The Mexican Drug War is an armed conflict taking place among rival drug cartels who fight for regional control, and between the drug cartels and the Mexican government, which seeks to reduce drug trafficking. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States.
The United States department estimate that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits through Mexico with. The wholesale of illicit drug sale earnings estimates range from $13.6 to $48.4 billion annually. Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico in cars and trucks likely due to the effectiveness of United States efforts at motoring electronic money transfers.
I agree with Ricardo. His view on the Mexican Drug War is absolutely correct because the war on terror is not helping us in any way shape or form. I believe that the War On Terror is completely pointless when there is a bigger issue in the United States dealing with drugs and murders.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Evolution of United States Immigration Policy!!
An Immigration Policy is any policy of a state that deals with the transit of persons across its borders, but especially those that intend to work and to remain in the country. Immigration has been a view of legislation for United States policymakers since its founding.
The first signs of a somewhat structured Immigration Policy was in 1970, Congress established a process enabling people born abroad to become United States citizens. The first federal law was put in place in 1875, prohibiting the admission of criminals and prostitutes. Then Congress established a new immigration policy, a National Origins Quota System, as a part of the Quota Law in 1921. It was revised in 1924. The Quota Law of 1921 and 1924 was made for immediate family of United States citizens and other family members, either by exempting them or granting them preference within restrictions. Subsequent laws continued to focus on family reunification as a major goal of immigration policy.
The Nationals-origins quota system was in place until the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 was established. The system provided preferences for relatives of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and for immigrants with job skills deemed useful to the United States. The 1965 amendments are still in place, even though they have been modified. In 1976, the categorical preference system was extended to applicants from the western hemisphere. In 1978, the numerical restrictions for eastern and western hemisphere immigration were combined into a single world wide ceiling of 290,000. Then there was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 addressed the issue of unauthorized immigration. It tried to enhance enforcement and to create new pathways to legal immigration. The Immigration Act of 1990 added a category of admission based in diversity and increased the world wide immigration ceiling to the current "flexible" cap of 675,000 per year.
After the Immigration Act of 1990 came the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed border enforcement and the use of social services by immigrants because of the continuing concerns about unauthorized immigrants. The Act increased the number of border patrol agents, introduced new border control measures, reduced government benefits available to immigrants, and created a pilot program in which employers and social services agencies could check by telephone or electronically to verify the eligibility of immigrants applying for work or social service benefits.
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act created the department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, restructured the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS), the agency is responsible for immigration services, border enforcement, and border inspections. Almost all the functions of INS were transferred to DHS. Prior laws had combined immigrant service and enforcement functions within the same agency. Those functions are now divided among different bureaus of DHS. Immigration and naturalization are the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The border enforcement functions of the INS are split between to bureaus: The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Currently the immigration policy offers two distinct ways for non citizens to enter the United States lawfully: permanent admission and temporary admission.
Immigration Policy in the United States has changed numerous times over the years, yet there is not a stable and structured Immigration Policy. Currently I don't think that there will ever be an immigration policy that society agrees on because both parties have different views and with the changes in the our government there will never be a stable immigration policy. Another reason is one minute society is fine with immigrants working here because its less money and the next they protesting that immigrants are bringing down America. Society just needs to decide on what they want and stick to it because flip-flopping has not solved anything and it never will.
The first signs of a somewhat structured Immigration Policy was in 1970, Congress established a process enabling people born abroad to become United States citizens. The first federal law was put in place in 1875, prohibiting the admission of criminals and prostitutes. Then Congress established a new immigration policy, a National Origins Quota System, as a part of the Quota Law in 1921. It was revised in 1924. The Quota Law of 1921 and 1924 was made for immediate family of United States citizens and other family members, either by exempting them or granting them preference within restrictions. Subsequent laws continued to focus on family reunification as a major goal of immigration policy.
The Nationals-origins quota system was in place until the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 was established. The system provided preferences for relatives of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents and for immigrants with job skills deemed useful to the United States. The 1965 amendments are still in place, even though they have been modified. In 1976, the categorical preference system was extended to applicants from the western hemisphere. In 1978, the numerical restrictions for eastern and western hemisphere immigration were combined into a single world wide ceiling of 290,000. Then there was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 addressed the issue of unauthorized immigration. It tried to enhance enforcement and to create new pathways to legal immigration. The Immigration Act of 1990 added a category of admission based in diversity and increased the world wide immigration ceiling to the current "flexible" cap of 675,000 per year.
