What Republicans and Democrats are saying about...immigration by TODD BOULDIN

TODD BOULDIN is The Pepperdine Voyage Director and Asst. Visiting of Social Science

The following article appeared in The Graphic

As immigrants have increased as a percentage of the population of the United States, and moved into regions away from the U.S. borders, Americans have become concerned about the pervasiveness of illegal immigration. The issue has been front and center in the presidential campaign of 2008. This is particularly true in the Republican race where polls show that Republican primary voters believe that immigration is the second most important issue they consider when voting for a candidate, just behind the economy and just ahead of the war in Iraq.

1. What makes an immigrant “illegal?”

Since its very founding, America has been a country of immigrants. Immigrants from all over the world have fled persecution and economic hardship to create a better life for themselves and their family here. Illegal immigrants often come for the same reasons, but they are illegal because they cross United States borders or enter our shores by avoiding U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations concerning the conditions for entry into the United States and the qualifications for obtaining temporary permission (a passport or visa) or for becoming a citizen by law (naturalization).

2. What is the legal status of an illegal immigrant?

The Supreme Court has held that immigrants within the territory of the United States are owed basic legal protections such as due process and a fair trial. Illegal immigrants may not be refused by hospital emergency rooms, and their children often attend public schools. In many cases, these immigrants may also drive on public highways.

However, the rights of illegal immigrants are limited: they cannot vote in national elections and cannot decide to live here permanently without permission. Because of the 1996 immigration reform legislation, and the reaction to the terrorism caused by immigrants on 9/11, immigration regulations have tightened, making legal entry for non-citizens even more difficult. Illegal immigrants may be deported immediately to their country of origin without a court hearing at all.

3. Why are Republicans and Democrats addressing the issue of immigration?

As illegal immigrants have flooded into America’s rural areas and towns far from the country’s borders, a greater majority of the citizenry has become concerned and even angry about the impact of illegal immigrants on the American economy, national security and, in the eyes of some, the “American way of life.”

President Bush, the former governor of a border state, proposed a reform package in his first and second terms that would increase border security, build a fence along the United States border with Mexico, and grant legal status to certain illegal immigrants already in the country (a form of “amnesty”). Bush also favored a temporary guest worker program by which immigrants could apply to work in the United States temporarily in industries that need their labor, with the possibility of becoming a permanent resident over time.

The conservatives in the Republican Party in Congress opposed the Bush plan and prevented it from becoming law in both of the Bush terms. This public debate led to the current concern with immigration in the 2008 race, particularly among Republican voters.

4. What have the Republicans proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Republican candidates for president have proposed that the first priority should be on securing the nation’s borders before offering temporary worker assistance or amnesty to illegal immigrants already within our borders. McCain has proposed a doubling of the size of the U.S. Border Patrol and a border fence, a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants and a “guest worker” program that offers temporary visas. Romney advocates for a border fence, opposes amnesty for undocumented workers, and wants to institute an employment verification system. Republicans generally oppose amnesty programs.

5. What have the Democrats proposed as a solution to illegal immigration?

The Democrats support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants already in the country that includes learning English and paying a fine for illegal entry. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have proposed toughened penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Both have voted for a fence along the Mexico border. Senator Clinton also has supported a measure to allow undocumented illegal immigrants to gain a U.S. government identification or drivers license.

Submitted 01-31-2008

State of our Union is irrelevant by MARC CHOQUETTE

Marc Choquette is the Perspectives Editor for Global Tides

The original article can be found at The Graphic

With another new year comes another run-of-the-mill State of the Union address from our commander in chief.

As required by the U.S. Constitution, our fearless leader shall “from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The idea, like many in our country’s early practices, borrows from some sort of traditional practice in the United Kingdom — specifically, it is reminiscent of the monarch’s “Speech to the Throne” given during the State Opening of Parliament.

But times change, and as the monarch has become a mere figurehead in the politics of England, so has the State of the Union become a vestige of the U.S. political system.

The hour-plus parades of pomp and circumstance, vagaries, good and evil terms, insane levels of political spin, mechanized chicanery and bogus, all-too-frequent standing ovations are old and tired. The televised address tells viewers more about the state of the Capitol’s chambers and who’s got a manly handshake than about the actual state of real problems and the specific solutions the government needs to address.

The night begins with glad-handing both sides of the aisle and false pledges of “bipartisan” appeal. It only takes a few minutes for the subtle potshots, pathetic smirks, overzealous cheering, catcalls and numerous interruptions of partial applause to appear, to show it was a night for political pandering, not an actual — or even sincere — call to action.

The literal importance of this speech is nowhere to be found in the hallowed halls of the Capitol. But the VIPs, special guests, hordes of Capitol Police and Secret Service, media honchos and people with the right amount of money are everywhere.

