Monthly Archives: December 2011
I’m a Christian. I’m not afraid to admit that. Many Republicans would have you believe Democrats and liberals are a bunch of Godless individuals seeking to destroy faith-based Christian principles. Makes for a good marketing ploy, but it simply isn’t true.
The way I see it Republicans are the biggest enemy to Christian principles and the Christian faith. They simply don’t get it. None of it.
Does the Bible carry with it a lot of passages condemning certain acts? Of course it does. Would Jesus support acts such as abortions or homosexuality? Maybe not. We are in fact all sinners (if you’re a Christian), that much is without question. The Bible carries with it a plethora of great inspiring events and ridiculous contradictions. I’ve never viewed the Bible as a word for word true story, more a tool for those who need it at certain points in their life. I believe many of the stories are within the Bible are metaphors written for the person seeking answers to find within those passages some guidance to get through certain decisions in life.
Now, what you believe isn’t of concern to me. I’ve never met someone of another faith and tried to convert them. When I meet someone without faith I never try to convince them to believe in anything. If people ask me what or how I believe I’ll gladly tell them, and if they have questions I answer them the best I can.
My problem lies when people use faith, God and Jesus as a staging tool to push their own agenda. This is essentially the Republican social policy. Since the Reagan years Republicans have built up this PR mission of “We are the party of good moral Christian values”. Ironically as this mission was launched they also started what most people refer to as “Reaganomics” aka Trickle Down/Supply Side Economics. The simple notion of “give the rich/powerful as much power and money as possible, and the rest of us will reap the windfall of their generosity”.
Presently this idea has morphed into a disgusting monster supported by Republicans and highly influenced by the Tea Party. While claiming to be great Christians and the moral majority they’ve attacked homosexuals, other religions–specifically Muslims, the poor, the sick, the needy all while doing all they can to ensure those who have the most keep the most.
They’ve booed a gay solider brought on TV after the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t tell. They’ve cheered letting a hypothetical man die who had no insurance. The given loud applause to the high execution numbers of Rick Perry while governor of Texas. They’ve condemned poor people needing government assistance. They’ve argued against the need for FEMA to help people after they’ve faced disasters. And more recently after fighting endlessly to keep every single wealthy tax break possible they went down to the wire to extend a payroll tax that benefits mostly the middle class.
Are these what they think Christian principles are? Judgement. Anger. Fear. Hate. Greed. This is the good moral Christian majority?
No wonder people are flocking away from Christianity at record numbers in the last few years. These people are the face of Christianity in a lot of aspects. Why would people want to embrace a faith that seems to hate and fear anything not like them? Why support a faith who seems so quick to judge and label people so easily. They’re the truest definition of what it is to be a hypocrite.
Yet these people have done a highly successful job at claiming the side of “Christian values”.
Why, Because they’re anti-abortion? Guess what, I’m anti-abortion. Roe vs Wade isn’t about whether abortions are morally acceptable, what it is about is a woman’s right to choose for herself, and I’m in support for that right for her to choose.
Because they’re against homosexuality?
Because they go to church more often?
Are these narrow minded and simple ideas what define Christianity and being a good Christian?
Not even close. And it’s why I say they simply don’t get it.
Being your run of the mill typical Christian the Bible is the book that tells us what is or isn’t acceptable, is a sin or isn’t, and whatever commandments or rules inside are guidelines we are personally supposed to live by. Just like our man-made laws where judges and jury determine our crimes and punishments, God is the one who judges us for what we do while we’re on earth (again if you’re a Christian or believe in God).
This isn’t a Republican’s job, or any human’s job to cast judgment upon another person because they disagree with their lifestyle. If you disagree, fine, that’s your right, but do so in the name of yourself, not the name of God or Jesus. You’re neither one of them, and it’s time people stop using Christianity as a means to wage wars of personal agendas on our society.
Jesus taught tolerance and giving. To help your fellow-man. To give more than you take. To not judge others. How do Republicans represent any of this?
They condemn social programs that help the poor. They call healthcare for all socialist and complain that it isn’t our responsibility to pay for those who don’t wish to pay for their own. They support the rights of the rich to keep more because the poor don’t really pay much, if any, and they should pay more before the rich do. They slash education programs and entitlements that mostly benefit the sick and needy all to avoid eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars given freely to big (billion dollar) oil companies, corporate jet tax breaks, and to ensure people making a million a year keep that extra $32k.