After the Immigration Act of 1990 came the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed border enforcement and the use of social services by immigrants because of the continuing concerns about unauthorized immigrants. The Act increased the number of border patrol agents, introduced new border control measures, reduced government benefits available to immigrants, and created a pilot program in which employers and social services agencies could check by telephone or electronically to verify the eligibility of immigrants applying for work or social service benefits.
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act created the department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, restructured the Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS), the agency is responsible for immigration services, border enforcement, and border inspections. Almost all the functions of INS were transferred to DHS. Prior laws had combined immigrant service and enforcement functions within the same agency. Those functions are now divided among different bureaus of DHS. Immigration and naturalization are the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The border enforcement functions of the INS are split between to bureaus: The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Currently the immigration policy offers two distinct ways for non citizens to enter the United States lawfully: permanent admission and temporary admission.
Immigration Policy in the United States has changed numerous times over the years, yet there is not a stable and structured Immigration Policy. Currently I don't think that there will ever be an immigration policy that society agrees on because both parties have different views and with the changes in the our government there will never be a stable immigration policy. Another reason is one minute society is fine with immigrants working here because its less money and the next they protesting that immigrants are bringing down America. Society just needs to decide on what they want and stick to it because flip-flopping has not solved anything and it never will.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
They Deserve The Right To Be Happy Too!!!
In the blog "Equality and the Gay Marriage Issue," it talks about the gay and lesbian community should gain the right to legalize same-sex unions in all American states. I agree with the author of this blog because homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals. I hope society can see this and hopefully push to legalize same sex marriage within the next 2 to 3 years or even before that.
I think that homosexuals have all the same rights as every heterosexual in the world, especially in the United States because it is the so called land of opportunities and equality. Society and this government should understand that homosexuals should obtain the right to be legally married just like everyone else, because they love just like you and me, so who are we to deny them that right. Society just needs to understand we are in 2010 equality should not be a right it should be natural to us. society also need to understand that homosexuals do not decide to be that way, they were born like that, and even though they are people who choose to be gay are wrong because I feel like they are making the people who did not choose that lifestyle suffer, and that is wrong.
Another topic involving the gay and lesbian community that I think you should have added is that they should not be entitled to adopt the safety of the children because the government is worried about the safety of the child. This is just ridiculous why would they ever be worried about the safety of a child in a homosexual household. These people are acting like a homosexual household is worse than a heterosexual household, look at television they are bad people everywhere, they are rapist, abusers etc in heterosexual households, so is that safer than a homosexual household because you are worried about the child be bullied because of his/her parents or their sexual orientation might be changed that is nonsense.
No one should deny anybody the right to be happy and have a family because you do not accept their lifestyle and you think it is a sin, so they will go to hell. That is not your position to judge because in the end, whether it is wrong or right their lifestyle is between them and God. Not between you, them, and God.
"Only God Can Judge Me"- Tupac Shakur
I think that homosexuals have all the same rights as every heterosexual in the world, especially in the United States because it is the so called land of opportunities and equality. Society and this government should understand that homosexuals should obtain the right to be legally married just like everyone else, because they love just like you and me, so who are we to deny them that right. Society just needs to understand we are in 2010 equality should not be a right it should be natural to us. society also need to understand that homosexuals do not decide to be that way, they were born like that, and even though they are people who choose to be gay are wrong because I feel like they are making the people who did not choose that lifestyle suffer, and that is wrong.
Another topic involving the gay and lesbian community that I think you should have added is that they should not be entitled to adopt the safety of the children because the government is worried about the safety of the child. This is just ridiculous why would they ever be worried about the safety of a child in a homosexual household. These people are acting like a homosexual household is worse than a heterosexual household, look at television they are bad people everywhere, they are rapist, abusers etc in heterosexual households, so is that safer than a homosexual household because you are worried about the child be bullied because of his/her parents or their sexual orientation might be changed that is nonsense.
No one should deny anybody the right to be happy and have a family because you do not accept their lifestyle and you think it is a sin, so they will go to hell. That is not your position to judge because in the end, whether it is wrong or right their lifestyle is between them and God. Not between you, them, and God.
