Issue 738 Refugees versus Asylum seekers

The word refugees and the term asylum seekers do not mean the same thing.  However, people seem to use them interchangeably.  So in today's issue we will correct this and define what each term means.

Refugees and Asylum seekers:  A refugee is an individual or group of individuals seeking to escape a conflict or national disaster.  However, while aid is given, they are not expected to stay in the country they are escaping too.  They stay till the conflict ends, or the disaster area is cleaned up and then they go home and rebuild from the ashes what they once had.  An example would be the nuclear disaster caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, where their own people were refugees in their own country till the area was cleaned up enough for them to return to their homes.

Asylum seekers are different.  While it can be a single person or group, they seek to escape their country due to penalty of death or persecution.  In short, unless there is a revolution or change in government, the asylum seeker can never, ever go home.  As such, they wish to live, potentially for the remainder of their lives, in their now adopted country.  These individuals are not like typical immigrants who purposely want to leave, but are instead ultimately given the ultimatum of leave or die. 

Conclusion:  With the refugee crises caused by ISIS/ISIL we seem to be messing up who belongs in each category.   Christians, Jews, Gays and others who would be slaughtered by ISIS/ISIL are all asylum seekers.  They have been forced out by the threat of death.  The rest of the people leaving are Sunni Muslim and are just trying to get out of the line of fire are refugees (ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslims).  Get it?  Those who would be murdered are asylum seekers, and those who would normally not be killed are refugees.  Simple?  Ok, maybe not exactly, but you get the idea.

Facts on Child Migrants

America has children coming over the border without parents.  This is obviously a problem and it is important to know some facts on the issue.

For those children found crossing the border, they are sent over due to violence in their home countries, lack of education opportunities and other humanitarian, education and financial reasons.  Basically, as much as people may not want to hear it, these kids are abandoned by their parents.  But once they get to the United States they face trouble if caught by the Federal government.  These kids are very likely to be deported back home into circumstances that may risk their health, cause their families to descend further into poverty or be subject to criminal activity.  Now all these kids are allowed to have a hearing by law in the United States, but lawyers are not free unless it is a criminal case.  Therefore, a lawyer can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000.  This is obviously money these children do not have, and despite non-profit organizations and people helping, this free help is stretched thin.

There were 91,104 deportation cases between 2004 and 2014 (Economist magazine is the source).  Of the 91,104 about 46% had no legal representation.  Therefor they represented themselves, but 90% of those who represented themselves were deported.  In comparison, only 39% of children with lawyers were deported.  As such, an illegal child migrant without a lawyer has zero hope of staying in the country.

What do we do about this?  It is obvious that they are sent over the border because the parents want to save them from poverty, diseases, and murderous gangs.  As such, I ask the question, should we not allow these kids to stay?  Cannot we provide them with families by having them be adopted into homes who want children, or at least place them into orphanages so that they may be adopted later if the children have no family legally living here? 

Conclusion:  Personally, if these kids are under the age of 13, then they should automatically be allowed to stay and they should be put up for adoption if they have no family living here legally living in the United States.  This will aid in reducing the burden on charities providing lawyers for these children and allow them to focus on the children ages 14 to 17.  These 14 to 17 year olds should go on a wait list where a lawyer can be provided pro bono over time via the charities and individual lawyers help (micro orphanages set up by charities can aid in this while these kids await a hearing with children going to turn 18 given first priority).  Thus, it protects the children from having to represent themselves.  If the children in question have siblings who are 18 to 21 years old, they will share a trial with the older sibling and the siblings will be entitled to go on the waitlist for a lawyer like a 14 to 17 year old.  This makes the system fairer to this kids who are basically abandoned by their parents due to circumstances.  We are a kind and understanding nation, so we should at least show more of that by changing the way we handle children who come over the border without parents.

Being Respectful Rant

People are treating other people like dirt.  They show zero respect towards others or they have lost what it means to treat others with respect.  So now, why am I complaining?

