Citizens rights v. Citizens protection. Where do we draw the line?

How Should We Treat American Jihadists?

he legal answer is not going to help
Andrew C. McCarthy The National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341371/how-should-we-treat-american-jihadists-andrew-c-mccarthy

Topic: The author contends that the solution to handling and preventing acts of terror cannot be dictated by the law and responses should be determined on a case-by-case basis.Under the Constitution, Americans who join the enemy may lawfully be treated like the enemy, which includes being attacked with lethal force. In light of the recent debate over  the targeted killings of American citizens, forces us to ask, where does the protection and defense of our country overlap with the level of aggression that is necessary to carry out such defenses. The government's war powers cannot have explicit limitations, this would prevent the actions that may be required by unforseen threats. We must be able to marshal all our might to repel any conceivable existential threat. Yet the Constitution, the sole legitimate source of the government’s power to levy war, is, quintessentially, the citizen’s protection against aggression by that same government. Thus, the tension between government’s war powers and the citizen’s fundamental rights is a conundrum. The author refers to a number of examples of American's who became affiliated with jihadists and consequently, betrayed their country. Noting that the number of Americans who have done this,, it is clear that the issue carries a much larger connotation. That is, How can we preserve citizen's rights and protect the national welfare at the same time?

Opinion: To answer my question above^, there are a number of approaches that already provide a solution to the issues that the author of this piece seems to have little faith in. First, Congress has the ability to carry out protective measures under the "necessary and proper" clause. However, I do recognize that congress is limited in action if the threat is not immediate and I believe that is what the author found fault with. When there is a domestic threat, lets say a Islamic radical, that individual is entitled to practice what is guaranteed to them in the bill of rights until they commit a crime or make an explicit threat, leaving ways for many legal loopholes. If the government would attempt to supress this individual, they would become what every history book since the British Occupation of India has deemed as an oppressive ruler. I believe that the U.S. government and policy makers should not take any further measures to monitor these individuals under the presumption that this will be a slipper slope and may lead to an oppressive rule that only worsens as more and more precedents are established.

Conclusion: When an American citizen leaves the U.S. they are no longer entitled to the  same liberties and freedoms as they would be in U.S. soil. Therefore, when an individual leaves the country and connects with a group that acts contradictory to american policy and defense, they can and should be treated as a traitor. The fact that they have committed treason should nullify their citizenship.  There is much more to war than the article contends and I would like to clarify here; The U.S. military should not be focused on killing as if participating in a war of attrition, but rather seeking intelligence that can lead to the capture and legal prosecution of someone who has committed a crime against the U.S.. Drone strikes are an effective tool but are not necessarily the best tool. Terrorism is a heinous crime, but when we prioritize the capturing and interrogations of terrorists, the U.S. would be much more effective and fighting the war on terror, and subsequently, preserving fundamental American values in the process, particulary due process and other citizen's rights.

Increased minimum wage may be the wrong solution...

The Minority Youth Unemployment Act

A higher minimum wage will hurt Obama's most loyal supporters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302510280314712.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Topic: The articles dicusses how the Obama administration has done an outstanding job at maintaining the support of young voters and minorities. In his recent state of the union, Obama proposed in increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, the author contends that this is not the proper solution to eliminating poverty and may be an example of over-generalization.In the real world, setting a floor under the price of labor creates winners and losers. Some workers will get a $1.75 raise. Great. But others—typically the least educated and skilled—will be priced out of the job market and their pay won't rise to $9. It will be zero. The author is saying that when we increase the minimum wage, companies will be less inclined to hire people that they don't REALLY need. Many statistics reflect that minorities and the young fit into this category of being less educated and skilled.The minimum wage is also an ineffective way to reduce poverty. It is also important to note that large majority of those who live below the poverty line do no work, so when jobs become more difficult to attain for unskilled and uneducated laborers, their poverty will be exacerbated. William Dunkelberg, chief economist for the National Federation of Independent Business, says that after the July 2009 increase 600,000 teen jobs disappeared in the next six months even as GDP expanded. This begs the question; what is more important to the american economy and its people rights now, how many people are unemployed, or how much our low-income families are making?

