Now there is something we can do about “Citizens United”

           

The Supreme Court’s decision on “Citizens United” gave corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political commercials and advertisements.  The court’s reasoning was that political commercials are a form of free speech and free speech is protected by the constitution.  But the constitution is referring to “free speech” for citizens.  Corporations and unions are not citizens.  They are quite different from citizens.  Corporation’s main goal is to make profit and union’s goal is to increase the pay and benefits for their members.  They are not subject to the same moral characteristics as people.  Furthermore, corporations and unions are not subject to the same laws as people.  Corporations are immune from judicial prosecution, there has never been a corporation thrown in jail!  So if corporations and unions are not subject to the same laws as people, why should they have the same rights?

            Every American citizen, regardless of political affiliation, race, gender or age should be appalled by this situation.  It reduces the authority the voters have to determine who their state and federal representatives will be and increases the control that businesses and unions have in making that decision.

            Now there is something you can do!  Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream in Vermont, has started a grass-roots campaign to put the election power back in the hands of the American people and to repeal the “Citizen United” decision.  This idea is GREAT!  Buy a rubber stamp and stamp every piece of paper currency with a slogan urging congress to repeal Citizens United.  Slogans like, “STAMP MONEY OUT OF POLITICS”, “NOT TO BE USED FOR BRIBING POLITICIANS” and other great stamps are available.  This is entirely legal.  Join the thousands of people who have already joined the “Stamp Stampede”.  Go to www.stampstampede.org to get your stamp.  Just imagine what members of congress would think if every piece of currency were stamped.  Get your power back.  You decide who is going to represent you.

 

www.stampstampede.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Brief Trip to China

 

 

Shanghai

What is China really like?  I just returned from an 8 day trip to China.  In a trip sponsored by the Vermont Council on World Affairs, we visited  Beijing, Suzhoe (pronounced su joe), Shanghai and Hangzhou (hang joe).  While an eight day trip makes me just a tiny bit more knowledgeable than most Americans, it does provide at least a first impression of the country. 

            China by any analysis is a booming, growing country.  In the big cities along the east coast where we visited, construction projects are everywhere.  In fact, some people claim that the new national bird of China is the “boom crane”.  It is not unusual to see four, five, six cranes busily working on many construction sites in these growing cities and Shanghai must be considered one of the most modern cities in the world. 



Construction, the Chinese "national
bird", the boom crane

            It’s also easy to see that the people in China are prospering. The citizens in the cities are dressing in nice business attire and are usually on the go.  People in the parks and gardens are dressed in clean, casual attire and are strolling more casually but still appear to be on a mission.  I saw only a few who were obviously poor.  A few disabled sitting on the side walks begging for money; but able-bodied pan-handlers begging for money, I saw none of these.  There are, however, the ubiquitous street vendors, who we impolitely called “mosquitoes” because they bug you whenever you get on or off the tour bus. These persistent sales people will offer you the opportunity to buy a “genuine” Rolex watch for five US dollars or other street trinkets that you just can’t live without and they don’t go away with a simple “no thank you”.  Also I saw many people sweeping the streets with brooms.  In fact, I didn’t see street litter anywhere in China, not even in Beijing or Shanghai that are homes for millions of people. The government employs thousands of people as municipal workers to keep the streets clean and that seems to work. 

                      

Keeping the city clean

          It’s also obvious that the Chinese people are fond of Americans and Europeans (I don’t think they can tell us apart).  If you ask a Chinese person on the street to take their picture, he/she could not be more willing.  Ask a Chinese woman to take a picture with her adorable baby and she’s eager to do it.  Ask them to take your picture and they gladly do it.  In fact, they want to be in the picture too! 

           Another curious phenomenon is that the US dollar is accepted for currency everywhere, not British pound or German deutsche mark that I could see, but US dollar, yes!  Six yuan per dollar is accepted everywhere.  I soon became proficient at dividing the price in yuan by six.         



