Frank LoBiondo: The Man for South Jersey

For the past 17 years, Frank LoBiondo has been the congressman for New Jersey's 2nd District^[1], covering most of southern New Jersey.  Although he is a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state, he still has sound victories over his opponents, winning every year with over 20% more votes than his opponents.^[1]  His home-style feel and relate-ability in conjunction with his fairly moderate stances make him the perfect candidate for the people in his district. 

One only needs to look at the demographics to understand why LoBiondo does so well.  Being Catholic and Italian in a district filled with a large amount of Catholic Italians^[2] makes a huge difference in public perception.  The social divisions in society tend to have a large effect overall in the outcome of an election.^[6]  On this alone, LoBiondo has a leg up over the competition, and with trying to oust an incumbent being an uphill battle, its unlikely that will change in the next few years.  His name doesn't win elections by itself, however.  LoBiondo works hard to get his name out to the masses in a favorable light, and he does that quite well.  He often makes person visits to animal shelters, local farms or bogs, or even helping out with scholarship opportunity in high schools.^[3]  This was extremely effective, and I know from first hand experience.  When I was in elementary school, I won some state level award for high scores in school.  As a result, I was able to meet with LoBiondo, and even at age 9 I started to like the guy.  He was kind, and willing to take the time out of his schedule to shake hands and take a few pictures with a small boy.

This still doesn't make a lot of sense, though.  A republican being elected in a democratic district and state seems strange.  This is misleading, because the more rural southern part of New Jersey is slightly less liberal than the cities.  Also, LoBiondo is a fairly straightforward moderate.  Many of his economic stances on the environment or oil are more liberal than his Republican name might suggest.  Recently he voted in favor of the Cash for Clunkers organization, or giving federal workers paid leave for parental leave, as well as enforcing limits on CO₂ emissions, all typically democratic views.^[4] This moderation on issues like education, energy, environment and health care as well as his conservative stance on family issues, gay rights, or gun control give him the support he needs among the unique rural democrats that gives him the edge over his opponents. 

Being an incumbent, his advantage over his opponents does support his chances at winning, however he still actively meets with those in his district.  He has attended meetings with veterans, environmental clean-ups, or even small scholarship opportunities for the local children in high school.  He attended the local Super Bowl Breakfast party, and enjoys taking his two dogs out to the park in Ocean City.^[5]

Connecting with those he represents is critical to LoBiondo, and he does an excellent job.  Sometimes his conservative views do hurt his public opinion, such as his vote against embryonic stem cell research or his vote against reforming bankrupcy rules to prevent more foreclosures or his vote against monitoring TARP funds to ensure they're used properly.^[4]  These stances do hurt his public opinion, but with such a strong base of support built up from the rest of his career, he is still well liked among his constituents. 

In his last election he gained over double the votes of his opponent, and there does not appear to be any strong contender to face him in the upcoming election.  It would seem as though despite being conservative on certain issues, his more moderate stance is more appealing than someone who will always vote for their party.  Because he stands more liberal on those issues important to those in South Jersey, he shouldn't have a problem getting re-elected.  That's why Frank LoBiondo isn't just some political figure above the population, but one of the masses supporting the common man, perfect for South Jersey.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_LoBiondo#Electoral_history
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey#Demographics
[3] http://lobiondoforcongress.com/
[4] http://www.issues2000.org/NJ/Frank_LoBiondo.htm
[5] http://www.house.gov/lobiondo/
[6] Dr. Monson Class Lecture, March 1-17, 2011, W111 BNSN Brigham Young University, class lecture
[7] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/L000554/votes/page2/ (second source for voting records)

Sarah Palin: The Real Two-Face?

Ever since Sarah Palin hit the spotlight during the 2008 Presidential election she has been a magnet of attention in the media.  Her eccentric personality and her very unique views on many issues, she is both loved and hated among the American population.  Media organizations often portray her quite differently reflecting the political bias of their respective editorial staff.  Fox News and CNN portray Sarah Palin in drastically different ways to build up support for their network; Fox portrays her has an American hero while CNN portrays her as an uneducated and ignorant politician.