Opinion: The article introduces an interesting topic that I believe is best reinforced through this White House memo "Studies show that modestly raising the minimum wage increases earnings and reduces poverty without measurably reducing employment." This shows that the White House is not ignorant to the reprecussions of their actions and is rather cleverly worded. "Modestly" implies that the increase is not a significant increase that many businesses can handle, which as I stated early, is a generalization. "Measurably" indicates that the studies they used failed to recognize variables that may cause a reduction in employment. I believe that the studies that was mentioned does not recognize one of the fundamentals of business and that is to keep expenses to a minimum, Companies will not pay $9 for an employee they may not need, that is a guarantee. It'd be nice to think that some Republicans, even one, would make the moral case that the minimum wage hurts the poorest workers. However, this may make republicans look indecisive, seeing as both the Bush's and the Gingrich congress advocated for an increase in the minimum wage, going against this may make the GOP seem indecisive. It is also interesting that a majority of the people living in poverty are unemployed, Obama makes it seem as though this will be the ultimate solution, but the increase would not only bypass the impoverished, but would actually hurt their chances of getting a job.

Conclusion: To answer my own question from the topic analysis, how much america's low-income families are making is currently more important than those who are unemployed. Those who are unemployed will continue to receive substantially more income in the form of welfare than those who are working to support themselves and their families at minimum wage. So on a moral standpoint, the people who are working will directly benefit from this increase, as well as give young people the opportunity to save money to further their education and things of that nature. Those who are supportive of this legislation must recognize that this is by no means the solution to poverty and will reinforce the the poverty cycle by preventing them from getting jobs that do not require any formal training. This legislation and its future truly rely on the response of american businesses, because this realm, independent of the american government, will make or break its support in correlation to the amount of employees they can afford.

New voting legislation revives old issues

The Coming Battle Over the Ballot Box
A voting-rights veteran talks about the liberal campaign to expand the electoral rolls—and why Obama is on board.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578290613701758092.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

Topic: In President Obama's upcoming State of the Union he is expected to call on congress to enact on new voting legislation that has already been proposed by several liberal democrats that is entitled as the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013. according to election lawyer Hans von Spakovsky. In December, some "three dozen of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups, including union organizations," held a strategy session, he says, citing a report from the liberal magazine Mother Jones. They agreed to "oppose all voter integrity efforts, things like voter ID," to push for federal legislation requiring states to permit voter registration on Election Day, and to institute "automatic" voter registration. Because of the social context of this voting legislation, it is labeled as a partisan effort because it most directly makes the voting process for democrats and liberals much easier as was determined by the liberal advocacy groups mentioned earlier. The executive has mentioned a number of times that the problem lies in the amount of time that voters must wait at the polls and that when we remove things that the advocates for this bill have deemed unnecessary, particular voter ID and registration, the process will be much quicker and thus see a larger voter turnout. The issue reintroduces racial discrimrimination in the Americna election system. The legislation obviously benefits minority groups, and because republicans oppose it, they have been labeled as an opposition to equal rights, something that I discussed my last blog.

Opinion: Democrats suggest the Republicans are in contention of the legislation because it prevent some voters from practicing their voting rights. "They keep trying to scare African American voters into thinking that these voter ID laws are an attempt to take away the right to vote," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "We know that's not true. The experience of states that have had voter ID laws in place for [several] years, like Georgia and Indiana, shows that it does not suppress the vote of black voters; it doesn't in any way keep them out of the polls." This is an opinion in which I must agree. By requiring voters to provide voter ID, it is less likely that their votes will succumb to fraud.  The turnout would primarly consist of liberal democrats and those who benefit from government assistance. Democratic institutions are basically attempting to force the federal government to perform voter outreach for them, under the belief that this practice is enforcing voter equality. There are also many other large scale issues at hand. While the new voting legislation will change the entire election process, gerrymandering (particularly in virginia) will effect voter turnout, and subsequently, the outcome of the election. Yes, this voting legislation is important and is not something to be understated, but it should distract from larger injustices that are blatantly devaluing some votes, as is the case in the readjustment of electoral votes in Virginia.