Tienanman Square and Entrance
to the Forbidden City

            Of course, China is thought of as a communist country and most of us were brought up to believe that communism is bad, removing all liberty from the people, and ruling the people with a heavy handed dictatorial power.  Well if the Chinese people are unhappy they certainly don’t show it.  In fact, China is not strictly communist.  There are millions of small businesses owned and operated by private people. China is a giant at making small businesses thrive.  In fact, I asked the tour guide, “In China, who owns the electric company?”  “The government” he replied.  Then I ask him, “Who owns the office buildings that are being constructed?”  “Well the development company owns that, and the construction company builds it for the development company.”  That sounds capitalistic to me.  But many of the big businesses are controlled by the government, all the provincial government employees work for the government, all the electronic, telecommunications and power companies are government controlled and some of the manufacturing and industrial companies are owned and operated by the government   However, some foreign manufacturing companies are owned by the foreign company.  For example car parts made for Ford and General Motors are owned by Ford and General Motors and employee’s paychecks probably have Ford and GM at the top.   These businesses operate in China according to Chinese regulations and must pay the Chinese government for the opportunity to have factories in China.  The point being, China in not a strictly communist country where all the means of production are owned by the government (or in communist lingo, all the means of production are owned by the “people”).  China is a blend, a mish mash, of government operations and private operations.



High speed rail

            There’s no doubt though that China is a centrally controlled country, how else could birth rates be controlled to only one child per family.  I think that this is a more important fact then it’s supposedly communist form of government.  China deals with issues, whether political, economic, social, international, by centralized government control.  Yes, China is a single party system. All members of the government are communists, but it is the central control that’s the crucial factor, not that it is nominally communist.  It may be that a central authority works well in a country like China where people are more society oriented.  Perhaps it is centuries of people living in close proximity that allows them to work more closely as a society, as a community.  Or perhaps it is the approximately 40 centuries of being ruled by an emperor who was the ultimate authority.  China was ruled by an emperor from 2000 years before Christ until 1912, when the emperor was overturned and a more democrat government called the Republic of China was established by Chiang Kai-Shek.    Chiang lasted until 1949 when Mao Zedong forced Chiang into Formosa (present day Taiwan) who formed the Republic of China (ROC) and Mao formed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) over the rest of China.

431 Km/h or 270 mph on the High
Speed Rail line

            The centralized government has several distinguishing features.  It allows the government to direct policy swiftly and efficiently.  This has resulted in phenomenal economic growth in China.  Over the last 30 years, China has experienced a GDP growth rate hovering around 10% per year.  China’s GDP, after adjusted for inflation and cost of living differences, is approaching that of the US’s ($16.7 trillion in 2013) if it hasn’t already passed it.  So China will become the largest economy in the world.  But really, so what?  China has 1.35 billion people, the US has 325 million (.325 billion).  So China has over four times as many people as we have.  You wouldn’t expect a small country like Switzerland to out produce a big country like the United States.  Likewise you wouldn’t expect the US to out produce China.  Also remember that China after World War II was a third world country.  After the war, China reformed itself and has been catching up with other countries ever since.  Starting from a lower level of productivity it’s easier to have high rates of growth.  As time passes, however, growth becomes more difficult, the low hanging fruit of progress has already been picked. China’s rate of growth will slow as the economy catches up.  

Typical housing complex

          Furthermore, even if China’s economy is bigger that ours, Chinese citizens are not better off.  Using the GDP per person as an estimator for the citizen’s wealth, China’s GDP per person is about $12,000 per year in 2013 after inflation adjustments while the US has about $53,000.  So the US population, in general, enjoys a higher standard of living.  While we were in China, we were graciously allowed to have lunch in what I believe to be a typical Chinese apartment.  The food was good and plentiful.  The apartment consisted to three rooms, each about 12 to 15 feet wide and 12 to 15 feet long, aligned in a row.  The first room was the dinning room, the second the bedroom and the back room was the kitchen.  The bathroom was provided for by a public bath down the block.  In spite of the fact that the hostess was very hospitable and kind, the dwelling was modest by any description.    