Their attempt to reduce our deficits and balance our budgets have come at expense of those who have less, all for the benefit of those who have more. Their attempts to manipulate faith-based followers to achieve a political goal is essentially a big catalyst to a lot of people in this country turning away from Christianity.
I’ve asked Republicans often the cliché’ expression, “What would Jesus do?”. Most of the times they’re dismissive, defensive it or simply avoid the answer all together. I get a retort response fairly often of, “Well would Jesus favor abortions or gay marriage?”. Well, considering there’s no mention of Jesus’s views on homosexuality, we don’t know exactly what his feelings on that matter would be, and while he probably wouldn’t support abortion I’ll reference another Bible saying we’ve all heard, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
The point isn’t to be right or wrong on these issues. It isn’t to be fair or unfair. The point is to simply give, love, help, and strive to be the best person you can, to all people at all times. Jesus never once said he approved of the woman’s sins who was going to be stoned for her adultery, but his message was how can any of you judge if you yourself aren’t free of sin.
Why is your sin less damning than hers? Reality is we all do things in our lives others can judge. We all do things that aren’t exactly “Christian”. Jesus was a man who never asked that we be perfect, just that we work to be the best we can be. If there’s judgment to be made, that’s between that person and God. We aren’t infallible. We were never meant to be.
The “it” I referred to is simply that. The issue of homosexuality, abortions or any number of other Christian beliefs isn’t about if the issue is or isn’t acceptable. The issue is that it isn’t our place to judge anyone for the choices they make. There’s one ultimate judge, God, and that’s who matters in determining what kind of person we are. By passing our own flawed judgments upon others for situations we may disagree with, how does that make us better Christians?
Did Jesus help the sick, but first ask why they were sick?
Did Jesus help the poor, but only the poor that helped themselves?
Did Jesus help the woman about to be stoned, but on condition she never sin again?
Did Jesus say to his people, “Why should I have to die for your sins?”.
The answer is no.
The more Republicans push feelings of judgement, hate, fear and manipulate Christianity and the Bible for a political agenda the more Republicans prove that they simply don’t get it.
One thing I’ve learned along my way in life is that people have a very poor mental capacity to recall history accurately at all, and in fact have very short memories. In politics this is especially true. On my path to a degree in Political Science I heard from many different sources a statement that is almost always true, “A President is never more popular than the first day they take office”. With a new President breeds new hope.
In 2010 Republicans would have you to believe that gaining the seats they did in Congress was some giant event in history showcasing the true voice of the American people demanding real change. It wasn’t. History shows nearly every mid-term election the party that holds the White House loses seats. In 1994 Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 50 years and you know what happened in 1996? Clinton put a beat down on Bob Dole. What Republicans did then is a lot of what they are doing now. That is they spent Clinton’s first term doing all they could to try to get him removed from the White House.
In fact if you factor out Ross Perot Dole had a near 50/50 split with Clinton among the popular vote. This, the same Bill Clinton who championed a balanced budget, a budget surplus, historically low levels of unemployment and economic growth in his 2nd term. Even the President responsible for record economic prosperity at the time of his re-election won so decisively mainly because he had a lot of help from Ross Perot who took around 8 million total votes (assume 6 of those go to Dole, Clinton only wins the popular vote by 4 million votes much closer than the 9 million by which he actually won).
Fast forward to today. We face much different economic times in 2011, heading into 2012, than we did in 1995 and 1996. Obama came in on a wave of hope that no President could live up to. I said back after he was elected his biggest obstacle won’t be Republicans or the mess made from 2 terms of near criminal neglect of our country, but from the unrealistic hope people had in him to wave a magic wand and fix everything. I knew from day one Republicans would spend the next few years doing anything they could to sabotage the country in hopes to stagnate the economy as much as possible in hopes to reclaim the White House in 2012.
And that’s exactly what they’ve done. Essentially, “if Obama supports it, we won’t”. They suddenly became champions of deficit reduction when you never heard that term mentioned once until 2008. Why you ask? Well, what else could they do? If they help Obama and Democrats they get the credit for turning the country around and it exposes even further the myth of almost all the Republican core ideologies such as low taxes are vital for job creation and trickle down economics.
