems faced by Americans. What’s more, the current balance of power in Washington in which Republicans control the House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate and White House guarantees that neither party can force its own solution on the other. Many conservatives hold out hope for a Republican Senate majority after this year’s elections, but, even with the most optimistic projections, the GOP will not hold a majority large enough to override President Obama’s almost certain veto of a partisan immigration bill. The only viable solution to the immigration problem requires compromise.

To reach a compromise, leaders of both parties must overcome the angry voices of fringe elements of their base. Republican leaders answer the demagogues of the right who attack any attempt at immigration reform as “amnesty.” Democratic leaders must work around those on the left, including the president, who see immigration as a wedge issue with which to paint Republicans as racists and who would prefer to have open borders.

A wise man once said that a true compromise means that everyone is equally unhappy. In a compromise, both sides have to give up something. The thing that conservatives must give up is the notion that a border security bill must come before any other aspect of immigration reform.

There are two reasons that this is true. First, immigrant labor is needed by the businesses that make up a large part of the Republican coalition. Cutting off the supply of immigrant labor will only succeed in pushing these businesses toward the Democrats in spite of the left’s anti-business policies. Second, it is mathematically impossible for the GOP to pass a standalone border security bill with Democrats in control of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House.

For their part, the Democrats must agree to enforcement triggers and border security provisions that cannot be reversed or ignored by the president or future Congresses. No one trusts President Obama to do the right thing on immigration. No one trusts Congress not to defund border security in the future.

Any immigration bill must include border security measures that would prevent a future influx of illegal aliens. In the age of terrorism, this is a national security issue rather than an economic one. Fencing is needed along much of the southern border along with increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. A better system of tracking legal immigrants who overstay their visas is also desperately needed. Like a standalone border bill, a bill that focuses solely on bringing current illegals into the system could not pass the current Congress.

Both parties must bend on how to address the problem of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Hard-line conservatives insist on deportation while hard-line liberals want a quick path to citizenship. The path to a compromise lies in the middle.

There are many reasons that deportation won’t happen. The American people are sharply divided with many polls showing a majority in opposition to deportation. Many illegal immigrants who came here as children don’t even speak the language of their native countries. Many adult illegal aliens have been here for years or decades and have established homes and businesses. In many cases, they tried to immigrate legally, but would have had to wait for years or decades. Public opinion will not tolerate families being split up as illegals are deported and legal resident aliens remain.

Public opinion also does not favor amnesty and granting citizenship to illegals. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants did break our laws and must pay their debt to society. Although most Americans support a path or legalization or citizenship, such support is often contingent on meeting requirements such as passing a background check, paying back taxes and fines, and showing English proficiency.

The answer lies in the middle path of granting a measure of legalization to illegal aliens that is short of citizenship. This does not mean amnesty, which is a pardon or forgiveness for a crime. Under a path to legalization, which is supported by a majority of Americans as well as a majority of Republicans, illegal aliens would have to prove residency and show a clear criminal history, pay fines, and be subject to long waiting period before having any chance at citizenship.

This middle path would ensure that the punishment would fit the crime. Entering the United States illegally is a crime, but it is not a felony or a misdemeanor. According to the US code, it is an infraction akin to a traffic ticket and is punishable by a fine of not more than $250. Deportation or jail time is an excessive punishment for the crime of illegal immigration as currently defined by US law. This is especially true in light of the fact that illegal immigration has, for decades, been conducted with the tacit approval of both the US government and the American people.

The punishment for current illegal aliens must be severe enough to discourage future illegal immigration, but fair enough that illegals will choose to take part in the process rather than remain in the underground economy. There should be a grace period after which penalties for applying for legal status are more severe.

Conservatives must realize that if the current crop of illegal aliens are denied a fair chance at the American dream, their children will be birthright citizens who will bear a strong grudge against the Republican Party. If it is to remain relevant, the GOP cannot continue to write off large majorities of minority voters.

Once there is agreement on the major points of securing the border and how to handle illegal immigrants already in the US, agreement on other details should be easier to obtain. The law should be amended to elevate the crime of crossing the border illegally to felony status with automatic deportation for future illegal aliens.

In return for a secure border, legal immigration should be increased dramatically. Migrant workers should be encouraged to work in jobs that Americans won’t take as part of a guest worker program. Graduates of American colleges and universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should automatically receive a visa with their diploma. Currently, many US educated students are forced to go abroad after they graduate where they take jobs that directly compete with American companies. It should be easier, faster and safer for an honest, hardworking immigrant to enter the US legally than illegally.