China per capita GDP compared
with other countries, World Bank Dec 2014

          Another feature of a central government, as you may guess, the powerful will do everything they can to stay in power and to empower and enrich themselves through graft, criminality and nepotism.  The people are, of course, aware of these actions and, according to Tiger Head Snakes Tails by Jonathan Fenby, previous editor of South China Morning Post, there are about 180,000 protests a year on such matters.  Occasionally public officials are arrested and jailed by the government.  But I believe most of these criminal actions go unpunished.  Relatives of Xi Jinping, the new Chinese leader, has assets of $376 million while outgoing Premier, Wen Jiabao, has asset of $2.7 billion.  Forty per cent of the private wealth in China is held by 1 per cent of the population.¹⁾  Unfortunately, and surprisingly, in the United States in 2010, wealth was also distributed almost as un-equally, 1% of the population own 35.4% of the wealth.²⁾ Distribution of wealth is important because it portrays how the common citizen partakes in the economic success of a nation and how widely the wealth is spread throughout the country.  For right now, the US is the leader of the financial and democratic world, but based on distribution of wealth statistic, this may not always be the case.   

 

1) “Tiger Head Snake Tails, China Today, How it got There and Where it is Heading, ”, by Jonathan Fenby, The Overlook Press, Copyright, 2012

 

2) “Who Rules America? Wealth, Income and Power,” G. William Dornhoff, Socialogy Dept, University of California, Santa Cruz

The Cost of Obamacare is Costing Less than Expected

 

The Congressional Budget Office indicates that the health insurance costs under the Affordable Care Act are less than they were previously estimated. 

            The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, is a non-partisan government organization that provides estimates for congressional use and consideration.  At the inception of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, the CBO estimated that insurance related costs from 2015 to 2019 (i.e. the last 5 years of the 10 years estimating period) would amount to $710 billion.  This March, the CBO revised that estimate to $506 billion, a 29% reduction.  Most of this reduction comes from insurance subsidies provided by the federal government.  In 2010, the CBO estimated that by year 2015, insurance subsidies would average $5200 per person.  The CBO’s new estimate is $3960 per person in 2015.  The CBO now estimates that the total insurance subsidies over the next decade will be $849 billion.  This is $209 billion less (20% less) that the CBO’s previous 10 year estimate made in January 2015.     

            In addition, the CBO estimates that the 10 year costs of the “Expanded Medicaid” program for the poor is $847 billion, down from $920 billion of the previous estimate, an 8% decline.     

            This is good news for all of us.  What all these statistics mean is that health care insurance costs are being reduced by the Affordable Care Act.  The costs are lower because the insurance premiums are lower.  This means that individuals and businesses pay less for health care insurance than they did before.  As the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said “the Affordable Care Act is contributing in a very positive way to holding down the growth of health care costs.”  It also means that since the subsidies are less, the government has to spend less money to support the Affordable Care Act.  This means that the Affordable Care Act is really helping to roll back the deficit.  In fact the CBO estimates that the deficit over the next 10 years will decline from an estimate of $7.6 trillion to $7.2 trillion, a $400 billion decline.

 

         Agree with it or not, the Affordable Care Act is working.

 

If you like this blog, "Like" me on the

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democracy-on-the-Edge/1414967145465935

The Supreme Court has another Chance to Destroy Obamacare, How would it affect you?

          The Supreme Court has yet another chance at destroying the Affordable Care Act.  The situation is this.  A large part of Obamacare is to make health care affordable for Americans.  The plan, therefore, subsidizes premiums paid by families for their health insurance.  For example, in 2014 a family of four making $35,775 per year would not pay more than $1430 per year ($119 per month) for a silver plan.  These subsides apply to annual incomes reaching up to about $100,000 a year.  The subsides are paid for by
-          a much larger pool of participating and mostly healthy individuals
-          more frequent medical checkups to keep people healthier
-          additional taxes on those making over $200,000 per year and
-          taxes on medical devices and health care insurance companies, on expensive "Cadillac" health  care plans and on tanning salons. 