With Libya dominating recent news, and the President having discussed the national position in this new humanitarian aid "war."  It would only make sense that Sarah Palin would have spoken out on the situation.^[1] 



She spoke on Fox News and explained her disgust for Obama and how he has no reasons to get into this war.  Despite the fact that she agrees with Obama in the fact that she strongly dislikes Gaddafi and encourages the spread of democracy and freedom across the globe, she still could not find anything positive in the Presidents statement.^[2]  Fox, being a strong source of conservative media, openly discussed the hate for Obama that Palin obviously feels, and even Greta Van Susteren began interjecting her own opinions on the speech, saying it was "flat" and implied that it was a weak speech because it failed in both its main purposes, or at least those she felt it should serve.^[1]  Also, they also fail to mention her blatant lie that the no-fly-zone costs $600,000,000 a day, when in fact costs $600 million in the first week, with prices to be dropped dramatically as the weeks progress.^[3][4] Rather than being informative and substantive in their news broadcasting, they express bias opinions in order to gain more support for their cause, and supporting Sarah Palin as a politician.  This bias in the media tends to lionize Palin,bolstering up their views while trying to appeal to their vast conservative audience.

The CNN reporting was along the same lines as Fox News.^[5]  Just as Fox had a strong conservative bias, CNN posed a quite liberal bias in their opinions on Sarah Palin.  Rather than take Sarah Palin's message as a whole, they took the worst and most uninformed bits and went about disproving them piece by piece to hurt her political career.  For example, she stated "We're going to hand over command and control to a steering committee. I don’t think that this has ever been a part of foreign policy, a military mission in the U.S. before."^[5]  Rather than focus on her main opinion that the United States should not be handing over control, they expose her ignorance in order to invalidate her opinion.  Instead of focusing on the politics, these media organizations express their own views about political candidates creating a bias reporting from both sides. 

The media, often referred to as the fourth branch of government^[6], was a main source of information for the majority of the public populous.^[7] As media has developed and become more accessible to the general public through blogs, online articles, cable TV, or talk radio, this changed.  It became more important to increase viewers because this was their source of income.  An example of this need to be viewed is the new "horse-race" approach to the media. They dramatize the daily changes in opinion to attack or support a specific candidate, drumming up support and making a general list of "front-runners."  This has been their main focus, and rather than educating people, media organizations now express bias opinions in order to support their own organization by attracting prospective viewers.

[1] http://video.foxnews.com/v/4612646/palin-on-obamas-war
[2] http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/sarah-palin/
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/libya-no-fly-zone-could-cost-one-billion_n_839364.html
[4] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-us-intervention-fly-zone-gadhafi-cost-taxpayers/story?id=13242136
[5] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/29/gop-contenders-say-foreigners-in-charge-of-american-forces-whats-true/?iref=allsearch
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Newt Gingrich: Explore 2012

With 2012 elections heating up, it's coming down to decision time to see who will be running in the Republican primaries.  Not many candidates have stepped forward with bids to run, so Newt Gingrich's decision to form a fund-raising committee is about the most convincing call to arms yet.^[1] With years of experience and a solid Republican sponsors to his name, Gingrich is a strong contender to earn the nomination from the Republican party.  Republicans will be looking for a strong candidate to run against Obama, and the return of the former Speaker of the House would be the logical, though not perfect, fit for that nomination.

