Akaka (D-HI)Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT) (4th fastest growing state = construction)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS) (8.8 billion in farm sales)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN) (21st fastest growing state = construction) (8.5 billion in farm sales)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID) (5th fastest growing state = construction) (3.9 billion in farm sales)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH) (4.2 billion in farm sales)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM) (12th fastest growing state = construction) (1.7 billion in farm sales)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN) (14th fastest growing state = construction) (2.2 billion in farm sales)
Graham (R-SC) (15th fastest growing state = construction) (1.5 billion in farm sales)
Gregg (R-NH) (22nd fastest growing state = construction)
Hagel (R-NE) (9.7 billion in farm sales)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN) (4.8 billion in farm sales)
Martinez (R-FL) (14th fastest growing state = construction) (6.2 billion in farm sales)
McCain (R-AZ) (2nd fastest growing state = construction) (2.4 billion in farm sales)
McConnell (R-KY) (3.1 billion in farm sales)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR) (11th fastest growing state = construction) (3.2 billion in farm sales)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA) (4.3 billion in farm sales)
Stevens (R-AK) (19th fastest growing state = construction) (5 billion in farm sales)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA) (17th fastest growing state = construction) (2.4 billion in farm sales)
Wyden (D-OR)
Note that the 15 major agricultural States are Arkansas (8500 large farms), California (19500 large farms), Florida (5000 large farms), Georgia (6200 large farms), Illinois (19500 large farms), Indiana (10300 large farms), Iowa (27400 large farms), Kansas (11000 large farms), Minnesota (18500 large farms), Missouri (9400 large farms), Nebraska (15800 large farms), North Carolina (8800 large farms), Texas (14700 large farms), Washington (6600 large farms), and Wisconsin (13900 large farms).
Also see the following links: 1 2 3
I think it is very important to not support the Senators that have supported amnesty; and therefore, the criminal behavior of U.S. business owners and illegal immigrants.
We are a nation of laws, of ideals, and if we expect others to obey the laws of the land (or, God forbid, live up to a higher standard of ideals), then we cannot look the other way on this issue. It will only continue to create an environment of double standards and widespread resentment; it will continue to divide this country and empower those that use race as a means to achieve individual goals.
We must, therefore, continue to fight to be a nation of honest individuals that do not tolerate cheating. The question is, are we going to be a nation of laws and ideals, or are we going to be a nation of cheaters that think we must look out for "number one," no matter the cost, because no one else will? If illegal immigration is okay, then was Enron okay? How do we decide which laws are okay to break?
I have discussed the billions of dollars that this legislation will cost the average citizen. I have discussed the particular harm that this legislation (and prior non-enforcement) will inflict on our poorest residents. One item, however, that I have not talked about, but is very important, is how the current legislation will dilute existing citizens’ voting power. Good or bad, this is not something that should be taken lightly, as we are effectively giving up part of our ownership in this country to people that are here illegally. As such, it should be thoughtfully considered.
If you own shares in a company, named the United States, then this type of dilution without compensation would generally be unthinkable; not to mention that you could be giving away “control.” Most know that there is a huge premium for control. No shareholder would permit his or her shares to be diluted without compensation, and would never give up control without an additional premium beyond the per share price. The current legislation does just that. It not only dilutes everyone’s voting power, but it particularly gives away the control the conservative states currently hold -- good or bad.
Here are the specifics. The proposed legislation not only permits the 11 to 12 million illegals to gain citizenship, but it also grants paths to citizenship to 1.2 to 1.5 million additional migrant workers per year. Effectively, in 2050 the Latino / Chicano population will have grown from around 34 million to 85 million. Given that historically around 80 percent this group has voted for Democrats or Independents, this represents a significant change in the voting composition of the United States. And for what? So a few businesses can make a buck? If we Americans are going to give this ownership away, it better be for a good cause, and not to support criminal business owners.
Now, if you are more on the more “conservative” side, then your voting power will be drastically decreased over the next 50 years. The legislation effectively takes conservative voting power from around "5/10" to "4/10"; effectively giving away around 20 percent of this group's voting power.
This is not a race issue. It is, however, an "ownership" issue -- no different from the existing citizens having the right to choose the "rules" that they live by in their own homes. It is no different from the thoughtful consideration that must be undertaken before one takes on a new roommate. It is an issue of fairness, and the right of current citizens to hold dear, support, and live by certain ideals; and what methods such citizens are subject to to force compromise or change.
After all, we can have valid differences from other parts of the world without being bigoted; even though it is much easier to assume the worst. But more importantly, it is very valuable for us to be able to discuss these differences and ideals, and our concerns about such, without being labeled. It is this process of discussion and agreed upon incorporation that is missing from the proposed legislation.
Let me give you an example. According to the 2002 Pew study of Latinos, there are important differences that need to be considered in the areas of abortion, religion, and homosexuality; not to mention the size of government. All of these issues are important to me, and represent certain freedoms that I hold dear. Nonetheless, I will just focus on the size of government issue, as it is the least charged issue.
According to the Pew study, 55 percent of the Latinos in the U.S. prefer a larger government. Personally, I would prefer a smaller government. But if this is the way our country is going to head, then I would at least like to have a say in it, and I would very much appreciate it if the "rules" were followed so we can all "get on board" and take personal responsibility for this change. This is not happening under the proposed legislation, and this is wrong.
Personally, I am "moderate" on most issues and "liberal" on some -- just see my prior posts. Moreover, my "conservative side" has been very embarrassed by the current "Bush" Republicans; enough so to change my party affiliation to Independent. [However, let's face it, in California it really doesn’t matter if I change my vote from Republican to Independent.] Nonetheless, the fact that the current legislation "rewards" those that violate our laws with this voting power, with this citizenship is personally repugnant to me. I also find it demoralizing that our voting power is being given away by Senators to criminals without any real input from existing citizens.
It is particularly repugnant and demoralizing because it appears to be influenced by big business, and is another symbol of the corruption that exists in D.C. It is this unchecked corruption, this unchecked influence that lobbyists and businesses continue to have over our elected officials that is so especially hurtful and morally offensive.
For example, the fact that our elected officials are even allowed to accept “gifts,” a rule established by such officials, presents an ongoing appearance of impropriety. This “appearance,” after time, is reasonably replaced with an assumption of actual impropriety. When our politicians are allowed to accept gifts from those that are attempting to affect legislation, and when our politicians are allowed to be courted by those businesses that need the least “protection” (when compared to our poor), in an attempt to enhance their earnings per share, there is going to be abuses of power. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this should not be allowed, period.
If a business needs to make its case, then it should present such in D.C. with slides and handouts. It should not be able to give “boxing tickets” to a Senator in an attempt to “show” such Senator how a particular bill might impact the boxing business.
No comments:
Post a Comment