"Only God Can Judge Me"- Tupac Shakur
Thursday, October 28, 2010
In It For The Money Again!!
The first cutting of legislation began with a Republican Senator named George Norris in 1934. In 2010, the proponents for a unicameral legislature are democrats. The reason for this is to bring efficiency, transparency, and accountability back to government. Transparency, efficiency, and accountability will not come if the state government is unicameral, most of society problems will not be fixed because the job will be overwhelming.
Currently Nebraska is the only state with a single legislative body in the United States. It has been like this since 1937. So why does half a dozen of states want to cut the size of legislature? This is because cutting the size of legislature will cost half as much to run as the old one. If the government is smaller, where will all the money go that is being saved on running one legislature? The answer to that is no one knows.
Therefore, the purpose of cutting down legislature to save millions of dollars, for themselves because no one knows where all that money is going to go. The government is designed for two legislative bodies to ensure legislation receives sufficient attention. So one legislature might not only corrupt the government more, it will create a loss in jobs, which is bad for the economy.
The only reason there is a debate over a unicameral legislation is because state government is secured with cash. Due to the recent recession many state governments have spent over their budget, now they are trying to get more money by taxing others, and cutting legislation. This kind of actions tells you government is only in it for the money and not in it for the interest of their constituents.
If a bicameral legislature is barely serving the people needs, how will a unicameral ever be able to do a better job? The answer is they will never be able to do a good job because it is less people in the legislature and there will never be time to serve the people fully.
Currently Nebraska is the only state with a single legislative body in the United States. It has been like this since 1937. So why does half a dozen of states want to cut the size of legislature? This is because cutting the size of legislature will cost half as much to run as the old one. If the government is smaller, where will all the money go that is being saved on running one legislature? The answer to that is no one knows.
Therefore, the purpose of cutting down legislature to save millions of dollars, for themselves because no one knows where all that money is going to go. The government is designed for two legislative bodies to ensure legislation receives sufficient attention. So one legislature might not only corrupt the government more, it will create a loss in jobs, which is bad for the economy.
The only reason there is a debate over a unicameral legislation is because state government is secured with cash. Due to the recent recession many state governments have spent over their budget, now they are trying to get more money by taxing others, and cutting legislation. This kind of actions tells you government is only in it for the money and not in it for the interest of their constituents.
If a bicameral legislature is barely serving the people needs, how will a unicameral ever be able to do a better job? The answer is they will never be able to do a good job because it is less people in the legislature and there will never be time to serve the people fully.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What's On Your Ipod Does Not Make You A Bad Role Model!!!
In The Wall Street Journal, Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote the article President Obama's 'Rap Palate.' In the article Williams writes about what President Obama has on his Ipod. In the article Williams comes to the conclusion that President Obama is not a good role model when he learns that Mr. Obama listens to rap music.
Thomas Chatterton Williams holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Georgetown University and a Master's degree from the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University.Williams is the author of LOSING MY COOL: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture. He currently writes for The Wall Street Journal, mostly about the dangers of Hip-Hop culture. His latest article is about President Obama and the Rap music on his Ipod.
The intended audience is the U.S. population especially does who are against Hip-Hop music or the Obama administration. Williams argument is based on President Obama not being a good role model because of the type of music that is on his Ipod. Thomas Williams thinks it is the wrong message for the President to be sending black Americans. Williams said, "Naming thuggish rappers might make Mr. Obama seem relatable and cool to a generation of Americans under the sway of Hip-Hop culture, but it sends a harmful message-especially when, in black America, some 70% of babies are born out of wedlock." This statement is trying to say that because you listen to Hip-Hop music it encourages young black Americans to get into illegal stuff and it also encourages them to have children out of wedlock. I disagree with this statement because no one can force you to do something you do not want to do.
I disagree with Williams argument because what's on your Ipod does not you a bad role model. Just because Mr. Obama is the President it does not mean he cannot listen to whatever type of music he likes. It is his personal belongings and that should not be brought to the public's knowledge. The statement Mr. Obama made last year at the NAACP gathering that, " our kids can't all aspire to be LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors, and teachers, not just ballers and rappers." It does not mean he is contradicting himself by listening to rap music, he was just trying to make the point that not every child can be a LeBron James or a Lil Wayne so they should aspire to be more than that because they all have the potential to be better. In the end, music does not make you who you are, your dreams and aspiration does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)