            The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) was originally written to have each state set up it own health insurance exchange.  Citizens go on-line to health care exchanges and select which plan they want, from the most economical bronze plan to the most expensive platinum plan.  Along the way though, 34 states opted not to set up their own plan, some because setting up the system was too onerous and others because they just opposed Obamacare.  The federal government then established a system where people without state plans could select an insurance plan through the federal government site, www.healthcare.gov. 

            The only problem is the exact wording of the Affordable Care Act.  The Act states that subsidies will be provided to eligible people who purchase insurance through “exchanges established by the states”.  In King v Burwell (Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services) King argues that anyone who obtained health insurance through a federal exchange is NOT eligible for subsidies because they’re not “established by the state.”  Even though Obamacare clearly intended that subsidies could be provided through either a state or a federal exchange, the exact wording of the act does NOT say “or the federal government.” 

            All this turmoil and uncertainty results from conservative zealots that loath Obamacare. So if the Supreme Court decides that the federal government cannot provide subsides, here is what could happen.

1)  Five million people signed up for Obamacare from federal exchanges in 2014.  Of those, 87% or about 4.4 million people, received subsidies.  Without those subsidies, many of the lower income and healthy, generally younger people may opt out¹⁾. The numbers get worse though.  In 2015, the second year of enrollment, the estimated number of Obamacare participates is about 11.4 million and, according to E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, ²⁾ about 8 million lower income and younger people could opt out and be without health insurance.

 

2) Most of those who drop health insurance are from the 34 non-participating states.  These are predominately Republican states.

3) With the younger, relatively healthy people not participating, the majority of the participants would be in poor health and require more medical treatment.  However, without insurance, hospital and doctor payments would drop and medical fees would have to increase in order to compensate.  An economic forecast by the RAND Corporation projects that medical fees would increase by 47%, while enrollment in individual health care insurance market would decline by 70%³⁾.  This too would occur predominately in Red states which did not develop exchanges.

4) People without insurance are reluctant to go to the doctor.  The result is many preventable diseases (e.g. asthma, heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer) will not be detected until late in the disease development when the prognosis is not good and the cost of treatment is higher.  Before Obamacare, the American Journal of Public Health reported that about 44,800 people were dying unnecessary each year due to lack of insurance ⁴⁾.  In addition, lack of pre-natal care results in higher infant mortality rates.  The National Vital Statistics Bureau reports that about 25,000 infant deaths result each year from inadequate prenatal care ⁵⁾.  And again, the increase in death and disease will predominately occur in Republican states.

5) The expanded Medicaid program that provides healthcare for those earning less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, (about $33,000 for a family of four in 2014) would continue for those 25 states that opted to participate in the program.  The other 25 states refused to participate in expanded Medicaid, even though the federal government will pay almost all of the costs.  The 25 states not participating in the expanded Medicaid is, you guessed it, mostly Republican states. 

So the end result of a Supreme Court decision to uphold King’s complaint is that part of the nation would be receiving huge Federal subsides for health insurance and the remaining states could receive near nothing.  Secretary Burwell told Congress that the administration knows of no legal action it could take to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that will be caused by an adverse decision.”⁶⁾

In closing this article, I quote Ted Cruz’s statement to the International Union of Firefighter on Tuesday March 10 in Dallas, Texas:

“Five years ago reasonable minds could have differed on whether this was a good idea, but today, seeing millions of American who’ve lost their jobs, who’ve been forced into part time work, who’ve lost their health care, who’ve lost their doctor — it is the essence of reasonableness, it is the essence of pragmatism to acknowledge this thing isn’t working. We need to repeal it and start over.”

