A Republican stance on immigration

    It’s not often that Republicans can speak about immigration reform without being called racist or anti-immigrant, but recently, House Republicans laid out their ideals of what immigration reform should look like and in honor of the immigration programming on campus this week, I will make you all informed as to our position.  That’s right, even Republicans are in favor of reforming the nation’s broken immigration system.  

    Our priorities are actually fairly similar to the Democratic Party except for a few key areas.  For Republicans, we acknowledge that the source of the problem must be addressed first.  That is why our main priority is border security.  With over 12 million illegal aliens having been able to gain entry through our country’s borders, the problem is both serious and neglected.  There is currently no effective way to track people over-staying their visas after gaining lawful entry into the country, and many areas of our physical border allow for easy crossing into the US.  It would be useless to address the issue of the 12 million illegal aliens already here if the border was still weak and making it possible for that large number to grow.  Greater security along our physical border coupled with a more effective entry-exit tracking system will help solve the original problem of inflow and allow for a shift in effort.  The Republican Party also acknowledges the blatant need to address those already here, and for that we offer a practical plan.  Amnesty would be sending the wrong message, and would be a slap in the face to those lawfully waiting in line, like many of our ancestors did years ago. 

    We Republicans emphasize a need for those illegal aliens already residing in our country to become current on their back-taxes and prove that they are able to support themselves.  Those illegal immigrants who are currently working, or display a willingness to serve the United States in the armed forces will be given priority when it comes to granting residency.  It is also necessary to improve employment verification and workplace enforcement programs to ensure that legal residents of the United States are the ones being hired, and that taxes are being rightfully paid.  

    The current bi-partisan immigration bill includes statutes for a long-term residency program to grant those here illegally who are also contributing to our economy the opportunity to become legal residents, and eventually apply for citizenship.  The key point here is that illegal aliens are not given time priority over those waiting to legally immigrate to the United States.  

    Another key point is zero tolerance for those who took advantage of other laws while in the US illegally, and that is why it is necessary to deport those with felony records or warrants as well as those with multiple misdemeanor offenses.  Both Republicans and Democrats also agree that children who are brought here illegally by their parents should not suffer and should have the opportunity to become legal in the United States if they receive a college degree or join the military. 

    Republicans ultimately dropped the Dream Act, originally a large part of the Democratic plan for immigration reform, because of its provision to grant federal financial aid to those illegal immigrant youth.  The majority who were opposed to the Dream Act held their position because US tax dollars would go to provide this financial aid when most sources agree that nearly 60% of illegal aliens pay no federal income tax.  Another part of the Dream Act that draws criticism is the age where the law drew the line for near-amnesty.  It cited that children who illegally immigrated here under the age of sixteen would be eligible.  This creates another double standard when the legal age of reason in the US is widely legally accepted to be seven years old, and many US citizens can be legally charged for felonies as adults at ages much younger than sixteen.   In conclusion, Republicans care a great deal about immigration reform, and are not just hell bent on sending everyone back where they came from.  Real reform will come from both sides and through cooperation.                

The Left's Intolerant "Tolerance"

The Left’s Intolerant “Tolerance”

            Confusing title?  Tolerance should be a less confusing concept, but some would never know based on the political left’s misuse of the term.  “Homophobe,” and “racist,” are two terms that have been frequently thrown about in reference to people who have different opinions than those on the left.  Believe in the sanctity of traditional heterosexual marriage? The left calls you a homophobe.  Don’t agree with President Obama’s crippling policies? The left accuses you of being a racist, and just plain unaccepting of America’s first African American president.

The Democratic Party and those who fall politically left of center often brag about being the “accepting” party and being “tolerant” of others, but yet they are the ones attacking people with differing views.  Senator Tim Scott recently got attacked by the increasingly liberal NAACP simply for being politically conservative.  The group, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, has taken such a far left stance in recent years that they are apparently only interested in advancing liberal colored people.  They went as far as to call Senator Scott a “ventriloquist dummy” for not following liberal agenda.  This sad misuse of authority has isolated the once highly benevolent organization and has continued the rift of intolerance among the politically liberal and their sycophants.      

Does anyone remember Phil Robertson?  The Duck Commander from Duck Dynasty got attacked by the liberal media for admitting his religious beliefs in support of traditional marriage.  The party of “tolerance” did not do much to tolerate Mr. Robertson’s religious beliefs.  In fact, the network A&E even fired Mr. Robertson for his religious beliefs, and those in the liberal organization GLAAD vocally called for his termination from the hit TV show.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?

The most frightening example of the Democratic Party’s intolerance is that of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s statements regarding conservatives.  The far-left governor said during a radio show this past month that “extreme conservatives have no place in New York.”  He described these “extreme conservatives” as people who are “right-to-life, pro-assault weapon, and anti-gay.”  I am not sure what he means by anti-gay, but I would assume that he is referring to those who are defenders of traditional marriage, people who are usually not “anti-gay.”  Governor Cuomo, like many of his liberal colleagues, incorrectly makes the jump from supporting traditional marriage to being homophobic and scared of gay people.  If Governor Cuomo wants pro-life residents and those that support traditional marriage to leave New York, then whom are the Democrats being tolerant of? 