They had one “go to” solution…deficits. They were big and going to get bigger. They knew this, but they also knew that deficits scare people. Saying things like “China owns our country” gets the blood boiling. They also know that the only way to reduce deficits is through massive spending cuts, which would hurt economic growth, thus hurt Obama. We’ve had, I believe, 21-22 months of positive private sector job growth. In fact the only reason we don’t have 21-22 months of overall gross job growth is due to the loss in job at the public level, which comes from these deficit reducing budget cuts (Republican led budget cuts–I think in the neighborhood of 500,000 government jobs cut since 2009).
But it’s what they had to do. Imagine if unemployment was around 6.5-7% would they stand a chance at ousting Obama in 2012? Hell they wouldn’t even have the House right now. But in their desperation they created this new PR image in the Tea Party. Essentially a,”Hey we’re Republicans but this time we mean it!” approach. Only it hasn’t gone as planned. Sure it got them a full head of steam into 2010, but look at the GOP candidates it’s produced.
So far you’ve had frontrunners of Bachman, Cain, Perry, Romney and now Gingrich. Really? The only electable candidate in the whole mess is Romney, and that’s the only reason why he’s even a top 2 candidate. In reality the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalist and core Republicans really don’t want to vote for him. So think about that for a moment, the eventual likely winner of this GOP circus is Romney, a guy who’ll simply win not because of his ideas or qualifications, but because he’s the only candidate that seems to stand a chance to beat Obama.
Now think of that and go watch his interview with Fox News (be sure to check out Part 2 as well). If he can’t handle an interview with the mouthpiece of the Republican party, how in the world is he going to handle a face to face debate with Obama?
Now, if you look at polling numbers they baffle me. Congress is at historic levels of disapproval, which most Americans blame Republicans. The Tea Party has fallen more or less to the level of popularity of BP Oil and the same polls show that Americans believe Democrats are better to handle the economy than Republicans. However, when asked who they would vote for between Obama and most the GOP candidates his lead is single digits (usually 2-5%). Makes absolutely no sense. People blame Republicans more than Democrats, don’t like the Tea Party and trust Democrats more, yet (as it stands) are split on Obama or the peanut gallery.
This doesn’t worry me at all. Why? Because, right now you have crazy compared to crazy. Take a group of clowns at a circus and they fit in and appear normal. However take one clown out of the circus into the real world and it’s just a weirdo walking around in messed up face paint and big red shoes.
These candidates have flip-flopped back and forth as to who is the front runner and who’s a joke simply because they’re all awful Currently though voters have a “grass is greener” approach. Obama and Democrats really haven’t gone after any of these people. They’ve handled some decent attacks from one another (especially the new front runner Gingrich) but at the end of the day they still carry basically the same message, and a group hatred of Obama. They’re on display, they’re getting the free press, they’re campaigning, Obama really isn’t. In the midst of some of the worst economic times, with a group of people on TV weekly bashing anything and everything he stands for, being promoted as the “next big hope”, facts show in almost every poll (including Fox News) Obama still leads.
Imagine your favorite sports team narrowly ahead in a game heading into the second half, and at halftime they come out and say, “well, we weren’t even trying to win in the first half, now we’re going to put it away”. That’s essentially what this is.
Right now the crazy seems moderate. Because the each crazy is surrounded by other crazies. Romney seems “Presidential” because he’s standing next to a bunch of people who have no business even being considered for the office. Gingrich seems like a great candidate because, at the end of the day, right or wrong he says what’s on his mind, sticks to it and doesn’t pander to the crowd (at least not as much as the rest).
But when the dust settles one of these people is going to be on stage with President Obama. Now, I don’t care what your views are about Obama, he’s one thing, a near flawless speaker. And he’s already ahead without even stepping foot on stage to combat one of these candidates.
With an unopposed position, and a grand stage to bash the President on national television for free, Obama STILL leads every single one of these candidates.
I predict that gap will widen even further once you take one of the crazies, remove them from the other circus performers where their ridiculousness will really stand out, then put it on display next to a very well spoken, calm, cool and direct President Obama. Once a GOP leader is clearly established Obama can then utilize his mound of campaign cash and focus it on one sole opposition candidate. I’m predicting a repeat of the 1996 election’s.
Right now the grass seems greener on the other side, because no one knows yet what the other side is. Obama has been disappointing on some levels, but a lot of those levels came with unrealistic expectations. No President is perfect, and no matter what Democrat won in 2008 they were facing a very steep uphill battle. However, even with all of that what’s the alternative?
