unique perspectives from six people

Monday, August 24, 2009

Do You Give Money To The Homeless Guy?

#1 Just Buy The Crack Yourself

Plain and simple, the vast majority of the homeless are composed of drug and alcohol addicts. A few are mentally ill, and a very few are “down on their luck”. So if you give a 5 to a homeless man, he’s probably going to use it to help kill himself on his addiction.

One day several years ago my wife (then girlfriend) encountered a homeless man holding a sign that read, “Hungry. Please help. God bless.” Having already been lectured on my theories on the homeless, but still wanting to help, Amanda offered to take the man into a nearby Subway and by him a sandwich. “Oh um. Ok. Well... No, that’s Ok.” he said. “But your sign says you’re hungry.” said Amanda. “I know, that’s Ok” he replied. Now, either he’s hungry but no amount of hunger could coerce him to eat a Subway sandwich, or he just wanted money for some alcohol or drugs.

I’m not saying don’t help the homeless. In fact, I believe we are called to help and there are many programs you can get involved with to that end. But if you’re dead set on just giving them what they’re really asking for... then just buy the crack yourself and give it to them - cut out the middle man.

Submitted by Daniel Stevens.

#2 I'll Buy You A Burger

Do I give money to the homeless person? To put it quite simply, no, I absolutely do not. And let me tell you why. There have been times in my life when I had absolutely no idea where my next meal was coming from. There have been times when I wasn't sure if my lights were going to get turned off, or if my rent was going to get paid. I have been a few dollars away from being homeless myself. Did I stand on the side of the road with a crudely written cardboard sign in 100+ degree heat and beg complete strangers for money? No, I did not. I got up off my duff and helped myself as best I could.

But this isn't about me. It's about the homeless person. I realize the statistics. I realize that a large portion of the homeless population is mentally handicapped in some way. Nevertheless, there are a plethora of programs instituted by our government to help people in need. There are millions of people who get a check from the government every month because they are incapable of entering the workplace or sustaining a job. There are emergency programs out there to help people get food, and even money, until they can find an alternative. So, why should I give money to someone who doesn't have the fortitude to help himself when help is out there? I'd be happy to take a homeless man to McDonald's and buy him a burger. However, something tells me he doesn't want my money for food anyway, and when he respectfully declines my offer for a Value Meal in lieu of scoring cash for whatever his vice from people who don't know any better, I just have to walk away knowing that I offered what I could.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 Uncontrollable Need To Make People Happy

I give what I can. I rarely carry cash or change so it's not often I am able to give. My reason for giving is somewhat selfish. I don't believe giving to the needy will better the reputation of my character, I just have an uncontrollable need to make people happy. I've met those who say, "I don't give because it's not my problem. They got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out." If someone has the courage to drop their pride and ask for help, then help. It's up to them what they do with the help.

I would like to recommend a book: "Under the Overpass" - By Mike Yankoski

It's about two guys who, by choice, live on the streets in various cities to see what the homeless life is like. Not only do they learn how much people take for granted the pleasures of a secure life, but they also learn about the drive some homeless people have for a second chance at life.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#4 Before The Light Turns Green

Well, I guess I have to ask, "which homeless guy?"

I don't have an absolute answer to this one.

As a Christian, I have a barrage of scriptures and scriptural principles banging around in my head, "...do unto others...,” “...be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove...," "...give to him to asks...", "...be a good steward of the Lord's money..." and so forth.

As a human being, I recognize that “the homeless guy” may or may not actually be homeless, may be about to spend my money on liquor or drugs, may be homeless by choice (those who choose to withdraw from society), or he may be someone just like me who had a bad run of luck and just doesn't know what to do but ask random strangers for money so he can eat.

But in that moment, that thirty-second window at the stop light, when I see said (possibly) homeless stranger at the corner hoping someone will drop him a five, I think the answer is “maybe.” It's really always a judgment call. And often it depends mostly on the off chance that I actually have some cash that can easily be handed out the window before the light turns green. And if he's selling something, not just begging for money, i'll gladly buy it if I can.

[This article is continued further on Beth's Blog, Veritable Observations]

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#5 I Might Have An Illness Or Something

I usually keep this sort of thing to myself for fear of sounding like I'm tooting my own horn or for fear of enduring any judgments from people who might think I'm a fool, but yes, I give money to homeless people. I don't give money to those who seem entitled or aggresive with their requests because, well, those people piss me off. But to those who politely ask, simply hold a sign, perform some sort of service (I've seriously been accosted by men who squirted shoe polish on my shoe before I could decline), or in earnestness beg, I usually give them something. That "something" is usually anywhere from a $1 to $20. I've even emptied my entire coin purse because I didn't have any cash. I've gone so far as to ask a homeless man what he needed, gone to the pharmacy, and came back with a backpack full of things he needed (it was winter in New York so he needed some flu medicine, a giant Gatorade, and a blanket... I ended up giving him the backpack, too, because he needed something to carry all of it in).