The reason I bring this up is due to the fact that we seem to be losing the value of the very word "respect".  People think it is either earned, or should just be given.  Truth is it is both as there are varying levels of respect.  In this case I am speaking about basic respect which builds into greater levels of respect.  This means do not pick up your phone while you are in the middle of talking to someone.  You do not look at a person's (woman’s) chest when talking to them (ladies look away from the crotch, yea, you're just as guilty).  Look at the person you are talking to in the eye, and talk to them, not away from them while texting on the phone.  Also, you do not need to automatically grab your phone when you get some stupid cell phone notification, as it will still be there once we are done speaking (or me ringing you up for your medication).  There are no cat calls/whistling when ladies go past, no cutting people in lines, no yelling because we are trying to get your drug, product, or whatever done right the first time.  Do not talk over others, and only interrupt only when absolutely necessary.  Not anyone is more special than another and thus we are all equal.  Yes we are both special and equal at the same time as there is no equality when it comes to talents, knowledge and skills.  Maybe I have just worked in a pharmacy for too long but people are real animals.  We try to help people, bill their crappy insurance or government provided plan (which usually is worse) and we still get yelled at because people don't care about what we do in the pharmacy.  People do not give a damn about the amount of work that is done in the grocery store, the teacher at the school, the doctor, the nurse, and more.  It is like we cannot empathize with each other anymore and forget to treat one another as "PEOPLE".

Conclusion:  Maybe I am just ranting, but I grew up with stories in the Bible with Jesus teaching others to treat others as their brothers and sisters.  I had movies like "Pay it Forward" about a real kid who passed away, but started a movement where you do three nice things for three different people with them doing the same so that it would reverberate within the country.   My mother and father taught me responsibility to help not only myself and be a good worker, but aid my family members who were in trouble, and even perfect strangers if the opportunity arose.   I have looked at other faiths and read and watched amazing stories about doing the right thing.  Every single one of those faiths, movies, and books had the same message.  Yet we still have a bunch of dingle berries for brains running around acting all high and mighty, and then flip out when they do not get there way.  I am kind and responsive to others because I want to be a better person and I want to be treated in the same way in return, but I do not have to nice what so ever if it suits my fancy.  Forever and always, I will treat others with respect by looking them in the eye when I speak to them, and I will focus my attention on them.  Everything else can wait.

Trump wins again!!!

Donald Trump has just won another five State primaries last night: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.  Trump has 950 delegates and only needs 1,237 to win it all to be the nominee.  There are 650 delegates left so this is 100 percent feasible.  But why is Trump sweeping when Cruz was doing so well. 

In my opinion the non-aggression pact made between John Kasich and Ted Cruz is a big part of it.  Reason being is that people want to value their vote and the idea that each and every one of those votes count for something.  However, the pact between Cruz and Kasich to usurp Trump and the majority of the voters in the Republican made them look like two guys trying to usurp the people's choice.  Hence Trump got more votes. 

Also, Trump is a populist and has harnessed all the frustrations that the people of the nation are feeling.  As such he has a swath of supporters who believe that he feels as they do and is listening to them (politicians in D.C. have a reputation for not being good listeners). With respect to immigration, the economy and jobs, Trump looks like the guy who will finally take on those issues once he steps into the White House for he is the only candidate who has actually run a business.  He even has new advisors and this is showing as his rhetoric is becoming clearer, concise and he is looking to make his promises come true.  

Conclusion:  Trump wants to win this.  He has the momentum and the strength to keep going despite the negative press on his character (something we should pay attention to).  The man is even telling Bernie to run third party so that both of them can stick it to the establishment and party leaders who tried, and are succeeding in the case of Bernie, of trying to snuff out Trump and Bernie in these elections.  Basically it is a revenge play as if Bernie runs, then Hillary loses votes thus guaranteeing victory in the general election for Donald Trump!  Trump has a strategy and it reminds me of a board room deal.  I'm a Cruz guy still, but Trump has got the gall and the wealth to fight his way to the White House.