A strong majority of Americans believe that immigration reform is desperately needed. In the current climate of Washington, a bipartisan compromise is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law. A compromise bill that includes enhanced border security, a tough but fair approach to current illegal immigrants and an increase in future legal immigration should be able to win support of majorities of both parties and houses of Congress, while proving to the American people that the federal government is not totally and irretrievably broken.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Pat Robertson endorses legal marijuana

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson shocked the nation recently when he advocated the legalization of marijuana. In an interview with the N.Y. Times, Robertson said, “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

Robertson said that his views on legalization formed over time as he came to realize that the U.S. “has gone overboard on this concept of being tough on crime.” He believes that legalization of marijuana would be a way to reduce social and financial costs of the drug war as well as reducing rates of incarceration.

According to the Justice Policy Institute, about one quarter of the two million prisoners in U.S. jails have been convicted of drug offenses. Sixteen percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners had committed crimes to get money for drugs. Department of Justice statistics show that 12 percent of prisoners at both the state and federal level were convicted of offenses involving marijuana. The number of inmates serving time for marijuana offenses is a relatively small portion of the total U.S. prison population.

Other arguments for legal marijuana cite statistics that show that states with more drug treatment admissions have lower rates of incarceration. According the Justice Policy Institute, the national average is 433.7 drug treatment admissions and 491 people incarcerated per 100,000 people in the general population. Georgia has fewer drug treatments than average at 369.28 and higher than average incarceration at 533.

Proponents of legalization also cite savings from ending the war on drugs and tax revenue from legal marijuana. It is likely that these benefits would be offset by the increased social costs of legalization as more people would use the drug if it were legal. These would include costs such as healthcare and treatment, lost productivity, auto accidents, crime, and social welfare programs according to a study by RTI International.

European countries have experimented with more liberal drug policies. The Netherlands does not enforce laws against marijuana which resulted in an international tourist trade for Amsterdam’s “coffee” shops. The government recently banned non-Dutch residents from the shops. In the Netherlands, there are strong penalties for possessing, selling, and producing drugs, but not for using. According to an article in Science, increases in use did not accompany decriminalization, but “later growth in commercial access to cannabis, after de facto legalization, was accompanied by steep increases in use, even among youth.”

A paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics examined the effects of decriminalization. The paper points out that legalization would decrease the perception of risk and make adolescents more likely to experiment with drugs. The AAP notes that even though alcohol and tobacco are illegal for minors, both drugs are widely abused by adolescents and companies actively market these products to minors.

The AAP also cites two studies by the American Medical Association and the Institute of Medicine that point out that there is no rigorous data to support the use of marijuana as a medical drug. While both studies call for more research, they note that, when smoked, marijuana delivers “harmful substances” into the body. Because inhaled marijuana cannot provide the “precisely defined drug affect” of pharmaceutical drugs, “there is very little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. If there is any future in cannabinoid development, it lies with agents of more certain, not less certain, composition.”

Far from being harmless, marijuana carries a host of negative effects for users. Emotional effects cited on About.com include paranoia, aggression, depression, anxiety, a distorted sense of time, random thinking, and loss of memory. When eaten rather than smoked, marijuana can also cause hallucinations, delusions, and disorientation. Marijuana increases the heart rate and decreases blood pressure leading to an elevated risk of heart attacks. Smoking marijuana causes the same respiratory problems as smoking tobacco and a link to cancer is suspected. The drug is also believed to suppress the body’s immune system, which can lead to other health problems including an increased risk of bacterial infections and tumors.

While marijuana is not as addictive as other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, the National Institute of Drug Abuse found that estimated nine percent of users become dependent on marijuana. That number almost doubles for users who start young and is as high as 50 percent for daily users. Marijuana users also have higher rates of use for other drugs and drug problems than nonusers. More than half of the Americans who use illegal drugs use marijuana.

If marijuana were legalized, prices would fall as the supplies of the drug increased and became easier to obtain. Economic laws of supply and demand show that as prices fall, demand rises. Therefore it should be expected that use of marijuana would increase under decriminalization. The number of people addicted to marijuana and introduced to other drugs through marijuana would increase as well. While alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to society than marijuana today, if marijuana were legalized its negative impact on society would increase as well.

Ballot initiatives in several states are attempting to decriminalize marijuana. California voters rejected a proposition to legalize the drug in 2010, but Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that made possession of less than an ounce a civil infraction rather than a misdemeanor. Colorado and Massachusetts are currently the forefront of attempts to decriminalize marijuana.

In Georgia, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana will normally mean probation on the first offense according to NORML. Subsequent offenses can lead to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Possession of more than an ounce can mean 10 years in jail. According to marijuana.com, Georgia allows distribution of medical marijuana that is received from the federal government. There is no notable movement to decriminalize marijuana in Georgia.