Romney? The candidate Republicans really don’t want, yet may only vote in because he’s holds the best electability. Gingrich? The twice divorced guy who’s been a career politicians, questionable ties to Fannie and Freddie Mac, and wants to remove child labor laws so kids can work to clean up schools and stop paying janitors? Perry? HA! Please, that’s too easy. Bachman? See response to Perry. Paul? Yes, lets see a candidate say on a national stage against Obama that a nuclear armed Iran isn’t a big deal and we don’t need to support Israel.
So who really is going to beat him? He isn’t even trying to win right now and he already leads. They’ve been trying to get Obama out of office for three years and with every resource they’ve had, holding a chamber of Congress hostage, billionaire backers like the Koch brothers, and weeks upon weeks of GOP primary candidate bashing, at the end of the day Obama still leads every one of them in nearly every single poll.
Just wait till the second half starts when he actually starts trying to win.
Since it was released I’ve watched Rick Perry’s “Strong” commercial at least 100 times. Each time reaching a level of anger that I can’t really put into words. In a 31 second clip Rick Perry manages to soil Christmas, insult our troops, suggest we violate our Constitution, lies about Christmas in schools, and makes up some kind of war on religion Obama has never started.
First, the idea of Christmas. What is Christmas? To me it has 2 distinct levels. One, the obvious faith-based implications of the holiday. It is indeed the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, a day in which we should all remember the man who was put here to die for our sins. That part is a very personal aspect of the holiday. It’s a party all Christian believers handle differently. How you choose to reflect on Jesus and his birth is a personal choice that some Christian people take very seriously, and others simply do not. But make no mistake, this aspect of Christmas is Christian specific. It’s a great time to reflect on a man who preached forgiveness, do not judge others, aid the sick and the poor and give all of yourself all of the time to help others around you. Jesus was the benchmark we should all try to become, but will fail to do so, because we are human, we make mistakes and that’s what he ultimately died for.
Then there’s the material aspect of Christmas. This is the broader aspect much more people relate to more often. Not material as in greedy, but material as in the gifts!
Personally, I love giving gifts. I pride myself as a person who hardly needs to ask what someone wants, I carefully listen all year for items the people I care about mention they want, I formulate a plan, and surprise them. But the material aspect includes exactly what I said, it’s the buying and giving of gifts to one another. The big family meals, the Christmas parties. It’s the time where many people around the world are more generous and seem to be in a better mood for 3-4 weeks a year.
We give money to the persistent bell ringing folks from Salvation Army. We buy Angel Trees for needy kids. We donate toys to various toy drives such as Toys for Tots. People tip more, smile more, seem to be as the song says more holly and jolly. It truly is my favorite time of the year.
Still, there’s very little faith-based belief behind the material part of Christmas. Sure it comes from the 3 wise men bringing gifts for Jesus, but now days it’s simply a time that even people who do not believe in God come together, exchange gifts, spend time with families and help one another. You shouldn’t have to believe in God or Jesus to celebrate Christmas. You shouldn’t need an excuse period to help those around you, give to others and spend above average time with family and friends.
In Rick Perry’s ad he takes the false notion that students can’t openly celebrate Christmas in schools, which may happen in some areas, however I know five teachers all of which confirmed to me they’re allowed to have Christmas parties every year. So this is just a statement Perry makes to push an agenda, that for the majority of students, doesn’t really exist.
And let’s be honest, do kids really care about the religious aspects of Christmas? Not really. Maybe when they’re in middle school or high school they care more, but generally kids are more concerned with what new toy or gadget they’re getting than anything else. You know who cares about making sure Christ stays in Christmas? Parents. And that’s great, Christ needs to stay in Christmas. But that’s what you teach at home, not in schools. Church is made for faith-based teaching. Parents are the facilitator of raising their children to worship whatever faith they want and usher them off to whichever church they like most. That isn’t up for schools to do.
How would you have prayer in school? Would we allow Muslims to pray as well? I doubt that’s what Perry is talking about in his little “Strong” campaign. Isn’t our education system failing enough as it is? Do we need to divert even fewer resources to subjects like math and science so we can pray in school? Pray at home, in church, at Bible study, with your friends but school is there for educating, not for faith growing. If you want to say a prayer before some kind of sporting event, then do so, God isn’t going to protect the kids who prayed and not protect the kids who did not. A group organized prayer isn’t going to change the outcome of safety of the players one bit.
