Immigration Plan - Good or Bad

There is a current bipartisan immigration plan that may just work.  In an editorial posted by USA Today Editorial Board speaks in favor of the plan. 

One of the highlights of the editorial is that the 11 million illegal people here would have to go to the back of the line of legal prospective immigrants.  There wouldn't be a speedy process for them just because they're here.  Letting them go through the citizenship process would bring them into mainstream society and force them to pay taxes for the benefits they receive by being in our country. 
The Editorial Board makes a good point in saying the Democrats view of hurrying the process up is to bolster voting.  The editorial also makes a point of stating President Obama (Democrat) won 70% of the Latino vote in the last election.

The editorial was thorough on the parts they covered and didn't try to hide information.  I think The Editorial Board did a good job of presenting their information in a non-biased way.  They spoke of Republican, Democrat and Liberal viewpoints.  They did not pick apart any group; they stuck to the facts.  They also brought up some questions the plan doesn't answer.  Those questions are "How exactly would back taxes be assessed and collected? And at what point would people be allowed to participate in government benefit programs such as food stamps or Medicare?"

The editorial also provided links for people reading it to get more information.  Those links are:
The 5 most important sentences in the Senate's immigration plan
Bipartisan immigration plan point by point

They also include a link for the opposing view, which doesn't really seem to disagree with The Editorial Board or the plan except for the length of time it takes to become a citizen.  And it brings up some valid points about the backlog of the system and that we shouldn't create a system where people can't become citizens.

I noticed the editorial did not specifically address the 4 points of the immigration plan.  Instead they talked about the politics of the plan and the fact that people from different parties may have finally come to an agreement.  Of course, without all the details of the plan being in place that could fall apart.

It comes across as easy to read which means their audience could be anyone, i.e. don't have to have an advance degree to understand what the plan is.  The USA Today is a respected national paper and therefore I think their editorials are creditable.

At it's face value, I agree with the first go at the bipartisan immigration plan.  However, the nuts and bolts have not been determined yet.  Like how are the borders going to be secured, are they going to reduce the time it takes to obtain permanent residence?  I would need more information about the plan before I could definitively say I agree with it or not.  I most definitely believe our borders need to be secure and if people want to come here go through the channels.  I agree the channels take to long so I hope to see a quicker time for obtaining residency be established.  The only people we are hurting with our laws is us.

Gun Bans

Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed on Thursday the 24th a new federal ban on some assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons, and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. CNN.com reports the story.

The story discusses past gun bans that Congress declined to renew, one of which Feinstein authored in 1994, President Obama's proposals, the details of Feinstein's measure, and opponents and proponents stand on the issue. One thing that stood out is the most support seems to be coming from Democrats.

The measure would stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of 100 firearms. It is noted not all the weapons in the bill meet the technical definition of assault weapons.

The story quotes Sen. Feinstein as saying "We should be outraged at how easy it is" for attackers to get hold of the semi-automatic weapons or large-capacity magazines used in those slaughters. Seriously, is she that naive? It will not matter if there is a ban on certain rifles or ammunition clips, criminals will still commit their crimes whether it's with a 9mm or an AK. Do she and other Democrats really believe the criminals care about the law or that it will stop them from possessing banned weapons and ammunition clips?

Opponents of gun control measures say the Second Amendment forbids the government from this type legislation and also worry weakening of gun rights leaves us more vulnerable to criminals and against potential future government tyranny or abuse. I whole heartedly agree with them.

Proponents acknowledge the right to bear arms but say rifles capable of firing multiple rounds exceed reasonable needs of hunter and gun enthusiasts. The second amendment has been interpreted to mean the people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government. I have never heard of an interpretation that had to do with hunters and collectors.

We have to stay informed about the government taking our rights or before we know it we won't live in a democracy anymore.

I don't personally own an assault rifle but I am a gun owner and firmly believe we have the right to own whatever type of gun we need.

My Political Views

I first remember discussing politics with my mom when President Reagan was in office.  She was a Republican, which influenced me to have Republican views.  We debated the issues whether we agreed or not since we always had our individual take on the issues.  Our discussions inspired me to keep up with national politics.  I registered to vote as soon as I turned 18 and have voted in every Presidential election since then.  I used to think I was a Republican, but now I don't affiliate myself with any party.  The change in my views developed as I got older and realized just how crooked a lot of politicians are and how much bologna they feed you.  I am for the people and wish we could get "people" in office and not politicians.  It would be refreshing to have people who use common sense in office and to get rid of lobbying and backwards handshaking.  I am not holding my breath.

Once I began working for a local government I started to take an interest in local politics after I realized City Councils have everything to do with what happens in the City you live in.  Their decisions directly affect quality of life and what your local tax dollars are spent on.  Within the last 10 years I started voting in some local elections.  But find myself not as interested in learning about local politicians as I am in the national ones.