In his day, Gingrich--most famous for his strong opposition to President Clinton--was a prominent figurehead of the Republican Party.^[2]  His fierce standings will give him a decided advantage in this election, as many republicans have been looking for a strong leader to balance out the powerful personality of Obama.  Without a "big name" figure, the Republicans will not stand a chance at ousting the President with the established support he currently possesses.^[3] This gives him an edge over many other potential candidates; nameless figures like Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, or Mitch Daniels have nowhere near the spotlight Gingrich has had in years in Congress.  Even the bigger names like Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney have shorter records as governors of their states than Gingrich had in the House.^[4][5][6] 

His main competitor, Mitt Romney, will be an interesting match up.  Romney's experience and degrees in business will become a major factor in his campaign as the economy becomes an increasingly more important issue to the 2012 campaigns.^[5]  However, he is still fighting an uphill battle against negative opinions about his religion and his health care policies among conservative republicans.  With a large percentage of people holding negative opinions towards LDS politicians (25% --- the second highest opposed religion after Islam), a large portion of the conservative ticket is slowly lost from Romney's support group.^[7]  Also, Romney's record as a moderate might look good for a national Presidential election, but state level primary elections are more difficult.^[8]  Passing health care reform with many similarities to "Obama-care" could prove to be fatal in the final days of the primaries.  This gives Gingrich the advantage of winning the nomination in the primary.  He is considered very conservative in his views, and is a favorite in the rising Tea Party Movement.  This momentum might give him the extra boost to start his campaign well to stomp out any competition early on.  In the primary, Gingrich's biggest challenge is to overcome the recently released extramarital affairs.  If he can persuade those conservatives turned off by that, he has a good shot at earning the nomination.

Gingrich's strong conservative credentials, however, will be one of his greatest weaknesses.  Although he will be very popular among conservative Republicans during the primaries, the general election will run quite differently.  Typically general elections tend to favor moderate candidates that are positioned only to the slight left or right of center.^[9]  Obama, a relatively moderate democrat, while Newt Gingrich, is perceived to be quite conservative.  His candidacy will do more to rally the Democratic base and scare away moderate Republicans.  This puts Gingrich at a decisive disadvantage to Obama, as it is difficult to remove an incumbent with a strong approval rating for a second term (similar to the situation George W. Bush had during his reelection).  The best idea to combat this anti-extreme is to run with a moderate Vice President with strong qualifications.  This might lead to the selection of a running mate like Mitt Romney; however, as they are both top contenders, a contentious primary season would make this ticket highly unlikely.  Without a strong running mate, it is unlikely that Newt Gingrich would win the 2012 Presidential election.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/03/gingrich-dips-toe-in-2012-waterswith-a-website/
[2] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260535/revisiting-clinton-gingrich-showdown-ramesh-ponnuru
[3] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-obamas-job-approval-rating-on-the-rise/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee
[7] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/648/romney-mormon
[8] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261407/re-mitt-romney-health-care-daniel-foster 
[9] Dr. Monson, February 2011,W111-BNSN-BYU, class lectures

NRA: Protecting Guns Since 1871

The National Rifle Association, or the NRA, was formed in 1871 to protect the main aspect of the second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the freedom to bear arms.  In order to maintain certain rights, the NRA lobbies Congress to influence legislation on firearms at all levels of government.  The NRA grades government policy makers, namely congressional representatives, on an A-F scale, as a way to influence voters to support candidates that support the NRA agenda.^[1]  Those who seem to strongly support the principles upheld by the NRA are granted an A status, whereas those trying to expand gun control or other such negative gun laws will most likely receive a failing score.  Once a scale is created, the NRA uses money donated by individuals in order to support the cause.  Its focus is to protect the right for everyone to own weapons, and fight against strict regulation that would have any effect on that right, and they will do all in its power to protect that right.^[2]

In order to reach that goal, the NRA sends out lobbyists to communicate with members of Congress in order to persuade them, both factually and tactically, to vote one way or another.  In 1999, the NRA was considered to be the most powerful lobbying group in the United States.^[3]  Today a formidable force, despite recent events like the Tucson shooting.^[4]  This event rekindled many older issues the NRA fights about, such as regulation of semi-automatic weapons, stricter gun permit tests, and enlarged clip size.  They have become experts on engaging citizens and mobilizing a base in order to help show elected officials that the American people support their cause.

