Category: current events

Immigration in the US and the world

Immigration issues have been in the news in the United States for the last several years. The current system is outdated and cumbersome and the last several presidents and some prominent members of Congress have worked on comprehensive reform packages.  In the summer of 2013, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a strong bipartisan majority, but the House refused to take it up and the rhetoric against reform has escalated.

Some of the Republican presidential candidates have been trying to outdo each other in their vehemence against undocumented immigrants, even going so far as to threaten denying birthright citizenship to babies born in the United States. There are also proposals to build walls on both the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders, disregarding the fact that many currently undocumented people reached the US by air or were documented at the time of their arrival or were trafficked into the country or are refugees.

The real solution lies in comprehensive immigration reform with an earned path to citizenship for those who want to remain permanently and work visas for those who want to stay only for a limited amount of time. There also needs to be a better process for applying for visas that takes human needs into account, such as family unity and protection from violence and persecution. Why should someone fleeing Cuba be admitted while someone fleeing more dangerous conditions in El Salvador is not?

Adding to the picture is the current crisis in Europe regarding refugees from the war in Syria and Iraq and other unrest in the Middle East and northern Africa. Desperate people are taking to overcrowded and dangerous boats and rafts or are traveling overland to try to reach safety in Europe. While some countries, especially Germany, are being welcoming, others, such as Hungary, are denying safe transit through their countries.

It’s horrifying.

Part of my upbringing as a Christian is that one should welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and treat every person with respect.  I live in a country where the the vast majority of the population either are immigrants or their descendants and which often touts the strengths that our diversity lends to our democracy. (I also know our history and that our country has behaved unconscionably in dealing with the First Nations, those who were trafficked or enslaved, and various ethnic groups, including the Japanese-Americans who were imprisoned during world War II. None of this negates our current responsibilities toward those in need of refuge.)

I believe that all the nations need to work together to relieve the suffering of those displaced by violence and economic disruption. Some may be looking for permanent re-settlement in a new country, while others may need a safe place for a few years in hope that they can return to their country of origin. The United States, as one of the richest countries in the world, needs to do its part to help, accepting many more than the 10,000 places offered if more refugees wish to live here and offering financial and logistical aid to help in caring for refugees while they are being processed to go to their final destinations.

I know that many will argue that we can’t afford it, but we can. It’s all a matter of priorities. The United States spends huge amounts of money on our military, including weaponry and equipment that the military leaders don’t want or need. Billions more dollars could be spent on human needs programs both at home and abroad if military spending is brought in line with what is truly needed rather than what is embarked upon due to fear or pork-barrel politics. The tax code also is in need of major revision, re-instituting a more progressive tax system for both individuals and corporations, closing loopholes, eliminating tax havens, lowering taxes on the lower earners and increasing rates for high earners.

There is a lot to do. Enough with the grandstanding and fear-mongering. It’s time to get to work to address immigration in a comprehensive way.

disaster preparedness and the radio

Four years ago, my hometown was among those affected by record flooding caused by the remnants of tropical storm Lee adding ten inches of rain to ground already saturated by Irene a few days prior. We were grateful that no one in our area was killed by the flood, largely due to the fact that people followed evacuation orders. However, there was a lot of damage with some homes and businesses lost permanently.

Since then, emergency preparedness has gotten more attention from government and the media, especially in September which is designated as disaster preparedness month.

One of the most important things to maintain during a crisis is effective communication. This is an area, though, where sometimes lower tech is more vital than high-tech.

Although our home did not flood, we were without electrical service for four days, which also meant no telephone or internet service. We would listen to the radio for information and it was very frustrating to get only very limited information on-air with the directive to go to their website for complete information.  Those of us who most needed that information did not have internet available. I can hear some people saying that we should just use our cell phones, but a)  the majority of people in our area don’t have cell phones with internet access, b)  with no electricity, it’s difficult to keep cell phones charged, and c)  during emergencies, cell networks often fail due to increased traffic.

Battery-operated, hand-cranked, or car radios are a better tool than the internet for reaching people who are affected by floods, ice storms, and other emergencies that result in loss of electrical service. Disaster preparedness plans should reflect this.

public vs private

Given that I am on a breaking news theme today, I am re-blogging my post about US marriage rights and separation of church and state. The clerk I allude to in this post has just been jailed for continuing to fail to provide marriage licenses to legally eligible couples, despite being ordered to do so by the federal courts.

Joanne Corey's avatarJoanne Corey

I heard a radio story today about a Kentucky county clerk who is in court for failing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing a religious exemption because her personal religious belief is that same-sex marriage is prohibited.

Her belief is protected by the US Constitution. The recent Supreme Court decision made abundantly clear that no religion or religious officiants would ever be required to preside over a wedding which violated their religious beliefs.

However, in the public sphere, marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is legal. So, in dealing with the public, the law is the determining factor. The religious belief of a clerk, justice of the peace, or judge should not be allowed to interfere with a lawful action by a member of the public. If it does, it violates the establishment clause which says that the state is not allowed to establish an official…

View original post 177 more words

Yes, still with the deflated footballs…

I just read this article in the New York Times saying that a federal judge has overturned the four game suspension given to New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady on the grounds that it violates the collective bargaining agreement between the players and the NFL.

I’ve written about this issue several times, most recently here, and I am glad that the judge has taken this action. I don’t think “general awareness” that others may have violated a rule is the proper standard for punishment.