I think it is the essence of reasonableness for the states to have joined Obamacare.  Thank goodness Cruz doesn’t work for NASA.

 

1) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies – what you need to know,” by Laura Lorenzetti, March 3, 2015.

2) The Week, “Obamacare’s looming legal showdown’, March 56, 2015
3) Fortune.com, “The Supreme Court’s decision on health care subsidies –
4) Wilper, Andrew P.; Woolhandler, Steffie; Lasser, Karen E.; McCormick, Danny; Bor, David H.; Himmelstein, David U. (December 2009). "Health insurance and mortality in US adults." American Journal of Public Health 99 (12): 2289–2295. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157685. PMC 2775760. PMID 19762659.
5) National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 59, No. 6, June 29, 2011
6) www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0304/supreme-court-could-obamacare-ruling-destroy-health-insurance-for-millions             

Did you know the patron saint of Ireland, Saint Patrick, wasn’t Irish and other tidbits

“Top of the morning to ya” on this fine but chilly Saint Patrick’s Day.  Did you know the patron saint of Ireland, Saint Patrick, wasn’t Irish; he was born in Roman Britain in the 4^th century.  His father was a church deacon and his grandfather was a priest in the Christian Church.  At the age of 16, Patrick was kidnapped and taken to Ireland were he served as a shepherd.  After six years, Patrick escaped and returned to Britain where he became a priest.  Eventually though, he returned to Ireland to convert the Celtic pagans population, who worshipped the sun and pagan figurines, to Christianity.

            The story goes that Saint Patrick used the three leafed shamrock (not a four leafed clover) as a symbol to explain the “holy trinity” to the pagans.  The green shamrock, the plush green of the island and the song “wearing of the green” celebrating Irish nationalism, all contributed to the green Irish tradition.  Although a popular and mysterious myth, Saint Patrick did not drive the snakes out of Ireland.  Sorry to disrupt your fantasy, but there are no snakes in Ireland, it’s too cold.  Perhaps, St. Patrick driving the snakes from the island may be symbolic of his work to convert the pagans.  

            As strange as is seems, St Patrick’s Day celebrates the death of Saint Patrick who died on March 17.  In 1903, St. Patrick’s Day became an official holiday in Ireland.  At first the day was celebrated as a religious holiday.  In 1931, the first St. Patrick’s Day parade in Ireland was held in Dublin.  The very first St. Patrick’s Day parade though was not held in Ireland.  It was held in New York City in 1762 before the Revolutionary War.  The parade was held to celebrate Irish immigrant’s role in American culture.

            Through the ages, of course, the religious significance of the holiday has declined and been replaced by, one may say, more festive occasions of food and beer, especially the famous Irish stout, Guinness.  But here, once again, the traditional food in America, of corn-beef-and-cabbage is not Irish.  The traditional Irish cuisine on St. Paddy’s day is boiled bacon, like a boiled ham.  The American tradition of corn-beef-and-cabbage came about from American immigrants who collected cheap beef brisket and cabbage to cook for a special meal.

            So today on St. Patrick’s Day, even though the holiday is fraught with misconceptions, you may rest assured that millions of people are celebrating in Argentina, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Montserrat, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States.  And among all the millions who will watch a St. Paddy’s Day parades all over the world, the shortest is in  Drepsey, Cork, Ireland being 100 yards, between two neighbor bars.

Senate Sabotages Iran Nuclear Negotiations

You may not be aware that the Constitution gives the authority to negotiate treats solely to the President of the United States.  The Senate’s role is to pass (or not) a “resolution of ratification” for the treaty with a 2/3 majority.  The Senate’s action yesterday by 47 Republican Senators interfering with negotiations on Iran’s nuclear development activities is not only unprecedented and egregious but also counter productive.  It effectively aligns the US Senate with those in Iran who also do not want a treat, it undermines US negotiations and US allies (Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia) who are also involved in the negotiations.