I'm especially giving when all they ask for is a little change. I feel bad giving them anything less than $1 because my thought is, "What am I going to do with that money? With $1, I might buy a coke, but I could probably do without it. With $5, I might buy a magazine, but again, I can live without it. With $20, I might buy gas, but I could just drive my car less this month or buy less at the grocery store this week to spare it." I've even justified giving away my last five bucks when I knew I'd have to put my next week's groceries on a credit card by thinking that, "Well, at least I have credit and future earning capacity; that's more than that person has." I know, I might have an illness or something because of how little strength I have to refuse these people... It's pretty ridiculous.

Maybe this makes me a sucker... When I lived in New York I remember reading an article in The New York Post about a lady who made more than $50K a year by parking herself on Fifth Avenue and covering herself with a ratty blanket and trash bags. Home girl was doing better financially than I was at the time... But, I still couldn't help give something here or there to the guys I'd see sleeping on cardboard boxes on the subway platform.

I don't think giving money to homeless people makes one a sucker, though. No matter how broke I've been (and trust me, I was pretty damn broke at times during my eight years of higher education), I've always managed to have a roof over my head and never gone hungry. The people you see on the streets can't really say that. Sure, they may go buy a crack rock or forty with the money I gave them, but they also might go feed their kid or it might be enough for them to afford a bed for the night. After it leaves my hands, what they do with their money is their business. The nature of giving is not to expect anything material in return, so who cares what they do with it? And, regardless of what they do with it, at least the exchange made both them and me happy for a moment.

You might be thinking, "How can one be happy parting with $20 to a complete stranger that will probably just go spend it on drugs?" In his book, Field Notes on the Compassionate Life: A Search for the Soul of Kindness, Marc Ian Barasch posits that there is no such thing as pure altruism because the giver actually gets something in return in such situations. When we give, our neural functioning actually changes, our brain produces more dopamine (the "feel good" chemical that so many drugs try to imitate), etc. Increased dopamine levels create a more positive outlook, and more positive outlooks guard against depression, etc. On the most minute biological level, altruism is good for us. How cool is that?!

There are those who might say giving money to the homeless is enabling the person to whom you're giving money to never gain employment, to stay on drugs, etc., but honestly, my feeling is that 40% - 50% of these people have serious mental illnesses like clinical depression, schizophrenia, severe anxiety disorder, and severe bipolar disorder. The vast majority of the rest have behavioral or substance abuse issues (both of which are other, even if more mild, forms of mental illness). It's not like these people are going to miraculously say, "Hey, you know, schizophrenia be damned! I think I'll go get a job and become a productive citizen now!" They don't have the capability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so my refusing to give them money wouldn't "teach" them anything. The best I can do as an individual is try to make their lives a little easier or happier by looking them in the eye, saying "hello," and/or giving them some cash.

And, if the person I give money to does happen to be one of the few who has such a capability, I think human kindness and being treated like a person can be a catalyst for personal growth. For instance, if even one person I've given money to over the years thought, "Wow, if this complete stranger thinks I'm worth saying "hello" and "have a nice day to" and giving a buck to, maybe, just maybe my mom will forgive me and let me come home/just maybe the people down at the shelter will help me get a job/just maybe I can get through rehab this time..." then it has been more than worth it. I think sometimes people may just need a little help believing in themselves, and maybe a smile, some cash, and interest in how their day is going might just do the trick.

In either case, maybe these people will never get their lives together. But, again, you know... For a brief moment, they were happy, I was happy, and the world was a bit better place.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#6 Alms For The Poor

I give money to the homeless women and men I encounter on a daily basis. I may not give every homeless person I see a small bill or whatever change I can scrounge up in my purse or pockets, but I give what I have when I can. If I’ve got a bag full of lunch and snacks, but know I could buy lunch today and let someone else have a meal, I usually give whatever I think someone might eat. And why shouldn’t I?

For me, I’m not just giving that man or woman money – I’m not giving a handout. I’m giving that man or woman something they seldom experience – dignity and respect. The homeless are not simply a scourge upon our cities, or an eyesore to be avoided or pretended out of existence. Nor are they people we should treat with any less respect and kindness than we treat our neighbors or colleagues. They key to remember is that they are human beings – you are no more entitled to anything you have than they are. The most important thing that separates me from a homeless person is privilege. Remove privilege from society – and the world would be a much better place.

The fact is many homeless people aren’t there because they are lazy, drug addicts, or alcoholics. Indeed drug addiction and alcoholism may well be the result over time of becoming homeless and abandoned by society. Humans were not made to be isolated, we were made to interact and look after one another. It is only in recent history (early 1800s) that the idea of individualism over collectivism even became part of our effective reality. In fact, the only reason individualism became part of our vernacular and hence the way in which we conduct ourselves in society was as a result of the ruling authority’s desire to quash popular dissent. Popular dissent leads to revolution, which ultimately leads to the removal of the old guard and thus their source of wealth and power. Ask yourself why Americans don’t protest anymore. Dissent has been disciplined out of us. Even if we disagree – we keep it to ourselves out of fear of retribution, or worse, what our “friends” and employers might think of us. We are all too individual, too self-absorbed with our things, and our work, and our wealth that we cannot be bothered to see the world around us as it is – broken, greedy, selfish, and poorer for it.