And lets not ignore the fact that we’re supposed to have a separation of church and state. It states in our Constitution that no one religion will be seen as greater than another (government wise), and that even as President he would have zero power to institute prayer in schools. Presidents can’t pass Constitutional Amendments, Congress does and good luck getting 2/3′s of both the House and Senate to allow prayer in schools.
Now, to the real part of this ad that gets to me. The openly serving of gay soldiers in our armed forces. What legal means do we have for not allowing gay people to serve? Is there something in the Bible that states “thou shalt not serve in thy nations military if homosexuality is in your heart”. If so, I’ve never heard of that part. So what real legal means does any legislator have to keep homosexuals out of the military?
Rick Perry took a bigoted stance from his religious rhetoric and compares it to the celebration of Christmas in schools. Neither issue is even directly related. One is an issue of freedom of Americans to choose to serve their country regardless of what sexual orientation they prefer, and the other is a faith-based issue that even as Christians we can’t agree on how to celebrate Christmas.
Perry mentions Obama and a war on religion. Where? How? When did this start? Because he repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? That’s a stance for the freedoms of Americans, all Americans, not an attack on Christianity. Bush had office for 8 years, I don’t recall Bush instituting prayer in schools or banning gays from the military. Republican’s held Congress from 1994-2006, I don’t recall these issues being pushed forward to make them law. Reagan and Bush Sr. had the office from 1980-1992, again I don’t remember either of them getting Christian based prayer allowed in schools, though Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was installed by Clinton so technically neither allowed gays in the military.
So where’s this “war on religion”?
Can’t find it?
Because it doesn’t exist, and if it did Bush had the same war as he did nothing to allow prayer in school or ban gays from serving in our military. Bush could have easily pushed for an agenda to make sexual preference a standard for enlistment, but he didn’t.
What Rick Perry and a lot of Christians forget is that we are stronger Christians when we don’t support ridiculous statements like this political ad. We are stronger Christians when we come together, regardless of faith to help one another. We are stronger Christians when we follow what Jesus said and did by helping the poor, the sick, by not judging others because they may look or act differently than we do. We are stronger Christians when people like him go away and stop trying to divide us as human beings. We are stronger Christians when we meet a Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu or any other religion and we treat and love them as people. We are better Christians when fair or unfair we help those of us who need the most help, regardless of why, because at the end of the day Christianity is giving to others, not what we get.
Rick Perry, people like myself will continue to work hard to make sure our country is strong. We will work to expose your bigotry and hate, your hypocrisy and ignorance. We will work hard to stop your war on freedoms, liberty and rights for all. We will work hard each and every day to counter your war on decency. We will do all we can to ensure, to the best of our ability, that the only way you ever step foot in the White House is on a guided tour.
Rick Perry, we as Christians and a nation will become stronger when we find a way to make you, and people like you, simply shut the hell up.
Anyone who knows me or reads anything I write knows I’m not always politically correct, but at the very least I back up my beliefs with actual information or logic. Maybe not logic everyone agrees with, but you’ll hardly see me give a talking point from a news headline to support my ideas.
On that note, for the life of me I have yet to be given a realistic defense for illegal immigration. Lost in this argument always is the misconception that someone against illegal immigration is either racist or against immigrants. For some this might be true, my stance however has nothing to do with being against immigration, but it’s a stance against those who come here illegally.
What’s the defense? We all come from immigrants? Ok. Well, our immigrants came here before there was an established nation with laws and rules. Were the acts committed against Native American’s terrible? Absolutely. It’s a part of our history books I always found interesting. We tend to simply gloss over the fact that there were thousands of people living on this land, and we essentially stole and killed our way to creating the United States. Taking out the moral implications of their actions, the bottom line is Native American’s hadn’t established a government and nation with laws and rules, we have.
So the argument, “we all come from immigrants” is weak at best. Sure it sounds nice, but in reality it doesn’t excuse the breaking of a law.
Illegal immigrants are here illegally, pure and simple. It isn’t as if we don’t have means at which to become citizens. I’m a massive supporter of legal immigration. I love learning about other cultures, they fascinate me. By all means if you want to become an American, pack up and get here just please do it legally.
