My RSS Feeds
Just A Note To Keep You Informed
These are the last couple of letters I've sent to our government representatives. The first is about H.R. 1955 with a reply from Senator Casey and Arlen Specter. The second is about the next installment of (and this kills me to even type it) $50 Billion to fund the war.
Dear Honorable Senator Casey (& Senator Specter),
I am writing to you about S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I see this bill as a direct threat to the American citizen’s First Amendment rights. The wording alone is vague and circular. If this bill becomes law it could throw us into an era of new McCarthyism.
Sir, the average voting American is not preoccupied with terrorists around every corner in this country. I don’t care for Neo Nazi Skinheads, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, or pesky door to door magazine salesmen but I recognize their right to organize, assemble, and speak out. The Constitution gives us this right.
There are laws currently in place that cover threats and acts of violence. The problem is not solved by creating more unenforceable laws. The problem is solved when the laws are enforced. To enforce the laws and circumvent potential terrorists we need well trained police at the community level and borders. We need enough immigration officers to oversee the legal immigrant’s introduction and progress to American citizenship. We need a voting populace that isn’t 65% dissatisfied with their Government. We don’t need another politically appointed overpaid committee pointing fingers at the dissatisfied vocal majority calling them terrorists.
Please do not pass this bill!
Sincerely,
Senator Casey's Reply:
Dear Mrs. M:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.
H.R. 1955 was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 19, 2007 and was agreed to on October 23, 2007. The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this bill come before the full Senate, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
Dear Mrs. M:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding immigration. Our immigration system is broken and must be reformed. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 110 th Congress, I worked tirelessly with my fellow Senators as well as the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a "grand comp romise" regarding immigration. This compromise would have ensured the security of our borders while providing practical solutions regarding the millions of undocumented immigrants already residing within the United States . Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to reach agreement on the legislation in its current form.
Although this legislation has been set aside for now, I continue to believe that the "grand compromise" included many of the elements needed for a solution to our broken immigration system. The legislation made border security a top priority by providing for 20,000 border patrol agents and requiring 700 miles of new fencing along the border. It also provided the resources needed to detain up to 31,500 aliens per day on an annual basis, effectively ending the old "catch and release" program. Importantly, the bill required that all of these border security measures or "triggers" be implemented before any other provision of the comprehensive legislation was begun. Additionally, it provided $4.4 billion in federal funding to help ensure that the enforcement "triggers" were met. The legislation also mandated the development of an effective electronic employment verification system, which would have ensured that employers had the ability to verify the legal status of those they considered hiring.
In addition to the strong approach the comprehensive immigration bill would have taken towards border security, it also included a firm but reasonable approach towards those individuals here illegally. Currently, there are more than 12 million people living in the United States without proper documentation. This legislation required undocumented immigrants to go on "probationary" status and to undergo extensive background checks. If an individual passed the necessary security checks, paid substantial fines, and demonstrated proficiency in English, the individual would have "earned" the privilege to remain in the United States . In order to be eligible to earn that privilege, however, individuals would also have had to return to their home countries and apply through a consulate or an embassy. By requiring immigrants to earn their privilege to permanent legal status, the bill provided a reasonable solution to the country's immigration problems that would have been both tough and fair.
It is also very important for our economy that we create an effective temporary worker program that allows an employer to find a temporary worker when no willing US worker is available. Under the immigration bill, those desiring temporary employment in the United States would have been issued a "Y" visa, which would have been good for two years. Then, the migrant worker would have had to return to his or her home country for a period of one year before being allowed to return back to the United States .
Another important aspect of this bill was the creation of a merit based system for allocating green cards. This new system focused on attracting the immigrants who would make the biggest contributions to our society. The system was designed to reward those who had demonstrated a proficiency in English, had received higher forms of education and other training, and had employment opportunities in the United States . Not only would this practice have strengthened the economy of the United States , but it would have ended the practice of "chain migration," a practice that allows people to immigrate simply by virtue of being related to those who are already here legally.
Again, I thank you for contacting my office. It is my belief that this country is in desperate need of a comprehensive immigration bill to fix our current problems and I hope the Senate is able to eventually agree on a suitable compromise. I will keep in mind your input as we continue to debate immigration. If you have any additional questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
My update e-mail from congress.org asked "How Should Congress Fund the Iraq War?." They gave the following choices:
Congress should fund the war without restrictions
Congress should fund the war with restrictions
Congress should not fund the war in Iraq
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for restrictions. The next step would be to cut off all funding. I have thoughts on both of these but not now.
On war funding with restrictions:
Dear Sirs,
Every day in this country millions of tax paying citizens struggle with decisions on how to budget their pay to cover necessities. Every day our local governments struggle to make difficult decisions on how to provide basic services to their communities on a limited budget provided to them by the tax payer. Every day our schools struggle to cut waste, eliminate expensive programs and use their tax allotment in a responsible manner. We, the taxpayers, demand responsibility from our local governments and school systems before we approve another tax increase.
For some reason our federal government, who receives the lions share of our tax dollars, doesn't seem to understand the concept of responsibility and accountability to the taxpayer. WE ARE NOT a bottomless well to provide you with our children (soldiers) and our money. It sickens us when you cry about everyone’s being irresponsible because you don't get what you want ($50 Billion every four months ?!?). It is going to be difficult for spoiled rich people to adjust to our demands for responsibility and accountability but you are just going to have to make do, just like the rest of us, every single day.
You will tighten your belt. You will make difficult decisions. You will sacrifice. We are holding you accountable. No more blank checks.
Sincerely,
I hate to say this, but it sounds like you got a pre-made letter from Casey
and Specter (they all do it...they won't respond personally to individual
letters). Some hold an open door policy though (not sure about Casey &
Specter though) where you can go speak to them personally.
You go, girl. Am I missing something or did Specter's reply have zero to do
with your letter? It's like they mixed you up with someone else. We were
talking about this today at my family's Thanksgiving. No one knows about
this, and I expect that's how "they" would like it to stay. The longer I
think about it, the more outraged I am. They want us afraid so they can
restrict rights in order to squash dissent. Dissent=patriotism. I've heard
this quote attributed to Ben Franklin, in various forms, but found this
version in Wikipedia: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I
imagine our current Congress would consider Mr. Frankin and the rest of his
band, violent radicals. Just a guess. Thanks, Catty, for writing your
Senators and for blogging this. It needs to be said again and again and
again.
I noticed that the replies really didn't answer your questions or address
your concerns. I'm sure that many of your fellow citizens feel the same way
as you do. I also know that you are probably on some sort of watch list now
with one of the many government departments set up to monitor anyone having
a "contrary" opinions.
Your letter was a lucid and compelling statement of your autumn of
discontent.
JWL
Your letters were thoughtful and well written. The replies, as Michelle
stated, were obviously canned, and as others pointed out, has nothing to do
with your concerns. Hello? Anybody out there listening to average
Americans? C'mon, we know you're there...we can hear you spending...
Michelle-Exactly!
Sophmom: I sent a letter to my rep. Bob Goodlatte when I lived in Virginia
asking why he voted no to raise the minimum wage. I got a letter back that
said something like, "Thanks for your concern about the bill on
environmental safety." Damn, I guess his secretary didn't even read my
letter.