"PROPS TO ARIZONA"

In the Constitution Correctness blog the article “Props to Arizona,” written by classmate Brooke Christensen, states in her article that critics of the law feel that Arizona’s new immigration law will encourage racial profiling among law enforcement officials and endanger civil rights in the state. Yet supporters think that it is necessary in order to decrease crime rates and to restore the law in this state. Arizona is clearly has a problem with illegal immigrants but I disagree with how they are trying to resolve the problem.
I would have to say that I am one that feels that Arizona’s new immigration law does encourage racial profiling and will endanger civil rights not only in this state but in many other states that adopt the same immigration law in their state. I disagree that law enforcement will have the right to stop someone based on suspicious and the color of their skin or because they look to be Mexican. I was born here in the United States and I have my constitutional rights but because I have dark hair, dark brown eyes and dark skin I could be mistaken for someone from Mexico, an illegal immigrant. How does one determine who is an illegal immigrant and who is an American just by looking at the person. Now you can’t tell me that this is not racial profiling. I do agree that the U.S. has a problem with illegal immigrant not only in Arizona but this does not solve that problem.
I do agree with Brooke that it isn’t fair that illegal immigrants come into our
country and get all the benefits that they can get, when we have other immigrants here who have legally come into this country and are struggling to get the same benefits. That U.S. citizens and legal citizens have to pay taxes which are used on illegal immigrants but yet illegal immigrants don’t pay a dime.
I’m not sure what the answer is to this problem but clearly it is a problem. My opinion is that we need to make it difficult for illegal immigrants to be able to get a job or public benefits unless they are here legally. I do believe that we make public benefits to accessible to illegal immigrants which just encourages more illegal to come over illegally knowing that they will not have any struggles.
I do believe that we need to continue to crack down on illegal immigrants and those that are caught should be deported.

MEXICAN STANDOFF

Don't blame Arizonans—or immigrants—for the state's draconian new law.

The article "Mexican Standoff " by Eve Conant can be found at Newsweek.com. Arizona has adopted a new immigration law that obligates authorities to check the documents of anyone who they believe is in the country illegally. Based only on a "reasonable suspicion" during a "lawful" stop. Although, some people are shocked at the citizens who support the bill and accuse lawmakers of acting like Nazis, the article explains why so many Arizonans want this.
Imagine living in fear knowing that outside your window, what you would see in a movie, is actually in real life in your own neighborhood, human traffickers, and drug dealers armed with AK 47s and pit bulls. Children who are not allowed to play outside for fear of gun shots that are not uncommon and heard daily. This article talks about drop houses, where deperate laborers are housed and made to live 30 to a room with their shoes removed to keep them from escaping.
Now a days, we have people sleeping armed at night for the fear of the violence that is occurring daily. Who would have believed that just four years ago the neighborhood consisted of little old ladies with their poodles. In reading this article, I see why Arizonans agreed to adopt the new immigration law. Clearly, there needs to be a solution to the problems that Arizona and others states are experiencing with drug cartel. What that solution is I’m not sure. But I do agree with the statement made by U.S. marshal for Arizona, David Gonzales, favors an approach backed by many other law-enforcement and immigration specialists: "the federal government, he says, must step in to make the border more secure and to amend the system so more Mexicans can enter the country legally—without the "help" of criminal cartels."

Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau

In blog “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau,” written by Danielle Zamora I found it very interesting that she states in her article that the census bureau was for the first time deploying professional field workers to reach out to lesbian and gay couples and encouraging them to file as wife or husband on their census forms. The question in her article was should gay couples be counted as being married. She also goes on to quote our pledge allegiance “one nation under God” and that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. That legalizing gay marriages goes against what God created marriage to be. That there are some people who argue that gay couples have the right to marriage just like everyone else and others who say that it will redefine marriage. So should gay couples be counted as being married?
My answer to the question “Should gay couples be counted as married,” is “No.” I agree with Danielle’s argument in her article that “God created marriage to be between a man and a woman.” This is written in bible scriptures and it is something that I strongly believe in. Marriage is between a man and a woman that is why GOD created Adam and Eve. I believe that anything else just brings more evil into this world. Our Pope Benedict, stance on homosexuality is that it is a moral evil. He states that the inclination toward homosexuality is not necessarily a sin, it can be considered a "tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." He continues by stating that, "A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally," because sex is only good if framed in the stance of being for procreation between a married man and woman.
See http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/RomCathHomosexu.htm

Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

In reading the article found in Newsweek “Taking the High Road” written by Jessica Bennett, she explains that a November ballot initiative could make California the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana. She explains that if approved by voters, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would make California the first state in the nation to make pot legal, which would allow Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to one ounce of marijuana. She reports that in downtown Oakland the locals call a nine block stretch in the center of Oakland “Oaksterdam”. You can find shops that already sell marijuana as a medicinal drug. The concerns are that anyone can get a doctors note for any type of ailment such as headaches, cramps, anxiety, etc. if you have the money. The article talks about how Oakland has embraced the medical-marijuana industry. There hopes are that local jurisdictions would be able to tax and regulate the marijuana trade and tax the individual.
“Harvard enconomist Jeffrey Mirion has estimated that the cost to the country of cannabis prohibition is $13 billion annually, with an additional lost in potential tax revenue.” Based on this information, Oakland voters became the first in the nation to enact a special cannabis excise tax—$18 for every $1,000 grossed that the city believes will generate up to $1 million this year. With the hope of creating new jobs, improving the city, and occupying empty store spaces. I believe that although this is a controversial subject to cover that this article was well written. I found it to be very informative, although, I feel that Texas should not take this stand.

"McCarty: Military needs victim advocates, Marine's lawyers tells Congress"

The article "McCarty: Military needs victim advocates, Marine's lawyers tells Congress" by Mary McCarty can be found in the stateman.com. After reading about the murder of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach it is clear that their is a need for victim advocates in the military. Lance Cpl. Lauterbach did what she was suppose to have done when filing her complaint that she had been raped by a fellow Marine. But even after doing so, it was reported that she had been met with skepticism, outright disbelief, by her supervisors and met with harrasement by her fellow male Marines. Her six months nightmare ended when she was murdered and buried in a shallow fire pit by a fellow Marine. We have to ask ourselves, where were the victim advocates when this marine was sexually assaulted and needed the support and protection.
In Lauderbach's case, her victim advocate was her direct supervisor who was not proactive nor was independent. The victim advocate system is a system where soliders are more concerned about their own promotions and following their commanders orders, rather than doing what is right. It makes me wonder how many other victims like Lance Cpl. Lauderbach have been denied the help and proctection by victim advocates while they were serving in the military. It is a shame that not only do these soldiers have to be concerned with the safety of their lives in war but also whether they will be sexually assaulted while serving their country. I believe that we should take the necessary steps in hiring civilians as victim advocates that are independent with the experience and education needed to do the job right. Victim advocates who are knowledgeable in military law and where promotions do not interfere with their judgments on making the right decision, protecting victims of sexual assault and filing their complaints.