How democratic that, aside from being a Super Bowl champion or a war hero, it is pretty much impossible for an ordinary citizen to attend this speech. Watching the speech with a few friends, we wondered what the chamber would really be like if the galleries above were filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. Surely there would be some arrests, protests and interruptions (i.e. good television).

It would be like ‘question time’ at the House of Commons — the weekly, policy-laden tongue-lashing the Prime Minister receives at the Houses of Parliament in London.

Then it hit me. Why doesn’t our president face question time? Why aren’t our executives held accountable in the same ways that leaders are in other countries under different, yet equally (or arguably more) democratic systems than ours? Somehow, precedent doesn’t seem like a good enough answer.

No, it’s high time for the president to have to face the crowd … personally. No more free passes. No more overlord-like control by the Executive Branch, laughing at the inabilities of Congress to check its power. This weekly report to Congress will greatly improve checks and balances and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable (because nobody can seem to check their power right now).

Seeing Tony Blair get grilled on a weekly basis while in the London program was rewarding — an experience that is surely grounding, knowing that you can’t burn too many bridges and must make progress on issues, lest you get humiliated by hundreds of scary, bad-teethed, old British men pointing and screaming at you in the worst controlled chaos you’ve ever seen.

Of course, the U.S. version of “question time” doesn’t have to be so primal and bizarre. It could be “Americanized” into more gentlemanly methods, like instituting a “one person speaks at a time” rule.

But the ability to hiss and boo when the president doesn’t give an adequate answer is essential, our right as Americans.

And surely, if “question time” was instituted in the House, CSPAN’s ratings would go through the roof — thus, more attention paid to politics. Isn’t this what America really needs?

Submitted 01-31-2008

Pepperdine's Young Democrats Convention and Republicans Opportunity

Event Info

Name:	Pepperdine Young Democrats Convention
Host:	Pepperdine Young Democrats

Time and Place

Date:	Thursday, January 24, 2008
Time:	8:00pm - 9:00pm
Location:	TAC 250
City/Town:	Malibu, CA

Contact Info

Phone:	310.774.7211
Email:	Sean.Devine@pepperdine.edu

In addition, if you are a Hispanic Republican Female, Univision is looking for some people to interview. If you are interested send an e-mail to: lsa@pepperdine.edu

Today's Event

Today, we welcomed Cato policy analysts Ted Galien Carpenter and Justin Logan to our campus. We had a great turn out to our event (over 50 people, with good questions and an open ear), and we have made a great impression! They have promised to spread the word about our club, and our campus in D.C.! So, thank you and thank God, we had a great turn out, more than enough food, and great discussion.

If you were at the event and have a comment and opinion please send us an e-mail. Or if you want to you can write a small opinion piece for our blog! If you missed the talk, but want to know the details, we'll up date the blog with a small summary within the next week.

If you are interested about finding out more about these speakers, or if you have speakers in mind for next semester please e-mail me! We love to get more people involved and organizing events! Also don't forget to join our facebook club if you haven't yet: http://pepperdine.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2324194878. Thank God, we have had a good semester. I also want to thank Erin Shimata, Robert Ramos, Dr. Chris Soper, Dr. Stan Warford and ICC for all their help! You guys are great.

Below is a recap of all we have done this year. If you are interested in taking a more hands-on position e-mail me. We want to fill up more offices for next year. And with this, looking forward to next semester and to fomenting political understanding with you guys, I wish you a Merry Christmas!

-Sara Benavides
FPU President
Sara.Benavides@pepperidne.edu

FPU- Fall 2007 Mayor Achievements

• Fulfilled the requirements to become an official club at Pepperdine
• Started the year learning more about smaller parties, in specific for this semester the Libertarian view
• Started our blog: http://forumforpoliticalunderstanding.blogspot.com/
  
• Participated in the Iraq Week events
• Created an information poster
• Provided fliers with information for the events
• Helped with the advertisement
  
• Obtained backing from some of the mayor think tanks: Heritage, Cato, AEI and hopefully more next semester.
  
• Semester event: Beyond the Red and Blue: a talk with Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan
  

Thank you!

This Week

This week has been crowed as "Iraq War Week" and SGA along with the FPU will be hosting a series of events. Though the week formally ends on Friday, on Monday the FPU will be hosting on campus Dr. Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan from the Cato Institute. Below you will find information on the events during this up coming week. As far as, Monday goes:

What: Beyond the Blue and Red: Libertarian Foreign Politics, Re-thinking Iraq and Iran
Who: Cato Institute's Ted Carpenter and Justin Logan
Where: Pepperdine CCB 140

A small reception to follow.

