Reasons why children of illegals SHOULD BE GIVEN PAPERWORK

The media have continued to harp on the fact that the "Dream Act" would provide "amnesty" for illegals. True. However, you need to remember that many of these illegals were children when they were brought here. It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegals in this country. Think of them the next time you want some other Christian to provide meals for the poor who cannot provide for themselves, because you want to punish those "law-breaking illegals."

Do you want to be responsible for creating a permanent group of people in poverty (those grown children) just because your "their parents broke the law and should be punished" justice demands it? Yes, their parents broke the law by coming here, but is it "right" to deny the children participation in the American Dream because their parents were "wrong"? Do you think that having poor people "invade" the emergency rooms of hospitals, because they cannot afford health insurance, is the "right" way to handle our health-care crisis? Or would it be more logical to let them become tax-paying and health insurance buying residents?


Here are some more reasons why illegals SHOULD BE GIVEN PAPERWORK:

1. Giving them documentation such as permission to live (residency permit), work (green card), and pay taxes (Tax ID Number) in this country does NOT give them an automatic path to citizenship! They will not be able to vote just because they have a green card.

2. Giving them documentation does allow children to go to college at a lower cost (because they have documentation required by many states for residency tuition rates). Why is it logical to provide a K-12 education at taxpayer expense and then refuse to let them go to college along with their high school classmates? Some time in the future these young men and women could become your doctor or your children's teacher.

3. In this "down" economy, these newly documented workers would start paying their fair share of taxes on income, because they can now go and get a "real" job instead of feeding the under-ground cash economy. For you folks who do not understand why this is important, think about all the services that have been cut, and could be re-instated if the government had more tax money coming into their coffers.

4. These illegals could not only get paid a decent salary for their work, but they could also save for their inevitable retirement. Who knows, maybe, they could help revive the housing market by buying a home? The property taxes these folks would now be paying could also help provide more money for K-12 schools.

There are other reasons to pass a "Dream Act" kind of legislation, but I am sure you have had to read way too much reason already.

Should there be "penalties" for being illegal? For the children, maybe. For the parents, definitely. That is a discussion for another rant/blog.

What gives the government the right to say anything about sex?

Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it give the Federal or the State governments the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion?

Let me state up front that I believe that abortion is an excuse for immoral people to not have to accept the responsibility for their actions!

No woman in this day and age can claim that they do not know how they got pregnant, because women get pregnant the same way most of them have gotten pregnant for thousands of years; they had sex!

Now that I have cleared up that big mystery, I will let you in on another not-so-secret secret: You will NOT get pregnant if you do not have sex! For those of you who may have missed that last point, then let me rephrase it:
If you do not want to get pregnant, do not have sex!

So, now I have just eliminated the need for most of the abortions done in the world. Sure, rarely, it may be necessary to have an abortion to save the life of the mother, however, that does not excuse the majority of you who just have sex for the fun or entertainment of it with no intention of being a responsible parent.

If getting pregnant and having a child would cramp your style too much, then don't have sex!

Now, back to my original question. What gives government the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion? Is your having an abortion a threat to national security? Does it affect MY ability to seek or have happiness? Does it stand in the way of providing for the national defense? Are these not the main responsibilities of government according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?


So, what does give them the right to say anything about sex? It probably has something to do with the fact that the laws of the United States are mostly based on the Judeo-Christian ideas of morality. I am confident that much of the government's meddling in personal affairs in the last 300 years came about because someone (aka "do-gooder") with power, or their wife, decided on purely religious grounds that society would be better served if access to sex outside of marriage (prostitution, adultery, fornication) and abortion were controlled by the government. That, however, still leaves the question of what legal reason do they have to poke their nose into the private moral affairs of individuals? Is it not true that morality is a question better left to individual citizens and their church to decide? What gives the government the right to legislate morality? They certainly have the right to enforce the laws needed for a civil society, but what gives them the right to control sex?

The decision of Roe vs. Wade should never have happened, because there should never have been any involvement in the abortion issue by the government. Even the certifying of doctors comes from the university and not the government, so you cannot blame it on those back-alley slice-and-dice shops. Yes I know that you must be certified in the state you practice in, but mostly that is just a rubber stamp of the medical college where you got your training. Soooo, WHY does a doctor, need a certificate from the state to practice medicine when they are already certified by a totally unrelated entity (the university/college)? Maybe the states have overstepped their boundaries by even demanding that state certification, although that is a discussion for another day.

In summary, I do not think the Federal or State governments have the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion. Secondly, there is no need for an abortion, except in rare situations. Instead of saying women have the right to an abortion, maybe we should go back to the original rule as stated in the ten commandments: "no sex outside of marriage!" If you get pregnant after violating that rule, then you must either raise the child yourself or give it up for adoption. However, if we follow the original Jewish rules, there would be no need for an abortion, because anyone found having sex outside of marriage would be stoned to death. For those of you who think that stoning a pregnant lady violates the laws of God, then take it up with Him, because He is the one that put that law on the tablets. If you want to appeal that idea to a higher court, then good luck!

For you ladies I have just one last question. Why did you work so hard to get the government involved in sex? First there were "red-light" districts. Then there were legal brothels like in Nevada. Then, you decided that the government really needed to get involved in everyone's personal affairs in order to force the consequences of having had sex (pregnancy), in spite of that inconvenient church law about infidelity, to go away. Are you happy now? You can now go out, be immoral tonight, and just flush the responsibility down the toilet. Heck, why wait until tonight? Why not just go out and do it at lunch time. That way you can be immoral again tonight as well!

Should the AARP name be changed to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?

I got my AARP newsletter email and saw the AARP article: "How to Be a Cougar" by Pamela Redmond Satran and was surprised to see immorality not only being suggested to older people, but also being applauded and whole-heartedly commented on!

The author is not only talking about having a relationship just for sex, but is giving tips on how older women can, and should be, doing it with younger men!


I felt compelled to write the following response which was posted on the AARP site today:

Let us step back and see this article for what it really is:


Go out and be immoral, even when you are older!!!


When did it become old fashioned or just "not cool" to obey one of the 10 commandments? You know, the one about adultery/fornication aka "sleeping around"/"having sex" with someone you are not married to!?!

So, now -- according to the AARP -- the new "cool" is the same thing that parents decried in the 60's: free love and sex with no responsibility? "Don't worry about morality, it is just an old-fashioned idea anyway."

Being a cougar on the prowl for "just sex" is nothing more than the same old immorality wrapped in today's "feel good and feel free" wrapping paper that was condemmed for thousands of years by God and his church.

Did I miss the memo where the name of the AARP was changed to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?"

I have nothing against an older woman looking nice, in fact some of the hottest women I know are over 60, but age does not invalidate the 10 commandments!

Based on this article, and the subsequent name change (even if I did not get the name-change memo), the question arises as to whether I am going to want to show my membership card knowing that people are going to see me as one of those people who belong to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?"


This is the address for the article: http://www.aarp.org/relationships/love-sex/info-11-2010/how_to_be_a_cougar.html