Illegal immigration is the biggest problem to hit the US since World War II. The issue, despite it's complexity, demands immediate and top priority. The action we take as a nation must be diplomatic, socially conscious and fiscally responsible. The goals we seek must be attainable and realistic. There are no easy solutions, as we all know. There are some things I stand for and I think you will agree with me. But let me first give some general thoughts.
1. Right now we can't stop the illegals from entering the US, no matter what law we pass or how much money we spend. The US is an attractive place and these people are willing to risk their lives to get here. We can slow it down and we should, but to stop it will take years and many major decisions.
2. The second fact is that we can't get rid of the 20 million that are already here. We don't have enough law enforcement people to round up 1 out of every 16 people in the Country. In California it's probably 1 out of every 5. The number is scary and we should all be concerned. But no law or policy will be able to send them all back to Mexico. They're here to stay, and we have to face that. I'm not for amnesty, but I am for realism.
3. We can't afford to take care of their education and health care and other costs and, at the same time, we can't afford to mistreat them. This is the paradoxical nature of problem. Let me explain what will happen if we handle it badly. If we back these people into a corner we will cause some of their extreme leaders to become political heroes. That won't be our intent, but it will happen. That's one thing I am against. I want our American leaders to be in charge. I want Americans to be the ones who make sense. When a politician says we should "send them all back to Mexico and not pay another dime to help these people," that politician is calling for something that's not possible and, at the same time, that rhetoric fans the flames of civil misconduct and even riots.
4. I know a businessman in the LA area who was born in Mexico, but he has been here for 25 years and he's 100% American. He works hard, pays taxes, is a positive force in his neighborhood and in the business community at large. He loves his native country of Mexico but every time he votes or speaks he comes across as an American. That's what immigrants have done from all countries throughout our history.
5. I don't care whether a person is white or brown or any other color; if they live or pass through Santa Barbara I want them to obey the laws and respect the safety and beauty and special qualities of our City. Frankly, we appreciate it when they spend money as they are passing through. If they work here, we appreciate the work they do. And if they can afford to live here, we welcome them as neighbors.
6. The immigration problem got away from American control a good 25 years ago. Both political parties have been caught with their immigration pants down. Politicians in general did not have the guts to propose laws that might have worked. Moreover, the California public probably wouldn't have supported good laws. Maybe the federal government should have put some teeth into the NAFTA laws that would have required the Mexican government to pay penalties for allowing their people to flee Mexico and become a burden to the United States. To tell you the truth, I don't know what should have been done. I was a teenager when this problem started to get out of hand. But I know this, and you know it too; whatever should have been done wasn't done. It would have been gutsy and, as I said, the voters probably would have rejected it. So we the people, we the voters, we the Democrats and we the Republicans are all responsible for this.
7. One thing I don't want is for businesses to have to take on the responsibility for screening their workers. That would have made sense 20 or 25 years ago, but things are out of hand now and it no longer makes sense. California's economy, Santa Barbara's economy too, is dependent on illegal workers. There is a symbiotic nature to the current situation. The problem is that we have no mechanism which allows illegal's to contribute to the social services they require, which we, the taxpayers provide.
8. I do want the illegal people to get state ID cards of some sort. We have to document them and include them in the tax base. We have to know how many there are and where they are. It is the first step and it needs to be done.
9. I don't want us to give them all the benefits of citizenship, but I do want them to be treated humanely. So, I'm straddling the fence. I don't want a person to be given citizenship by some new act of Congress. I think they should have to be registered for at least 5 years and show a record of paying taxes and obeying the laws during that time. It's the best I can come up with.
10. Meanwhile, we have to start the process of closing that border. If a fence or other type of barrier will work, build it. If more pressure on the Mexican government will help, let's exert it. I know of a proposal to build infrastructure along the border rather than fencing. I'm talking about hundreds of miles of photoelectric power farms rather than just a simple fence. I'm talking about man-made lakes that are filled with water from the Pacific ocean and used as desalinization reservoirs and shrimp farms and for other productive purposes, including recreation. I'm talking about border projects that will create Mexican and American jobs down there in the border zone. If people seeking a better life are able to work and settle along the border, it would go a long way to turning the trend toward a solution.
11. What I don't want it foolishness. I'm against proposals that are unrealistic and polemic, no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from.
The world is watching. I see this as an opportunity for American's to prove to the world that the USA is a Country united in our principles, we believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness. This is an opportunity for America to prove to the world (and perhaps more importantly, to ourselves) that the principles this Country was founded on are more than centuries old rhetoric. This is our chance to regain American patriotism and build national unity.
American's are not defined by color, religion, level of education or wealth. Not even by National origin. America and our foundations of democracy are stronger than any army and inherent within our system are the mechanisms to address any invasion however insidious, through democracy. Everything is evolutionary, including democracy, it was the way our founding father's intended it to be. We remain a Nation whose principles transcend any religion or political regime. We are a Nation united in truth and justice for all.
"How little do my Countrymen know, what precious blessings they are in possession of which no other people on Earth shall enjoy." Thomas Jefferson
I love America and I want to be a leader in Santa Barbara. Vote for Giddens on Nov. 6th
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How peculiar that this off-topic ramble should appear here on the day after Ms. Giddens had no time to answer six of the twenty-six questions in Rob Kuznia's candidate interview for Noozhawk.
Not to defend or support Michelle, and nothing personal, Anenome, but why is it that when a response exceeds a person's attention span it is automatically called a ramble and dismissed by some? And why is it off topic? The topic is illegal immigration, if you haven't been paying attention. It is an important and significant one and deserves a significant response.
A candidate has to prioritize his or her time, we are happy that she considers this important enough to give a thought out response to.
As for us turtles, we appreciate that she is honest enough not to give a less-than-well-thought-out answer to relatively insignificant and irrelevant questions, or those that might require research and public input to answer properly, such as:
Is Santa Barbara losing its middle class?
How do you measure this? Does Rob want a conjecture type of answer? And his point is?
Mayor Marty Blum recently gave her staff a grade of A minus. What grade would you give?
Michelle has not worked with Marty's staff.
Do you support cities competing with the private sector for the deployment of Internet broadband networks? If so, what is your preferred financing method to build the required infrastructure?
What an absurd idea, this doesn't even deserve an answer - How do citizens benefit from government competition with the private sector (other than paying more taxes to support what will probably become an inefficient entity like the Post Office?) When did technological enterprise such as the internet infrastructure business become the business of a local government? (other than perhaps in Communist Russia or China) Why should City resources be used to engage in this? Is Rob proposing a Ministry of Internet
for the SB government? Is it so that "the poor and underprivilged " can have an internet welfare program? Please explain. (note - Helene and Das did not answer this either)
Should Santa Barbara’s Sphere of Influence boundaries be expanded? Specifically, what should the boundaries be?
-AND-
The City Council is looking at approving a new downtown transit center of up to four stories that, conceptually, would include affordable and market-rate housing, retail commercial space, a day-care center and underground parking. But under the proposal, most MTD buses would still require street parking. Do you agree with this approach?
These are both questions that should not be answered off-the-cuff in an interview - there are a lot of factors to be looked at and researched and public input to be considered.
Post a Comment