And I also think that the real culprit is the lack of application of the Ideal Gas Law.

Loyalty oath

So,  the Republican party is demanding that the seventeen major candidates for its nomination for the US presidency sign a loyalty oath to continue in the campaign. They must pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee and promise not to run as an independent.

It is perceived to be aimed against Donald Trump, who has refused to rule out an independent run if he doesn’t get the nomination.

I don’t think he should sign it.

I don’t think that any candidate should sign it.

No one should promise to support a candidate just because that person will appear on the ballot on the Republican line. Or the Democratic line. Or any other party line.

Voting is one of our most important civic duties. In order to take our votes seriously, they must not be pre-determined months before an election.

No loyalty oaths in the United States!

It’s un-American.

Update on the nuclear deal with Iran

Following up from my post on the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, we just found out that enough United States senators have expressed support for the deal that the Congress will not be able to override President Obama’s promised veto of a bill that would block ratification of the international agreement with Iran.

I am relieved to know that diplomacy wins and that a lot of suffering will be alleviated by the lifting of sanctions and the much diminished threat of war.

One could hope that those in Congress who opposed the deal due to politics rather than analysis will take a second look and vote for the deal.

One could hope, but it may be in vain.

One-Liner Wednesday: Women’s Equality Day (USA)

“As we celebrate the last 95 years of progress in advancing women’s rights, let us rededicate ourselves to the idea that our nation is not yet complete: there is still work to do to secure the blessings of our country for every American daughter.”
– President Barack Obama, from the declaration of today, August 26, 2015, as Women’s Equality Day in the United States, in recognition of the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, barring sex discrimination in voting rights.

This post is part of Linda’s One-LIner Wednesdays. Join us! Find out how here:

public vs private

I heard a radio story today about a Kentucky county clerk who is in court for failing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing a religious exemption because her personal religious belief is that same-sex marriage is prohibited.

Her belief is protected by the US Constitution. The recent Supreme Court decision made abundantly clear that no religion or religious officiants would ever be required to preside over a wedding which violated their religious beliefs.

However, in the public sphere, marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is legal. So, in dealing with the public, the law is the determining factor. The religious belief of a clerk, justice of the peace, or judge should not be allowed to interfere with a lawful action by a member of the public. If it does, it violates the establishment clause which says that the state is not allowed to establish an official religion.

There are lots of instances where people of faith take actions in dealing with the public that may go against their personal tenets. For example, a Catholic judge may perform a civil wedding ceremony for a person who is a divorced Catholic who has not obtained an annulment from the church. A Catholic priest would not perform a sacramental marriage in that case, but a Catholic judge is not faulted in any way for fulfilling the civil duty of his/her office in performing a civil wedding.

The same reasoning extends to other public endeavors. A Morman server in a restaurant may serve alcohol or caffeine to restaurant patrons, even though the LDS church does not allow its members to consume them. A Jewish server can bring a customer a pork chop or shellfish, even though s/he may believe they are forbidden foods.

The bottom line is this:  One may believe in whatever religion to which one is called and practice that religion freely. However, one may not impose this belief on another member of the public.

340 US rabbis: ‘We support this historic nuclear accord’ | National Catholic Reporter

In this post, I expressed my support for the nuclear deal with Iran. I so appreciate these rabbis from the United States expressing their support, especially after the announcement by one of my US Senators, Charles Schumer, that he would oppose the deal. I hope the support of these rabbis will help him to change his mind.

340 US rabbis: ‘We support this historic nuclear accord’ | National Catholic Reporter.

Iran

Earlier this month, after long negotiations, a deal was announced between Iran and a group of six nuclear powers to exchange lifting of international economic sanctions against Iran in return for Iran’s abandoning all attempts to enrich uranium anywhere close to weapons grade.

This news was met with celebration in Iran, where the populace has been dealing with a crippled economy. Many people are looking forward to being able to get better jobs and better access to goods and services that many of us take for granted.

While not celebrating in the streets, I and many other folks in the US are happy that an agreement was reached and hope that the US Congress will lend their support. Frankly, if they don’t, all it will do is make the United States look unreliable. The international sanctions will be lifted even if US ones imposed by Congress stay in place, while, worse yet, the Iran nuclear program would once again be free of international inspection and constraint.

I trust that the US’s lead negotiator, Secretary of State John Kerry, has reached a deal that is verifiable and will keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. I am grateful that the team also included Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist. It is hard to imagine a better person to have in the room during negotiations on this topic. When he says that the Iranians could not clean a site of nuclear materials during the time that the agreement allows them to delay on inspection, I believe him. He definitely knows how to detect nuclear particles, even in tiny amounts.

I am old enough to remember Iran before the revolution that brought about the Islamic Republic. As a child, I remember hearing about the Shah of Iran and thinking of the country as a friend and ally of the US. Knowing that it had once been Persia, it also seemed very exotic to a small town New England girl. I did not know until much later the shenanigans that the US had pulled to overturn the democratically elected government and place the Shah in power.

When the revolution came in 1979, I was in my first year at Smith. It happened that a woman living in my house was the daughter of an Iranian diplomat. It was heart-wrenching to see her lose her homeland and see her fear for her family’s safety. Fortunately, they were able to escape the country unharmed.

In the following decades, it seems that many of the Iranian people have remained friendly toward Westerners, even though the government was not.  I hope that this agreement will help promote diplomacy over war and continue on the path toward nuclear disarmament.