Victims of the Shutdown

Local Congressman Randy Neugebaur has recently taken some heat for chewing out a park ranger at the WWII Memorial. Congressman Neugebaur was upset over the fact that these rangers were keeping the Veterans from entering the memorial and barricading the site off from the public. And I don’t blame the Congressman for being upset; he had every reason to be. But the media has made the mistake of focusing in on the Congressman’s words with the ranger rather than looking at the big picture. 

With the ranger being a woman, Congressman Neugebauer was headed for trouble from the get-go. And that’s all that the media has focused on; labeling the Congressman as a bully and criticizing his actions. 
The Veterans are not the only victims of this Shutdown and the closing of the memorial. Step into the ranger’s shoes and try to get their perspective of the entire ordeal. When it comes down to it, they are just doing their job. I’m sure, at least I hope, that they do not agree with the Administration’s decision to barricade off the memorial and keep the veterans out. 

These are old, retired veterans for Christ’s sake. Many of whom arrive in wheel chairs and walkers after traveling from across the nation to pay their respects to fallen brothers of the war.

The rangers are only following orders from the top. The actions of the rangers and the closure are a direct reflection of Obama, not their own decision making. But what other option do they have? Given the choice between being furloughed or going to work should not be put on them, especially when it involves Veteran affairs. 

These rangers should not be forced to stand in between the Veterans and their hard earned memorial. Everyone can agree on that. These are the men that fought for not only our country’s freedom, but the world’s freedom from tyranny and oppression. It’s a general understanding, expected really, that you treat Veterans with the utmost respect for their duty to our country. But apparently the Obama Administration thinks otherwise. 

As for Randy’s decision to chew out the Rangers, I can see how in the heat of the moment he lost his temper. But he shouldn’t have to apologize for his actions. Instead, Obama should be the one issuing the apology to the rangers, not Randy, for putting them in that difficult situation. 

This sort of reaction from the public is expected, it does not surprise me that an elected official has finally confronted the issue in person like this. And I doubt this is the first instance of this happening. 
If Obama didn’t anticipate this kind of reaction from the public, he’s a fool. He should have foreseen the backlash from the closing of the memorial and took full responsibility for his actions instead of leaving the rangers to take the hit for him like that. 

The WWII Memorial is an open-air facility that usually does not require any type of staffing, so the idea of barricading off the site does not make sense to me at all. There are no guides, staffers, or any personal that focuses on the day to day operations of the memorial. Maybe a grounds keeper, but no real staffing is needed to run the memorial. If it was inside a museum or was inside a building that requires utilities and regular personnel on duty every day, then I would begin to understand the need to close off the site in order to save money. But that is clearly not the case. 

It costs more money to print out signs, put up barricades, and have rangers enforcing the closure. Of all the issues about the budget and how Congress wants to spend the money, this has to be by far the most foolish way to spend it. 

Previously furloughed park rangers were brought in to enforce the closure. Let that sink in a little bit. This means that before the closure of the memorial, these rangers were considered non-essential workers who were then furloughed. And now that Obama needs security to keep Veterans out of the memorial, these rangers are now considered essential workers. 

With the media shifting more and more of the blame onto the GOP for the shut-down, it’s starting to look as though this is all for political benefit for Obama and the Democratic Party. This is just another excuse to paint the GOP as the bad guys in this shutdown, making it seem as though the Republicans shutdown the Government single handedly.  But of course, it takes two to tango. The Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass any bill passed by the Republican controlled House, putting Congress into gridlock yet again. 

 It doesn’t really matter who is at fault to triggering the shutdown, the fact still remains that it was the Obama Administration’s decision to enforce close this and other memorials. 

US and the Immigration Crisis

U.S. Immigration Reform still remains one of America’s hot topics of discussion, but has not seen significant progress when it comes to resolving the issue. There’s no denying the U.S. is facing a significant immigration problem. There are more than 11 million people in the U.S. who are crossing the border illegally and living here undocumented, but there seems to be no easy way to deal with this problem. On one hand the U.S. needs legal immigration, but at the same time we need to be able to enforce those laws we have in place. 

We have a right to legal immigration. It’s good for our county and is seen as a founding idea that helped create the U.S. today. But our legal immigration system needs to be modernized if it is to effectively and efficiently service the needs of people today. With the rise in global violence and the recent terrorist attacks, it is essential that we have real enforcement of immigration laws, and improved infrastructure at the border is the best place to start. A secure border is one of the first steps the U.S. needs to take in order to effectively control this problem. It is unbelievable to think that we have no way of tracking who enters the country year by year. The U.S. needs operational control of the border and have a way of tracking when visitors enter or leave the country.

Strengthened border security is not specific to combating illegal immigration, but also addresses the integrity of U.S. national security as well. Undocumented immigration is not the only problem the U.S. border is facing when the issue of immigration reform is brought to the table for debate. With the rise in drug cartel movement and violence spilling over from Mexico into the U.S., the new War on Drugs finds its front lines on the border. Shipments of various drugs, weapons and other illegal activity across the border are compromising the national security of the U.S.  