  Since the election of President Obama, and the passing of Obamacare, religious groups have seen less and less tolerance from first White House without a Crèche.  Many Catholic organizations, the University of Notre Dame included, have been faced with mandates ordering them to go against their religious beliefs in order to comply with liberal policies.  If President Obama were the tolerant president that he claims to be, then he would be supportive of religious liberties and tolerant of those liberties and beliefs that build the religions themselves.  Not to mention, President Obama blamed his race as a factor that leads to his disapproval in an interview with Bill O’Reilly earlier this month.  I think it is safe to say that the main factor that leads to his disapproval is his disastrous foreign policy, frivolous spending, and wreck of a healthcare law, but who’s to say? 

And what is with the war on the wealthy that the Democratic Party has been supporting?  If America is the land of opportunity, then those who seize the opportunity and become successful should be held up to emulate, not taxed into the ground and be made to look like the enemy.  Democratic mayor of New York City, Bill DeBlasio has taken numerous stances against the wealthy members of Manhattan’s elite class.  He is even accused of purposely not plowing the roads on Manhattan’s upper east side; the city’s wealthiest neighborhood.  None of this behavior seems to spew tolerance of the successful.

On a more macro level, President Obama’s ignorance to the wishes of Congress set a bad example for the party that he leads.   In his State of the Union address, he claimed that he “has a pen and a cell phone,” and was willing to surpass the legislative branch elected the people in order to accomplish his individual tasks.  All of this confusion leads us to beg the question: who exactly is the Democratic Party actually tolerant of besides gay people who want to be married?  Attacking those who have different opinions than you is not only intolerant, but it is the disease plaguing liberal America.

The Republican Party on the other hand does not wave its so-called tolerance in anyone’s face like that rich Notre Dame girl and her Louis bag.  On the contrary, we simply support the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.  We defend the first amendment that the Democratic Party squashes.  Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are vital lifelines to this country’s success and chance of continued prosperity.  If you are a beneficiary of prosperity, we won’t discriminate against you either.          

      

Where has Accountability Gone?

Over the holiday break, we were all given a glimpse of something so rare these days that it could be compared to a solar eclipse.  What am I speaking so reverently about? Accountability.  I will be the first to admit that Governor Chris Christie is not my favorite Republican, but I have to commend him on actually doing something about blatant misconduct by his staff. 

            This rare glimpse into what used to be commonplace should serve as a reminder of how dissimilar the White House has been on this same topic.  Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Fast and the Furious, the list goes on, yet no concrete solutions have been fostered by the President.  Kathleen Sibelius and Susan Rice still enjoy their jobs, and Susan Rice was even appointed for a promotion.  This could easily be the President of scandals.  Has the world gone haywire? 

            To contrast with the forgive-and-forget White House, New York City voters held Anthony Weiner accountable for his sexting scandal by burying him in the democratic primary polls, General Petraeus stepped down after an adultery scandal, and good old Richard Nixon stepped down as president of the United States after Watergate. 

            The democratic White House, on the other hand, has continued its lax standards of accountability from Bill Clinton perjuring himself related to adultery in the Oval Office to President Obama turning a blind eye to the multiple scandals under his control.  Who are we to look up to if the leader of the free world can’t lift a fraction of the finger that Donald Trump lifts when he says, “you’re fired.” 

            Let’s start with Fast and the Furious: a gunrunning scandal that was originally designed to allow illegal straw buyers to buy weapons from licensed dealers in Arizona in the hopes that they would be traced back to the Mexican drug cartels.  Instead of Border Patrol being able to make some serious headway into arresting cartel members, the guns turned up at massive crime scenes and bloodbaths both in Mexico and the United States.  US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was even killed by one of the guns involved in the program.  Attorney General Eric Holder demanded that Congress begin an investigation, but after hearings leaned towards senior officials being involved, Holder started to refuse his cooperation.  Only after being threatened with contempt of Congress charges, he testified in 7 hearings and denied any knowledge by senior officials.  President Obama personally advertised that he would get to the bottom of the scandal and hold someone accountable.  Yet now years after, a few members of the ATF were just transferred to the justice department.  If I got expelled for cheating in Mendoza, I don’t think Dean Huang would ensure I was able to study economics in the College of Arts and Letters.  It simply is not holding anyone accountable. 

            The Internal Revenue service admitted last year that they specifically targeted conservative groups through “intensive scrutiny.”  If the IRS can’t even be objective than maybe the country has gone haywire.  Again, an investigation was ordered yet no criminal charges were ever brought by the FBI, which investigated.  Again, Eric Holder and President Obama denied knowledge of what was going on and failed to hold anyone legally accountable.  Similarly, the NSA spying scandal has seen no concrete, accountable results. Obamacare’s disastrous roll out was chalked up to their best effort and Kathleen Sibelius was never blamed.  She even said “whatever” to a member of Congress during a hearing and has remained employed unscathed.   We all know the fate of the millions who lost their plans after the President promised that they would be able to keep them.     

            The monster of all scandals, however, is the Benghazi cover-up.  Anyone that denies that it is exactly that is suffering from celebrity brainwash.  Reports have indicated that the President knew within hours that the attack on the United States embassy in Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration, but a terrorist attack.  Yet after having received this information, President Obama attempted to convince the American public that terrorism was not to blame.  He even sent Susan Rice on a morning talk show round to ensure that his propaganda succeeded.  But America can smell BS faster than any country and it wasn’t long until public outcry began.  How did the President react?  He denied it some more. Then changed his story.  Then tried to promote Susan Rice.  This is the most outrageous scandal of all.  An American ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack after having requested additional security and yet nothing has come of it since.  No one has been held accountable, fired, reprimanded.  Nothing.  Where has the accountability gone?