For the Iraq week, the FPU made a poster with public opinions and essays on Iraq. Also, pleas stop and voice your opinion on the freedom wall.

Iraq War Week Schedule:

All week
The Freedom Wall, Tyler Campus Center

Read the arguments. Express your opinions. Respond to others.

Monday, Nov. 26
Iraq War Panel and Discussion (CONVOCATION)
7 p.m., Smothers Theater
Dr. Dan Caldwell, Distinguished Professor of Political Science
Dr. Robert Kaufman, Professor of Public Policy
Richard Nye, Seaver College student and Iraq War veteran

Hear the experts. Debate the issues. Earn Convo credit.

Wednesday, Nov. 28

Pepperdine flag will be lowered to honor the fallen troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thursday, Nov. 29

Civilian to Soldier: writing words of encouragement to U.S. troops overseas
6 - 8 p.m., Sandbar

Encourage U.S. troops. Fellowship with friends. Grab some Jamba Juice.

"Saving Private Ryan" - A screening and discussion of America's past and present military role overseas
10 p.m., Elkins

See the film. Know our history. Discuss the connections.

Elliott Jones on Abortion

I want to begin by stating that I am against abortion, but I do not argue that it should be illegal. I know that it's going to happen regardless of its legality and should happen in a safe, legal environment and not some janky backdoor abortion clinic (which is what would have to happen if it was illegal). What I'm basically arguing here is that abortion should be not be viewed as empowering or feminist. It should be viewed as it is: despicable, murderous, and irresponsible. We should approach abortion as a last-ditch measure, an unfortunate and heavy-hearted conclusion. It's been said that 50 percent of women that get an abortion are not doing it for the first time--and it seems like it's no wonder why. With the way that pro-choice campaigners tend to present the issue, it looks like women are marching up the clinic and getting abortions left and right, to show Mr. Man just who's boss. Is that really how it is? More importantly, is that really how it should be?

Pro-choice and/or pro-abortion should not be a feminist position. It's actually ANTI-feminist! (And I'll say here that I know that many pro-choice supporters are not "pro-abortion," and that in order to support one's position it's often necessary to take an extreme stance just to get your point across, or whatever, and that's what some of the campaigners are doing, well, whatever. It's still terrible.) The idea of being "pro-abortion" reinforces and perpetuates the idea that a man can help conceive a child and not need to take any responsibility for it, since it's not his body and since he doesn't have to carry it, and we can't tell a woman what to do with her body, etc. Well, remember: it takes two people to create a child--not just the mother.

Every time two people have sex, they are knowingly engaging in an act that runs the (very high) risk of creating a child. Supporting the pro-choice position supports men who think with their penises, who believe that giving child support or (worse,) paying for an abortion is all that's required of them, that they can have as much sex as they want with as many people as they want and not have to take responsibility. Does that sound feminist, sound empowering to you?

The reason that we have so many single mothers in this country isn't because women are actually stupid and don't know how to take the pill or use protection, or that they're actually sluts and have sex with so many people they don't know who the father is, or whatever. It's because of a societal norm that says that men aren't responsible for the children that they create. Pro-choice campaigners help perpetuate this norm by putting all of the weight of deciding whether to abort on the woman, when she isn't the only one who created the child.

Now before anyone blasts me for being male, and for not knowing what I'm talking about, let me tell you: I've been there. I have had a pregnancy scare. I had to make a choice--if she was pregnant, what would we do? I decided that if we were pregnant we were going to raise the child. And yes, I do get to take part in that decision, not just my then-girlfriend, because by being a willing participant in the act we both, together, had to accept the responsibility that if we conceived a child as a result of said act, we would be responsible for raising it. Basically, I'm not going to sit around and let her kill my baby. It was as much my child as hers.

Our entire judicial system is based on the idea that if you perform an action you are responsible for the consequences. Why should sex be any different? Being pro-choice or pro-life isn't even looking at the real issue. Don't have sex if you don't want a kid. This goes out to women as well as men. We're both the problem.

I guess what I'm saying is: we're skirting around the issue. Women (and men) shouldn't be campaigning for pro-choice or pro-life. They should be campaigning for RESPONSIBILITY. Teach your friends, neighbours, children, that having sex creates children. That's how sex was designed. Supporting a loophole that protects MEN, more than women, from dealing with the responsibility of child-bearing is not feminist, not empowering, and overall not responsible.

Thoughts?

Meeting Times and Exciting New Happenings

This year we'll be holding our meetings
Tuesdays at 6:30 (just enough time to get to UM afterwards) in AC 215!

Second, this year we'll hold a graphic contest for a Pepperdine FPU logo. So, heads up if you are interested.