A,B,C, voting

This is a method of voting for elected positions and referendums where you select your top three choices in order of importance.  I call it A, B, C voting.

How it works:  Let us use Presidential elections as an example to make this method of voting easy to understand.  In this case you pick your number one candidate Ted Cruz, followed by your number two candidate John Kasich, and then your number three candidate Donald Trump.  Now only the first set of votes, people's top choices, are counted first where if a candidate receives the majority vote then they win just like normal (yes I know about the electoral college, but this is an example).  If no candidate receives the 50% plus one majority, then peoples secondary choices are added to the votes in the hopes of getting a candidate to the 50% plus one mark and greater.  If two candidates get more than the 50% plus one vote then the one with the most in this case wins, but if not then the third choice candidate votes are added in.  At this point all candidates should have beyond a 50% plus one vote count and the person with the most votes becomes the winner and they are seen as being the people's overall top choice with respect to people coming to a consensus. Basically everything is designed to get a majority vote with every individual person getting three votes with them not being allowed to vote for the same person twice. 

Conclusion:  No one wants a candidate who did not achieve less than 50% of the vote let alone just edging out that 50% with the population of voters disliking that chosen candidate.  As such this system was proposed by some New York State Congressman whose name I don't remember and is the reason why I don't remember the original name of this voting method.  So why did I even bring this method up?  Reason being that this method can be used in political primaries or even large scale elections to ensure that candidates achieve the plurality with voters to gain legitimacy with respect to being the people's elected representative.

Microsoft Sues the DOJ

Microsoft is currently suing the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the wake of the Apple lawsuit against the government.  The reason being is that they want to inform people that they were spied upon by the federal government.  And now some of you are saying "what the hell is this about?"  Well, allow me to explain.

As stated, Microsoft is suing the DOJ due to them wanting to inform people who were spied upon that they, were, well, spied upon.  Basically when the government gets a warrant to spy on a Microsoft customers computer, Microsoft will not say no, but instead tell their customer that "hey, the government is watching".  Now is this bad?  Well, yea it is especially if the customer happens to be a terrorist, an enemy spy, a murderer, or person who deals in sex slaves in general. As such the person may take steps to get away or to carry out their plot all that much faster with suitable precautions. Basically, this surveillance is crucial to the government forming a case to getting a warrant for arrest against the suspect and ultimately stopping them. 

Conclusion:   Know I can understand that telling a person that they were spied on after the case is shut or it no longer poses a threat to the case as a whole, but the news report I heard ("Outnumbered" on Fox) made it out like Microsoft wants to do this out right once the warrant has been issued.  If so then this is a dangerous situation that I hope the courts can bring sanity too.

Bernie Sander's: Feasibility

Bernie Sander's has promised to do two things that probably will not happen.  Those two things are the breakup of the Big Banks and the tax increases that would be imposed to cover universal health care amongst other things.  Here are the reasons why.

Big Bank Breakup:  Under the law a bank or even a business for that matter cannot be broken up unless it is either a monopoly or it poses a severe threat to the economy.  However our banks like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the other banks on Wall Street pose no such threat and they are not a monopoly.  Therefore the courts that oversea bank breakups would deny a president Sander's the ability to do anything to the Wall Street banks.

Tax increases:  Here the Republicans, as long as they hold a majority, and some Democrats would block the tax increases that would be used to cover the costs of a universal health care system.  Basically, Bernie would have to have a Democrat controlled House of Representatives and Senate to even hope to get any tax increases passed and even then I am skeptical about how those tax increases would pay for a new universal health system as our population is significantly larger than any other countries in the world that already has the single payer model.

Conclusion:  Like Trump, Bernie Sander's will not get what he wants passed assuming he wins.  As such people should not be surprised when his promises fall short.