Most other Christian leaders are not following Robertson’s lead. In a 2010 commentary, Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship pointed out the flaws in the legalization arguments. Colson said, “There is no legitimate moral or pragmatic reason to legalize a drug that destroys the lives of those addicted to it and that fuels crime and corruption.”

Robertson told the Times, “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” but he has a lot of work to do in convincing other conservatives and Christians. Several prominent conservatives and libertarians have endorsed legal marijuana in addition to Robertson, such as presidential candidate Ron Paul, talk-show host Glenn Beck and the libertarian Cato Institute. Nevertheless, while 41 percent of Americans favor legal marijuana according to a Pew poll, only 25 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Protestants do.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/pat-robertson-endorses-legal-marijuana

Meet the candidates: Ron Paul

Rep. Ron Paul (US Congress)

Judging by the number of “Ron Paul for President” signs in the Atlanta area in 2008, Congressman Ron Paul had some of the most loyal and motivated supporters of any candidate in the 2008 presidential primaries.  Sadly for Rep. Paul and his supporters, that devotion did not translate into widespread appeal.  Rep. Paul finished fourth in the Georgia primary with only 2.9 percent of the vote.  It wasn’t much better in other states.  Paul failed to win a single primary, although he did finish second a number of times. 

Now Ron Paul is running for president again.  After four years of Barack Obama’s record-setting spending, Paul’s message of fiscal restraint may be more attractive to recession-weary Americans.  Nevertheless, a RealClearPolitics average of polls from April and May 2011 shows Paul in sixth place with 7.9 percent.  He trails Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich respectively.  He leads Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels.  Paul might get a slight bump from the recent withdrawals of Huckabee, Trump, and Daniels.

Ronald Ernest Paul was born in Pittsburgh on August 20, 1935.  On Election Day 2012, he will be 77 years old.  He is one year older than John McCain who was 72 when he ran against Barack Obama in 2008. 

Biography.com details Paul’s early life in Pennsylvania as the third among five boys.  He grew up working on the family dairy farm.  He also worked as a paper boy and at a local drugstore.  In high school, he served as president of the student council and was a member of the track and wrestling teams.  He met his future wife, Carol, in high school and married her as a senior. 

Paul attended medical school at Duke University and specialized in obstetrics and gynecology.  He interned at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and then joined the Air Force where he was on active duty from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.  He later opened a private practice in Texas where delivered more than 4,000 babies over the course of his career. 

Paul was elected to the House of Representatives from Texas for the first time in 1976 during a special election.  He lost an earlier attempt in 1974.  He served only a few months and lost the general election, but in 1978 was re-elected and served three terms.  He ran unsuccessfully against Phil Gramm for senator in 1984 and passed his house seat to Tom DeLay.

In 1988, Paul once again left private practice to run for president as a Libertarian.  Paul differs from most Libertarians on the issue of abortion.  While most Libertarians are pro-choice, Paul is quoted on RonPaul.com as saying, “As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception…  there’s a legal life there…  if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

Paul returned to the house as a Republican in 1996 and has served continuously since then.  He currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  He is chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and Monetary Policy.  During his long career, Paul has also authored a number of books.

Paul has a strong reputation as a critic of government spending and the expansion of government power.  He voted against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, but did vote to authorize the Afghanistan War. He has been very critical of President Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya without congressional authorization.  A deficit hawk, he returns the unused portion of his congressional office funds to be used toward paying down the deficit.  In 2011, he returned $141,580, almost ten percent of his office budget, according to his press release. 

Ron Paul is well known for his criticism of the Federal Reserve. He is the sponsor of H.R. 459, a bill that would require an audit of the Fed.  At his speeches, supporters often interrupt him with chants of “End the Fed!”  He is author of a book by the same name.  Paul supports a return to the gold standard to prevent the Fed’s manipulation of the currency by printing fiat money that can cause inflation.

Paul also has a number of other controversial positions that often put him at odds with the Republican establishment.  He supports an end to the War on Drugs and would legalize some illicit drugs.  On foreign policy, Paul seems to be almost isolationist and favors eliminating foreign aid to almost all countries.  In 2008, Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate over the Republican nominee, John McCain, and Libertarian Bob Barr.

A few weeks ago, Paul made headlines when he told Fox News that the SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden was “absolutely not necessary.”  Paul said that he would not have ordered the raid if he had been president.

In spite of Paul’s intensely loyal supporters, many of his positions are too far outside the mainstream to appeal to the moderate and independent voters who decide elections.  Even though Paul has an established base of support on which to draw during the campaign, it will likely be an uphill battle for him to win the Republican nomination.  The odds would be even more against him if he decided to run as a third party candidate.

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-ron-paul#ixzz1NZarxD21">