So where’s the defense? Take out “we are all from immigrants” and what does it become? In my younger days I accumulated a lot of traffic tickets. By a lot I mean at one point I had nearly $3K in unpaid tickets and warrants. Now I was 18-20 when I got all these tickets, so I was just young and stupid and really didn’t think about what I was doing. Either way, what I did was illegal and I had to pay every cent of that nearly $3K before I could avoid around 2-3 weeks in jail. Should my defense had been, “well, your honor, we’ve all been young and dumb and make mistakes, I shouldn’t have to pay for these fines, haven’t you ever made mistakes?”
Somehow I don’t see that argument flying. So when I did something illegal, I paid for it. There are legal means at which to drive, and I now follow those. I pay my insurance. I pay for my registration stickers and inspection. I follow the laws.
There are legal means at which to become an American citizen. I’m a big supporter in expediting the process. Make it more available. We can argue all day about illegal immigration, but the fact is we’re not deporting 12 million people, and it’s going to keep increasing, so what should we do?
Well we can argue and cry about it, talk big about getting these people out of our country. We can build a fence (which I fully agree with, not for immigration as much as the border isn’t safe, and like the Patriot Act unless you’re doing something illegal what are you really afraid of?), we can pass strict immigration laws that end up arresting people who may forget to bring their papers with them one day, or we can expedite the means at which to come here legally, charge a fee, create some revenue, and make these people true tax paying American citizens (thus generating more revenue).
Is that amnesty? No, not exactly. Those who choose not to pay the fee, take the test or courses and become an American citizen should be found and sent back home. Yet those who choose to come forward pay the fees and take the courses, they then become tax paying U.S. citizens giving our government much-needed revenue at a time where the debate seems to be about reducing deficits.
Some may call this amnesty, to me it’s simply finding a realistic solution to a problem that isn’t going away. You can rest assured you’re not finding and deporting 12 million people (and growing). Best mind set to have is they’re here, what to do with them. They’re not leaving, we can’t simply get rid of them, so give them what they want, citizenship. Earn some revenue from the process and usher in millions of new tax paying Americans.
After a few years, in theory, the number of illegals should drop. At that point we assess our number of illegals then plan the next step, be that mass deportation or stricter immigration laws.
The reality is though our borders aren’t safe. Crime is increasing at a record pace along the U.S/Mexico border. We face a time where the next terrorism attack isn’t a matter of if, just when the attack comes and how they got here is in our future we need to secure the borders into this country. You can’t convince me millions of people illegally in a country isn’t a problem on a countries resources, especially when many of them use our hospitals, roads, schools and public benefits without paying a dime in taxes (beyond sales tax).
Again, this isn’t an attack on immigration, not at all. This is a stance against illegal immigration. I’m a giant supporter of legal means at which to becoming a citizen and strongly favor a simpler and expedited process into doing so (by expedited I don’t mean time wise, I think 1-2 years as a process to asses s their behavior in our country is a good time-table to approve citizenship). I simply mean you walk into an office, sign some papers and from that day the process beings.
I know these aren’t perfect ideas, and I’m sure I’m ignorant on a lot of the processes and issues but at least it’s a start. It’s a point at which to being the process of realistically addressing a huge problem within this country. Because trust me strict laws creating witch hunts for illegals or simply turning a blind eye and allowing it to continue isn’t a plausible solution to dealing with this escalating problem.
The base of this issue begins with seeking ways to avoid giving illegals a free pass to American citizenship. Though I don’t agree with “punishing them” (they’re just poor people and most aren’t actual criminals) some kind of fee needs to be charged to appease those which don’t want a free ride to citizenship after coming here and breaking our laws. But on the side of the supporters of legal immigration you appease those who seek their right to be here by giving them that right, but that right through a path of actual U.S. citizenship. The end results of my plan creates revenue for local and state governments, gives an easier path of citizenship to those already here, documents these people to help solidify our safety as a nation, and seeks to ease the complaints on both sides of the argument that illegals shouldn’t simply get a free pass to be here yet addresses the argument that illegals shouldn’t be vilified for simply wanting a better life in this country.
Is it a perfect plan? Not at all, but it’s better than an unrealistic plan for mass deportations of 12 million people, or rewarding people who simply thumb their nose at our countries laws by allowing them to live here, enjoy our resources, yet do so without becoming tax paying contributors to our country.