As for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the country, they must be dealt with in a compassionate, yet responsible way. I believe that a majority of these undocumented immigrants are hard-working people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families, much like the colonists who gave birth to the U.S. more than 200 years ago. But what I don’t believe is the idea that these people are simply crossing the border to sponge off of our welfare programs and bankrupt America. It is an absurd assumption to think this about the intention of undocumented immigrants, and it paints a bad picture of those who have come to work and earn their way.

New immigration reforms being proposed by the now famous “Gang of Eight” seem to be making ground on this field. Composed of four senators from the Republican Party and four from the Democratic Party, this bipartisan group hopes to finally pass a long, overdue bill for comprehensive immigration reform. The proposal recognizes that the current system is broken and needs to be modernized, and they go about this by laying out four basic pillars to be followed:

1) Securing our borders

2) Reforming our current legal system to be fair and just

3) Creating an effective employment verification system

4) Creating an improved process for admitting future immigrants seeking to enter our country to work.

This new process may come off as stark or daunting for the people who are already living here illegally since they will have to go to the back of the line behind those who have entered legally. But, there are certain provisions that will expedite this process (e.g. expedited green cards for “DREAMers” and agriculture workers).

The new comprehensive immigration reform, for the most part, is similar to that of the president’s policy laid out in the White House Blueprint for Reform, but differs in key points that will surely cause debates as the proposal moves forward. Where the president focuses on an immediate pathway to citizenship, the proposal by the “Gang of Eight,” seen in the Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform, focuses primarily on border security. Both predict a 13-year wait for citizenship, so it can be expected that there will be a long road to citizenship regardless of whose policy will triumph over the others.

The bill isn’t final so we should expect to see changes here and there before the final bill is polished and hits the Senate floor before traveling to the House.

June 3, 2013

US should not take military action in Syria

In this conflict, there is no lesser of two evils. On one hand we have the brutal dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad, and on the other there is the al-Qaida-backed rebel force. This isn’t an ultimatum where we have to choose which side to support. From a United States perspective, we must make decisions based off national interest.

While we would rather not have either party in power, there must be at least one solid reason to support one faction and not the other. We have to ask ourselves what we can gain from having this group in power. At this point, there really isn’t much either side can offer. Arming the rebels and lending support to them is a clear sign we do not wish to let Assad resume power. However, relations between the U.S. and al-Qaida are basically nonexistent. It’s a lose-lose situation when it comes to deciding who to support.

So now we have to look at it from a national security perspective. Whichever regime we leave to take power should obviously pose less of a threat to the U.S. than the other, but also preferably stand as a future ally. The big question people should ask themselves is whether Assad’s regime is a legitimate threat to the U.S., or would the al-Qaida-backed rebels prove to be a greater threat if they were to take power?

At the same time, doing nothing might make it seem as though we indirectly support Assad’s regime, thereby putting us into a catch-22.

This isn’t the time to step in and be the world police. If the U.S. wants to avoid war, but still maintain some role as a peacekeeper, we should follow alternate courses of action against Assad’s regime. Instead of kicking down the door, dropping bombs and arming al-Qaida-backed rebels, we should support refugee camps for the Syrian people and offer nonlethal aid to rebels, such as intelligence sharing.

One option the U.S. could pursue is to patch things up with Russia. Russia is the most globally recognized ally of Syria and could prove to be very useful in the conflict. Assad’s view of the West has a sense of trepidation attached to it, which has proven to hinder successful diplomacy. Russia, however, still possesses the ability to reason and negotiate with Assad. Russian support for de-escalating violence in Syria could be the most civil way of addressing the war.

The possibility of regional war comes as a consequence to western intervention in Syria. Assad said in an interview with Le Figaro on Monday that western military intervention in Syria would trigger regional war. That part of the world is already tormented enough with war and violence.

Syria is a sovereign state and is recognized as a legitimate government on the global stage, and the U.S. needs to respect that. With allies such as Iran and Russia, escalated violence in the region could move to the global stage.

We cannot afford another war. With the economy still not fully recovered and troops still out in the desert, it’s insane to think we are in a position to start another war. A Reuters poll conducted this week found that only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. should take action against Syria.

With citizens having such little trust in the government nowadays, sending troops out to another dead-end war isn’t the way to go about improving approval ratings. Having such low support from the people has to say something about President Barack Obama’s chances at getting congressional approval to take action.

On top of that, more than $16 trillion worth of debt should be reason enough to stay put. The cost of the Iraq/Afghani war totaled to a little more than $1.4 trillion, as released by the Department of Defense comptroller, by 2013.

Back in the 1980s, the U.S. lent aid and arms to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to help combat the Soviet occupation. Too focused on the Soviets and caught up in our containment tactics, we failed to see the ultimate consequences of our negligence. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.

If we do end up taking action and going into Syria, we very well may find ourselves in another version of the Iraq war.