In the News
From a Washington Post article (By Shailagh Murray): “The Senate voted yesterday to expand veterans benefits… although a battle over unrelated immigration issues is threatening to delay final passage of the legislation for days. But even some of Bush's fiercest Democratic critics on Iraq said the most urgent concern is retooling veterans’ benefits to update health and death policies and to take into account the disruptions caused by extended duties of many service members. 'Right now our concerns are taking care of the veterans,' said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)."
MY RESPONSE: (1) About time they passed additional spending for veterans, (2) They better not delay passage with debate about ILLEGAL activities, and (3) So what do you figure Boxer really wants?
From the same story: “Two [amendments] from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would allow families to stay in military housing for a full year after the death of a spouse, and enable all military dependents to receive $500,000 in total death benefits when a member of the armed forces dies on active duty.”
MY RESPONSE: So, do you think Kerry finally gets it?
And: “Kerry, who sharply criticized Bush's handling of the Iraq war throughout his presidential campaign, cited the Iraq election as a turning point for many senators because it marked a shift… toward Iraqis taking charge of their own affairs. ‘Time and circumstances have changed the situation,’ Kerry said. ‘There's a movement. Most of us feel there's more of a plan.’"
MY RESPONSE: John, the plan was to search for WMD, get rid of Saddam and let the Iraqis govern themselves. W told you so… Guess you heard him now?
Still more from the same story: “The House opened the door to revising immigration policy last month by attaching tougher rules for states in issuing driver’s [sic] licenses to illegal immigrants to its version of the spending bill. The sudden focus on immigration underscores the mounting pressure lawmakers face to address the swelling illegal workforce, a mainstay of numerous industries but a serious voter concern.”
MY RESPONSE: (1) You’re kidding, right? What part of ILLEGAL don’t they understand? Forget the tougher standards – anyone who is here illegally should not be able to get a driver’s license at all. (2) Let’s see. The voters (that would be “we, the people”?) are fed up with illegal immigration, but the Congress is feeling pressure from industries supporting such illegal activity? Hmmm. Sounds like politics as usual to me.
Still more, “One amendment, offered by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), addresses complaints from Chesapeake Bay seafood companies about a shortage of oyster shuckers and crab pickers, created because the ceiling on temporary visas for those workers was reached in January.”
MY RESPONSE: If the number of temporary workers some industry required was underestimated, fix the quota, don’t perform wholesale policy changes. And don’t try to shove unwanted and unnecessary changes at us or up us by tacking it on to a VETERAN’S BENEFITS bill and threaten to hold up the legislation! Yes, illegal immigration is a problem – and not just in economic terms, but in terms of our national security. Congress needs to do more than push numbers around and try to legalize via an amnesty to those who broke the law. The Congress needs to allocate sufficient funds and manpower to protect our borders and enforce the laws we already have in place. If someone from another country wants to come here to work, they should do so LEGALLY. Anyone here illegally should be deported. If you are here illegally, and you have children while you’re here, those children should not be entitled to American citizenship and should not be entitled to stay because they procreated while here. Finally, if you commit a crime while you’re here, you should be subject to the same penalties as American citizens – including the death penalty. If you don't like it, leave.