            Those 47 Senators apparently have forgotten that in negotiations there is give and take.  They apparently believe that all US demands should be met without regard for Iran’s position.  Nobody wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons (except maybe Iran).  However to tell Iran they can have no nuclear power capacity at all is like saying “You cannot have electricity”.  Nuclear power can be used peacefully to produce electricity.  The uranium involved in power generation though is significantly different than that involved in bombs.  Uranium in bombs is highly enriched; the uranium in power plant is much less enriched.  That means that naturally occurring uranium consisting almost entirely of Uranium 238 (U238), must be replaced with U235, a different isotope.  Uranium 235 can fission (break apart) and release a lot of energy, U238 cannot.  To make a bomb, the uranium must be almost entirely U235.  Replacing U238 with U235 involves using high speed centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds.  This process can separate the uranium isotopes and it is possible to gather U235 in preference to U238.  It requires many centrifuges to do this because the separation is performed in stages, each stage having a slightly higher concentration of U235.  You can therefore determine the amount of enrichment by counting the number of centrifuges involved in the process.  Also at the end of enrichment, you can measure the amount of U235 in the end product.  So it is very possible to determine Iran’s level of enrichment by thoroughly inspecting the enrichment process.  I suspect that this inspection process is the crux of the negotiations going now, Iran does not like US inspections.

            But look at the alternatives to negotiating an agreement.  If we negotiate an agreement, Iran will be prevented from developing nuclear weapons.  If we don’t reach an agreement, Iran could continue to enrich uranium which could product a bomb.  If they pursue a bomb, US reactions would be limited largely to some sort of military action.  This puts not just the US, but all of our allies and the entire world closer to a real all-out war.  Fighting three wars at once, ISIS, Afghanistan and Iran, all at once is not what we need.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democracy-on-the-Edge/1414967145465935.

Up to the Date Information on Presidential Executive Action and Immigration Policy

Presidential Executive Actions and Immigration Policy

Feb 21, 2015

 

            In November President Obama issued an executive action that potentially allows millions of undocumented (i.e. immigrates without proper authority to be in this country) immigrants to temporarily stay in this country.  The Republicans are livid calling Obama a dictator and claiming he has poisoned the “well of cooperation” between the Democrats and Republicans.  Immigration policy is a hot topic of discussion in 2015, so what is the real situation about the executive action?  Is it unconstitutional?  What did the order actually do? And what is Obama’s policy on immigration?

 

Executive actions are official documents that the President uses to manage operations of the Federal Government.  They cover an extremely wide range of subjects from granting December 26, 2014 as a holiday for federal workers or changing a “typo” in a legislative document, to trade with foreign nations and sending troops to West Africa to aid in the ebola epidemic and to establish a task force to study police practices.  There are three types of what’s called executive actions, an “executive order”, a “presidential memorandum” and a “presidential policy directive”.  According to the Office of Legal Counsel which advises the president on the legality of executive actions, all three of these actions hold equal sway, that is, executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president or are repelled or modified by congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts.  The only difference is that “executive orders” are sequentially numbered and presidential memorandum and policy directives are not. “Memoranda” and “policy directives” are published in the Federal Register, the official proceedings of the US government, but are more difficult to track.  The presidential action on immigration was a “presidential memorandum” not an executive order.

 

Now, despite what Senator Ted Cruz says on Fox News, presidential actions do not represent a usurpation of power. While there is no explicit authority in the Constitution for executive actions; presidents take their authority from clause 5 that requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  But presidents have been using executive actions since the beginning.  George Washington issued eight orders, what today would be called executive orders, and Abraham Lincoln, issued the most famous one, the “Emancipation Proclamation”.  If you include executive orders and presidential memorandum, President Reagan issued about 472 executive actions, George HW Bush issued about 208,  Clinton 472 (including going to war in Kosovo in 1999), George W 416 and Obama 393, 195 orders and 198 memoranda to date. (plus 28 policy directives which are also not included in any of the other presidential tallies.)  Obama does have the distinction however of using more memorandum than another other president thus making it appear that he is reducing his use of executive orders. (www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders)

 

So why was executive action on immigration required?  Why didn’t congress address the issue?  In fact in the summer of 2014, the Senate did pass an immigration bill but the house refused to bring the bill to a vote.  The 2014 mid-term elections scared Republican house members away from voting on immigration for fear of losing Hispanic votes.  So the president was left with doing nothing or using executive action.  He chose to take action.