 

 Conclusion: Voter ID is just a basic measure to protect the integrity of the voter-registration process. According the the author of the article, the victims of voter fraud are in fact black voters and people in poor communities. They are the ones who often are taken advantage of, particularly by some Democrats, because they are less likely to complain or find out that their vote has been stolen."All this to solve what he argues is a nonexistent problem. " It is also important to recognize that the proportion of people that this legislation will affect is an insignificant percentage that will not sway any major elections. However, it does provide these voters with much needed efficacy and reinforce the American perception of liberty.

 

 

Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants

Possible compromise on immigration reform takes shape
By Dana Bash and Tom Cohen, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/politics/immigration-reform/index.html
AP Gov. Current Event #1

Topic: The U.S. senate will be seriously considering a plan that will grant amnesty to nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants that are living in the U.S.. A bipartisan group of 8 senators believed that while this will provide a temporary solution for these immigrants to attain green cards, in order for the plan to be successful, border security must be strengthened and more closely monitored. The framework proposed by these senator's bill also includes the Overhauling the country's legal immigration system, including attaching green cards to advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math from U.S. universities; Establishing an employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers; and Creating a guest-worker program for positions that Americans are either unable or unwilling to fill. The argument highlights that the immigrants deserve temporary citizenship without second-class people being mistreated simply because they lack paper even though they are already contributing to our economy and our tax system. Because this is a bipartisan effort, it has been able to avoid many of the negative connotations that typically result from factional controversy. This is not to say that there has been some rebuttal. Conservatives immediately voiced their opposition to amnesty."When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who serves on the immigration subcommittee in the House. "By granting amnesty, the Senate proposal actually compounds the problem by encouraging more illegal immigration." The framework proposed by the bipartisan senators was further sustained by executive support.

Opinion: The context of this article is very interesting for a number of reasons. The first being that it is a bipartisan effort, following the election of a democratic president. On the surface, the republican's willingness to aid an effort that had been historically fronted by democrats and liberals may be seen as a rare glimpse of compromise between the two groups. However, there is much more to it. It is not secret that the republicans did not fair well with latino voters in the previous election. It is the hope of the republican party that through the support of immigration/amnesty legislation (a primary concern for many latino voters) they will be able to reverse the latino opinion and gain republican support from the ever growing minority population. Exit polls indicated Latino voters gave overwhelming support to Obama over Mitt Romney, who had advocated a policy that amounted to forcing undocumented immigrants to deport themselves. The republican party must recognize that, despite their recent efforts to gain minority support, they will not see a drastic change in the voting trends of the latino community. While immigration policy is important to latino voters, the republican party must be able to offer much more to these voters in terms of community improvement programs, policies, and welfare (things that democratic candidates offer and support).

Conclusion: Despite the expected political controversy, this is a major step-forward as a whole and should be viewed as a return the the fundamental beliefs of our country. By granting these citizens a temporary solution to their illegality and undocumentation, they will have the opportunity to participate in our labor force as they please, without the fear of being deported or labeled based on their legal standing, as well as take the opportunity to attain the proper documentation in a legal manner, undergoing to the full process of citizenship. These citizens are unfortunately stereotyped as taking advantage of the american system, while in reality, they directly contribute a great deal to the labor force and economy. When these citizens are granted their temporary visas, they will lose their undocumented status(reflected in a statistical decrease) and subsequently, deflate the massive issue that illicit immigration has become.