There is an excellent example of this in Tennessee, where a bill with an amendment that would ban guns from bars but allow them in restaurants which served alcohol was shot down.  NRA lobbyists told nine legislators who had previously voted in favor of the bill that the NRA opposed it, and they gained the necessary numbers to shoot the bill down.^[5] Although the bill was later amended yet again, the NRA successfully turned several voters' opinions in order to maintain good relationships with such a powerful interest group.  Another example would be Jim Matheson, a democratic congressman from Utah's 2nd District, as discussed in class; the NRA pressured him into being more conservative on his gun control in order to alleviate the stress they were placing on his campaigns.  The NRA has the capabilities and is willing to spend money to prevent candidates from getting elected in order to protect their rights.  According to a Fox News report, the NRA spent about $15.6 million from 2007-2009 in political campaigns (through its PAC).  The bulk of that money was used to fight those opposed to the NRA beliefs (namely Barack Obama), and smaller parts given to help out their allies.^[6]

Although their efforts against Barack Obama were a failure, they found a substantial amount of success, including pressuring Matheson in Utah, influencing the Tennessee state legislature, passing laws in Arizona and Iowa, and doing even more in 2010 alone.  They were able to change gun policy in several states, like the Arizona law passed to allow unrestricted handguns, and bring about the allowance of concealed guns into all but three of the National Parks.  Overall, the NRA is very effective at influencing public policy through its lobbyists and is willing to put forth the effort to really stand up for what it believes. 

[1] http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/nra-posts-grades-and-endorsements-angle-beats-reid
[2] http://home.nra.org/#/ila  (watch the video)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#cite_ref-Timewarner.com_4-0 
[4] http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2041535,00.html
[5] http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/may/08/nra-lobbyists-visit-persuaded-9-to-flip-votes/
[6] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda/

Tennis Zone: 2011 Davis Cup Predictions

As some of us may know, the 2011 Davis Cup starts this Friday and there are some great match ups. For those who don't know much about the Davis Cup, it is an ITF run event that pits the top 16 countries in the world (male players only) against each other in a bracket tournament.  Each tie (eg.-USA v. CHILE) is a best of 5 rubbers (matches), with 4 singles and 1 doubles.  In the first rubbers, typically the first singles play each other and second singles play each other, while in the final two rubbers they reverse.  Each rubber is a best of 5 sets, with the 5th set not having a tie break.  Should victory be sealed before the last rubbers have been played (eg-someone goes up 3-0 in the first three rubbers) then the remaining matches will be best of 3 sets.

This week sees the first round action.  Defending champs (Serbia) and finalists (France) are the top two seeds, followed by Spain and the Czech Republic.  The rest of the seeds are as follows:

1. Serbia
2. France
3. Spain
4. Czech Republic
5. Argentina
6. United States
7. Russia
8. Croatia

The remaining unseeded countries include Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, India, Romania, Chile, and Kazakhstan.

The US Team is looking strong and has a good shot at going far in this years tournament with the return of Andy Roddick, the #1 American  (#8 World) who withdrew last year, who joins John Isner (#32 World) and the top doubles team, the Bryan Brothers to face off against Chile this weekend.  Prospects look good for the American team, which currently holds the most Davis Cup titles at 32 (most recent in 2007), which last year fought to stay in the world group rankings.  They play in Santiago, Chile on clay courts, a surface not commonly associated with American tennis or the big serves of Roddick or Isner, however perhaps ranking will be enough to outweigh their opponents.  None of the Chilean players are ranked within the top 100 players, and their highest, Paul Capdeville, is currently ranked 171 in the world (due to the withdraw of Fernando Gonzales because of injury).  This is as straight forward an opening round the Americans could have hoped for, but still must stay on the ball to win.  The surface and home team advantage gives a strong advantage to the Chileans, and the Davis Cup has been known to see high ranking players fall to lower ranking players holding their nations hopes.  In the end, however, I think the US will be able to breeze through this round with a 5-0 victory in South America.  The rest of my predictions are as follows.