 

What did Obama’s memorandum on immigration actually do?  The memorandum provided additional resources to help law enforcement stem the flow of illegal crossings into the U. S. and placed more emphasize on finding and deporting criminals.  However the most contentious part of the action is that the president’s plan would

-          offers undocumented immigrants, who are parents of U. S. citizens or permanent residents who have been in the U. S. more that 5 years, the opportunity to remain temporarily within the U. S. without fear of deportation and

-          allows those individuals that were brought to the U. S. illegally as children under the age of 16, to avoid  deportation (which is a continuation of Obama 2012 policy).  

In order to qualify for this temporary stay from deportation, the applicant must register, pass a criminal background check and pay their back taxes.  Also the memorandum does not grant citizenship or permanent status but they can seek citizenship through other procedures. This action will permit approximately 4 to 5 million (no one knows for sure) illegal immigrants to remain in the U. S.  

 

THE REPUBLICANS RESPONSE-

 

When the 2015 budget passed congress in January, the house attached an amendment which would remove funding for implementing Obama’s actions on undocumented immigrants.  To get the amendment into law however the Senate would have to pass the amendment by a 60 vote filibuster proof majority (which isn’t going to happen) and the President would have to sign it (which also isn’t going to happen).  Without approved funding the Department of Homeland Security will run out of money by Friday, February 27.

 

In addition, after the president issued the executive action, 26 states filed legal action in Federal District Court in Texas to stop Obama’s immigration action.  Just this past Monday, February 16, the District Judge, Andrew Hansen, placed a stay of the implementation the immigrant actions.  Following this stay, the White House announced it will appeal this discussion to U. S. Circuit Court in New Orleans to overturn Hansen’s decision.  The appeal is scheduled to be presented to the Circuit this Monday, February 23.

 

COMMENTS-

 

The president’s action, again despite what Ted Cruz says, does not give undocumented immigrants amnesty.  The immigrant must still pay his back taxes undergo background checks.  If the person is found to have broken the law, they will be deported.  Additionally no undocumented immigrant automatically becomes a U. S. citizen.  What it does do is to give undocumented immigrants a temporary (3 years) relief from being deported.  At the end on the period, immigrants would have to re-apply.  It also prevents separating parents from their children.  As the president said, separating parents from their children is “not who we are”.

 

Who’s responsible for possible shutdown of DHS?  This evokes the proverbial “chicken or the egg” question, who did what to whom first?  It is unusual to attach an amendment to a budget, but the house did it anyway.  In any regards, if house Republicans are so adamant about immigrant policy why haven’t they passed a comprehensive immigrant plan already?  With ISIS terrorists prowling around the world, now is not the time to be diminishing the strength and security provided by Homeland Security.      

 

Finally, let’s face it, except for native Americans, we are all immigrants.  My great grandparents immigrated in the United States in the mid 1800s from Salzburg, Germany.  Our country has always been a “melting pot”, it’s diversity is what helps give America its exceptional-ism.  Additionally, immigrants, especially Mexicans which we are mainly talking about when we talk about immigration policy, are by-and-large, hard working and law abiding people.  They are not criminals or free-loaders, that many Republicans despise.  When I was working in Mississippi after hurricane Katrina, I saw hundreds of Mexicans working construction helping to rebuild Biloxi and Gulfport.  These people work hard and they don’t get paid large wages.  If you work hard in America and play by the rules, you’re supposed to get ahead and live well, aren’t you?  So why are we so reluctant to share this success with other immigrants?