Do you know your congressman? And other legislative questions

Find My Congressman

www.govtrack.us
A great, easy-to-use resource for checking on your local senator or representative- or any senator or representative, for that matter. This site includes links to bills each member of Congress is currently sponsoring (as well as a history of bills he or she has sponsored in the past) and the bill's status, the congressman's political views as compared to the views of all other senators or representatives, how long they've served in their position, what committees they're on and their voting record- how often they miss a vote.

Track a Bill

thomas.loc.gov
This site includes the full text of each bill, a list of related bills, the names of Congress members who are co-sponsoring the bill, and the bill's status, including amendments made. You can also subscribe to updates on the bill's status via email through an RSS feed.
Tweet

Epiphany! On the presidential election

I've always felt a little overwhelmed by the vast information provided by the media coverage of each presidential election. I've thought many times in exasperation, All I want, as a voter, is a comprehensive list of each candidate's views and proposed solutions to key issues (this summer, they appear to be health care, illegal immigration and the economy, with the most emphasis on the last) and a varied sample of situations where they were successful and an analysis of how successful they were based on the circumstances. Is that so hard? Anyone know of a place that has that?

While reading TIME magazine's article "The Real Story of Romney's Olympic Turnaround," a thought suddenly hit me: what I want from the media is roughly equivalent to a resume. A brief overview of why each candidate thinks he (or she) should be elected president of these United States, maybe include a few references (ha, wouldn't you like that job- I wonder if Romney and Obama would be able to come up with enough people to handle the workload it would impose. I guess that's why nobody's ever done it before). The whole election process is like the world's longest, most expensive, complicated, important interview.

As a United States citizen, that makes me feel empowered. We, the citizens, are the ones who decide who to employ. All politicians are supposed to be public servants. The system we have is incredibly smart! Even if it isn't always that way in reality.

"They are not a liability, they are an asset"

CNN en español published an editorial today by columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. about how people who came to the United States illegally should not take offense at the term "illegal immigrant" because, in his words, "Es el saco que le queda." Literally (as far as I could tell), "It's the jacket that fits." A good (not literal) translation would be "It hits the nail on the head." This was an eye-opening editorial for me because I didn't realize some people were offended by the term "illegal immigrant," and after reading what Navarrette wrote I will also promise not to refer to illegal immigrants just as "illegals." But, since I agree with his opinion on the matter, I will keep using the term "illegal immigrant."

For those of you who speak español, I highly recommend the article: OPINIÓN: La incómoda verdad de que los llamen inmigrantes "ilegales"

For those of you who speak a little español, I still highly recommend it- it's good practice, well written, and relevant.

For those of you who don't speak any español, I guess you'll have to be content with the summary I presented above. If you want to know more of what it said, let me know with a comment and I'll expand.

By the way, the title of this post "They are not a liability, they are an asset" is also a quote from Navarrette's editorial. I translated it into English to share because I liked it, and I agree. "They" of course refers to "illegal immigrants."

Follow-up on yesterday's Supreme Court decision

Arizona police face questions after court ruling

Elliot Spagat, Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. — Arizona's police chiefs and county sheriffs hoped a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would settle their long-running debate on what role, if any, they should play in immigration enforcement. Instead, the justices' decision to uphold the state's "show me your papers" statute has left them with more questions than answers.

Read the article

More on immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court recently took Arizona's immigration law down a few notches, according to an article by Yahoo! News (see also an excellent Yahoo! blog). A post taken from the real-time conversation-via-Facebook-thread between a Yahoo! reporter and readers summarizes the points the court struck down:

Liz Goodwin Christopher! Hello! The Supreme Court struck down three parts of the law: 1) Making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work 2) Requiring all immigrants to carry their papers or face a state fine 3) Letting police officers arrest people they suspect are in the country illegally and deportable. So, under the Court's decision, local police officers can ask about immigration status, then call the federal government [ICE] and ask them if they want to deport someone. If the federal government says no, they have to let them go.
Monday, June 25, 2012 about an hour ago

Something I never knew/realized:

Liz Goodwin Hi Angelea, you are pointing out exactly what's so complicated about this case! Even though the commonly used term is "illegal immigrant," it's not actually a crime, federal or state, to lack status in this country.[Not true, because technically, a misdemeanor is considered a crime- albeit one of a minor degree.] (It's a misdemeanor to cross the border illegally, and it's not a crime at all to overstay a visa.) So just because an illegal immigrant is deportable, does not mean he or she is a criminal in any sense of the word.[I absolutely agree with this; I only crossed it out because again, it is technically untrue.] Part of the reason why the justices struck down Arizona's law is that it was trying to criminalize certain things, like seeking work if you are an illegal immigrant, that the federal government specifically chose not to criminalize. The justices ruled that states cannot make their own immigration policies, even if they don't like the federal government's.
Monday, June 25, 2012 at 2:28pm

And because I believe in the importance of representing both sides, and am impressed and gratified by the courtesy Angelea shows. May we all take a note from the "just be nice!" (especially while debating sensitive issues) book:

Angelea Thank You Liz..... but I respectfully disagree with your points that it is not a crime to cross the border illegally. We have laws for great reason's and if 'anyone' breaks those laws..... no matter how small some think they are (misdemeanor) it's still 'illegal' and we must enforce all laws of our land.... The Federal Government's law is that there is a process to come to America 'Legally' yet they refuse to enforce it and that's why the problem has... evolved so greatly.....In order for 'Everyone' to have a Fair chance in coming to America..... Everyone must abide by the correct and legal manner in becoming a 'Legal U.S. Citizen'.... for which I myself Welcome with open arms.... but I don't favor cutting in line.... for want of a better way of putting it.....
Monday, June 25, 2012 about an hour ago

Policy change to deportation of illegal immigrants

This just in from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, announced Friday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

READ THE ARTICLE: Immunity offered to younger immigrants

I don't care if Obama is trying to win more Latino voters with this move, although it seems probable with the upcoming 2012 presidential race. I hope he had other motives to enact the policy change besides that, but that discussion belongs in another post.

The point of this post is merely to state my opinion of this change: I approve. It seems I've been opining on news a lot recently, and I wish I had more time, day to day, to devote to writing my opinions. Unfortunately, since I don't really (have time) my current mindset is: write what I have to say as quickly as possible and clarify (if necessary) later.

I have to admit, the immigration debate- specifically the way the U.S. government handles illegal immigration- is one issue where I have difficulty seeing from one side's point of view. On one hand, the pro-mercy arguments make sense to me: I don't believe we should split up families by deporting a parent while leaving a child, for example. I don't believe immigrants "take away" as many jobs as some people believe, and I certainly don't believe immigration is bad. To me, the term "American" is applicable to a wide population: how many of you that are reading this right now have ancestors, or close family members, that are immigrants? The chances are good. We have people who originate from all over the world, and yet we call ourselves Americans. We call the U.S. our country and our home, and so it is, but it wasn't always that way.

Time to leave off that particular point, since I could go on all day and I think you take my meaning, which is that we could and should stand to be a little more tolerant of the people we see as illegal, since we were once outsiders ourselves.

Related article: Changing the conversation on immigration

I have more difficulty understanding the pro-justice side, aka all those people who are so protective of our borders that they would throw out undocumented immigrants who have been here most of their lives but never caused a criminal (nor, I contend, an economic) problem. I do understand the reasoning behind deporting undocumented individuals with a criminal history, but I definitely don't believe in breaking up families, sending people back who may not even remember their birth country, and deporting workers who are just trying to make ends meet (whether for themselves, here, or for their families elsewhere), if we can help it.

For that reason, I support the DREAM Act, and I approve of the recent policy change that was the inspiration for this post. I sincerely hope this change stays in place (after all, I have yet to hear the Grand Old Party weigh in on it, and there will likely be a lot of backlash from the pro-justice people, maybe providing enough pressure and criticism to alter the policy again in the future) because I believe it's a step in the right direction.

What is the DREAM Act?

---

With respect to my admitted confusion over what I call the "pro-justice side," there are some good levelheaded comments and points made here. Justice and mercy can still have equal parts of the nation's immigration policies.

Calling for peace between religions

His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese, the head of state in Samoa, recently quoted the Swiss Catholic priest Hans Küng to the participants of a conference on religious diversity at National University of Samoa in April 2012: "There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions; and there will be no peace among the religions without dialogue and cooperation among the religions and civilizations."

I thought of this quote this morning when I read the New York Times' article about an Egyptian court ordering the immediate dissolution of the Islamist-led parliament, a move that practically begs for malcontent between the supporters of the old president and the supporters of the new government. And judging by the article, a lot of people agree with me.

Question is, what does this court hope to accomplish?