(1) Serbia 4-1 India    

  (7) Russia 2-3 Sweden

(4) Czech Republic 5-0 Kazakhstan         

(5) Argentina 4-1 Romania    

                       Chile 0-5 United States (6)

       Belgium 1-4 Spain (3)

        Germany 2-3 Croatia (8)

          Austria 1-4 France (2)

Government Regulation: Dragging Us Forward?

Continuously Americans across the country rail and shout against government regulation and call it socialistic or un-American. ^{[1] [2]}  Many continuously press their claim that regulation and "big government" go completely against American ideals and morals.  However, multitudes still relish in the benefits of various government programs such as the post office, public library systems, public transit and roads, public school systems, welfare, social security, unemployment benefits, and so on. Others benefit indirectly from other forms of regulation and government intervention, such as the enforcement of food quality standards and safety regulations to avoid disease and illness, equal opportunity laws that help prevent racial discrimination, or educational grants to help those less privileged afford education and so on. ^{[3] [4]}  In today's society, most people believe the government should be involved in the economy less but provide more -- seemingly contradictory opinions that simply two sides of the same issue.

When economic crisis hit the American economy in late 2008, anger towards corporate greed and corruption was at its height.  President Bush then signed TARP into law on October 3, 2008, allowing the US Treasury to purchase $700 billion in troubled assets from failing corporations.^[5]  Many Americans believed some companies were "to big to fail" and failure to act would be so devastating to our economy that it might take years or decades to recover; the 2010 poll from CNN supports this trend.  However, earlier that year, a similar Gallup poll asking if government regulated business too much, the results were quite the opposite.  That poll shows that many believed that the government was imposing too much regulation on businesses.  It would seem either that American opinions are very capricious, or that these two polls are in conflict and one must be wrong.

The obvious answer would be that there were poor questions, or leading questions eliciting a desired result.  This could account for some of the differences between the polls.  The general trend of American beliefs over the past 15-20 years has been that too much government regulation of the economy exists.^[6]  So the results of the older Gallup poll would be expected, since their question about today's economy was more general, asking if we believe we should have more government regulation in business.  The CNN Poll, however, asked a question specifically about the government bailout of banks and other corporations, which was much more specific.  During a time of crisis, people tend to lean more towards expanding the power of the national government to help fix the problem.^[7] These more specific questions about dramatic changes in the economy would give the respondents more incentive to say that it was necessary to bailout business (and in turn increase regulation) because it was a time of crisis.

This puts politicians into a peculiar situation.  With the majority of Americans leaning towards a smaller national government, most politicians will vote down bills to increase national government to stay elected.  Even though evidence of the problems might be present before the crisis hits, without a "crisis" to give them reason to, many politicians won't implement necessary regulations to protect the American people until AFTER the time of need.  This delayed reactions to these incidents creates a domino effect that runs down the line eventually reacting the American people in one way or another, whether it be through paying for bailouts or the effects of a crushed economy.  So this inaction of politicians due to rather inaccurate polling can hurt the economy and by relation, the American people.

Henry David Thoreau said, "The government is best which governs least."^[8]  Many take this to heart and fervently stand for the separation of government from the economy as a long term solution to economic growth, yet turn to the government to fix the problem when it fails.  Together, times of growth as well as times of protected and regulated economy can at times be necessary towards the strengthening of the economy.  This odd situation in which our system operates is the main reason why polls today may report seemingly contradictory information yet still be just as correct.

James Evan Woods

[1] http://marketurbanism.com/2010/12/24/calling-your-opponents-socialists-and-un-american-is-as-american-as-skyscrapers/
[2] http://picklyman.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/obama-orders-study-on-socialism/
[3] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/
[4] http://www.benefits.gov/
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
[6] http://www.gallup.com/poll/123101/americans-likely-say-government-doing-too-much.aspx
[7] Dr. Quin Monson, February 8-17, 2011, W111, Class Lecture
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience

The American Poison: The Republican Party

 "Republicans will uphold and defend our party principles: Constrain the Federal government to its legitimate Constitutional functions.  Unleash the enterprise, innovation, and civic energy of the American Spirit --- and never pretend that the government is a substitute for family or community."

---Republican Party Platform ^[1]

It is the nature of politics to do what one believes is best for the country, and acquainting these principles to identify the stance of a party is important to sharing your opinion abroad.  Holding one to these standards 100% of the time is unreasonable, for situations change; many circumstances require unique solutions, after all,  there is and never will be a political platform panacea.  Nevertheless, when the standards at hand aren't upheld, and merely used as a connection to some distant moral truth or powerful political figure, they simply build animosity and hatred.  The Republican Party has been inaccurately portraying its position on constitutional issues through fear, and abuse American ignorance simply to gain support.

The most conspicuous evidence of this is found in the Tea Party.  Claiming to "stand with [their] founders..." by adopting the name of the Revolutionary Boston Tea Party, implying a connection between something regarded by the American public as a good thing, is a misnomer.^[2]  Reviving ideas of revolution aside, many Republicans (including Tea Partiers) think that the Founders wanted small national government with high investment in country's infrastructure and technology.  However, they fail to admit that these two were not typically found in all the Founding Fathers, and that George Washington in particular, was partial towards a large government.^[3]

It seems whenever someone disagrees with Republicans, they fall back on this part of their platform, as the leaders of moral values and holding up the constitution, however their claims never seem to be backed with anything but their own words.  They talk as if they're right, yet ignore facts and use fear inducing words such as "socialism" or "Nazis" to create a sense of fear in the community.  No one has amplified this fear more than Jon Stewart in his Rally to Restore Sanity and his foil, Stephen Colbert, with his March to Keep Fear Alive.  Consistently people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News make claims that do nothing to support the country or educate the people, but kindle hatred and resentment for opposition; they continue to use terms like this to demean their enemies, however, when terms like that are applied to themselves, they create a huge ruckus (this can be found here, however it does contain some harsh language and content).  It seems that no one can be right but their own, and even when they contradict themselves.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
George Soros Plans to Overthrow America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Republicans claim that they support the Constitution, yet reject many bills put forth by Democrats when the constitutionality is questionable (several listed here), yet propose a bills (found here, or here) that are DIRECT violations.  This Arizona Bill refuses a birth certificate to those born in the United States to an illegal immigrant, and the Patriot Act which prohibits government invasion of privacy.  This unusual fear towards illegal immigrants or hidden terrorists drives the Republican party towards a Constitutional destruction.  One can easily say "these laws aren't how they should be now so we must change them," and that is avoid the main issue.  The fact is that Republicans must either accept that the Constitution is a living document and needs to be amended as times change or that their supporting a stronger Federal Government and leaving the Constitution the way it is right now.

Now, I do not claim that in certain circumstances that the Democratic Party is completely innocent of this as well.  I do, be it as it may, assert that in spite of "grass-roots" efforts from social movements like the Tea Party, the Republican Party continues to widen the gap between them and the Democrats.  Promises to  vote down anything that they don't completely agree with exclaim a desire to be as partisan as possible. ^[4]  I fail to see how Republicans can claim to have the same values as the Founding Fathers in bringing this country forward, yet refuse to work with the other side and compromise for the benefit of the nation and all its citizens and residents. ^[2]  The Republicans stance on the constitutional values holds no weight in comparison to their actual practices and motives, and is simply a tactic for gaining support rather than establishing a stronger union.

James Evan Woods

[1] http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf (page 15 of the book, page 22 in the PDF)
[2] http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx
[3] Chambers, Political Parties in a New Nation (1963) - cited from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party  
[4] http://ca.news.yahoo.com/republicans-vow-block-obamas-climate-change-policies-20110209-110345-122.html

Illogical Immigration

Immigration policy in the United States is entirely backwards. This wonderful nation of promise and hope, epitomized by the words on the Statue of Liberty "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me/I life my lamp beside the golden door!"^[1] These inspiring words from the poem "The New Colossus" were the beacon of light given off from the United States. However, there have been times in the history of the United States when immigration, the source of the great melting pot (or Salad bowl depending on your view) known as America slowly turned into a refiners fire, removing the unwanted immigration through various political tactics as well as social pressures.

Commonly influenced by wars, most hatred towards immigration stems from ignorance and prejudice towards a specific group. This was clearly evident during the 1950s and the Korean War, when the McCarran Internal Security Act required any communist (or suspected communist) to register with the US Attorney General.^[2] (This act was described as being one of the worst violations of the 1st Amendment rights and was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) Then followed by the Operation Wetback^[3], led by the INS to remove 1 million illegal immigrants from the Southwest (particularly Mexican and other Latino natives). Even earlier than that, in WWII, hatred towards Japanese-Americans and German-Americans leading to internment camps and the Alien Registration Act of 1940. Earlier in WWI, changing names of German food to be more patriotic (i.e.-sauerkraut became liberty cabbage). There have been problems with scapegoating a particular group for social or economic problems at some point in history or creating laws to limit the number of those that may earn citizenship have affected groups such as the Irish, Germans, Japanese, Afro-Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, Mexicans, Polish, etc... as well as others such as religious groups.

The problem isn't too many illegals flooding the system; the problem is the system. I lived in Arizona for approximately two years, and such an overwhelming majority of them sacrificed so much to live in this country. They don't come here to mooch off the system, they come here to start a new life, because they believe in the American Dream, something many Americans believe is fading. The fact that the citizens of the United States try to protect the Constitution by removing illegal immigrants is absurd. Naturalization and immigration are both powers of the US government, not the states, but even that aside people fail to realize the application of the words of the Constitution. The Due Process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th, apply to ALL persons, not just citizens of the United States. These are liberties that we believe ALL people are entitled too. This was solidified in 1976 in the Supreme Court case Hampton v Mow Sun Wong, which unanimously agreed that a citizenship requirement for government jobs violated the Due Process clause.^[4]

The fact of the matter is that the current immigration policies are flawed. It is getting very difficult to legally obtain citizenship in the United States, and just about as hard to earn asylum as well. It isn't that they're taking valuable jobs from citizens (debunked by Stephen Colbert's take on the Take Our Jobs initiative) and it isn't that they dramatically increase the crime rate (yes, the number of illegal immigrants in the prisons have increased, but that is due to pressure to arrest illegal immigrants, most convicted and sentenced for entering the country illegally) that is the issue; the naturalization process itself is simply too long, difficult, and limited. Most people would be appalled if, when they arrived at the voting booth, they were required to take and pass a test to vote, yet this is a requirement of citizenship for those wishing to naturalize themselves. Long waiting periods (minimum of 5 years with many years often getting backed up longer), high costs of fees (it now costs $595 + $80 for fingerprinting), as well as a limit on the number of immigrants accepted each year. These are even more sub-divided into more specific categories, limiting the amount from each.^[5]

Proper immigration reform will not only decrease the deficit, through the millions spent on "securing borders" with a fence/wall, deportation of those already here, as well as creating an influx of citizens prepared to put into the system, but will unify America in a way that proves that in spite of all our vast differences, we're still all joined together by one overarching bond --- the American Dream.

James Evan Woods

[1] http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
[2] Full Text - http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Inter_Security_50.html
[3] http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqo01
[4] http://www.cis.org/CitizenshipSupremeCourt
[5] http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/immigration-us.html