In Chicago, where I live, 3 out of 4 homeless people suffer from mental illness. That population used to have a home somewhere – that employed nurses, doctors, and caretakers to help the most needy in our society (those who have no control over the way they were born or the illnesses they suffer) and gave them shelter and three square meals a day. They aren’t on the street, begging you for a break because they want to be. They are there because someone of privilege decided that they were undeserving. All the facilities were closed and each person thrown to the darkest, dankest corners of our cities and towns – many of them incapable of navigating the complicated, bureaucratic systems necessary to obtain identification, employment, housing, and health care without assistance.

All those homeless people you see have not always been homeless – and most would prefer not to be homeless. With the recent economic turmoil you can’t even be sure that the family that used to live next to you (before they left their home on short-sale or even foreclosure) isn’t on a street or in a shelter somewhere.

Systemic violence plays a major role in redistributing people, including those taken advantage of by a credit scandal. Gentrification – the process of “developing” an area of a city to make it more appealing to wealthy non-minorities – is a fantastic example of systemic violence. (I say developing in quotations here because the term is misleading, and where gentrification is concerned, has a very narrow connotation.) In reality, when an area chooses to gentrify it chooses to neglect existing problems created and fomented by a political economic system that unevenly distributes services. It’s much easier to push the poor out to the fringes of a town or city than it is to figure out ways to improve wages, provide services, create job and education incentives, and create disincentives for crime and unemployment.

Addressing poverty would require society, government, each individual to take a collective look at the way our economic and political systems work and embark on a thorough self-evaluation that would result in some harrowing conclusions about ourselves. It would also require, without exception, that those with power and wealth cede some of both to make the systems function better and to break the cycle of poverty – a cycle that by its very nature ensures that the rich have the opportunity to get richer and the poor have no chance to escape the death grip of a subpar existence.

I don’t lie to the people who ask me for money. If I have something to give, I do. To me it’s no different than anonymous philanthropy. If I have food I give that, and if I’m going to buy lunch and I pass a man by, I get change from the clerk and drop it in his cup or his hand on my way back. It’s honest, it shows dignity, and it’s human. I’m not denying that there are drug addicts and alcoholics who are homeless because of choices they have made. I don’t give money to someone who reeks of booze or is clearly inebriated, but I will give them food and I will treat them with dignity and respect. I know and understand that I hold a position of privilege and that I have the power to improve the lives of people around me. So should you.

Submitted by Laura Jung.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

#1 Pardon Me If I Decline To Pick Up Rocks

No, homosexuality is not "wrong."

To say homosexuality is "wrong," to me, is just self-righteous. Most people who lay claim to knowing what is "right" and "wrong" do so because they have the "good book" of their choice (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) telling them what that is. Because of the "knowledge" bestowed upon them by these "good books," they think that they must inform those around them that anything they're doing that doesn't comport with what those books say is "wrong." Well, you know... The Bible also implies incest to be okay (Abraham and Sarah) and the slaughtering and raping of entire groups of people (The Medianites) to be alright, too.. The Koran teaches that those who blow other people up will be given 72 virgins in heaven for their deed... So, needless to say, I'm not inclined to take any of these books too literally. So when people point to explicit phrases in them that declare homosexuality worthy of stoning and the like, pardon me if I decline to pick up rocks.

Show more...


Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#2 Who Are We To Judge?

When invited into a discussion about this particular topic, I always find myself greeted with more questions than answers. Faced with someone who knows his or her viewpoint on the subject is always interesting because they have no qualms about immediately pulling out biblical references. In response to that, I have a few references of my own.
  • Who are we to judge whether homosexuality is wrong? Are any among us sinless? The Bible says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Is that you? It's certainly not me. There are none of us to whom that applies. In reference to homosexuality, I fear that many take it upon themselves to judge and condemn what they are afraid of and what they do not understand. Without having actually lived the life, none of us can understand the inner workings of the mind and heart of the gay community. The point is simply that we are not capable or qualified to judge the moral standings of anyone, as no human being is without sin.
  • "Love one another." The Bible commands us to love one another. Are we not refuting that commandment by judging and condemning our fellow man? God hates the sin, not the sinner. We should do the same. We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves, and yet we are throwing around condemnation based on someone's mistakes. Every one of us is a sinner, and yet, we are choosing to condemn a person based on their sinful nature, when it could just as easily be our sinful nature being called into question. In that case, this forum could be titled, "Is Lying Wrong?" or "If I Don't Honor My Father and Mother, is that wrong?". We should focus on loving and understanding one another instead of picking apart each others flaws. We know we all have them.

  • Old Testament Law. I have heard hundreds of times that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality directly. Let me make this clear. I have done the research, I have read the passages, and I'm not convinced. I do believe the Bible speaks out against sexual impurity, but there are a multitude of things that fall under that category, so why has this one been selected and highlighted by the Christian community? The Old Testament does say that a man who lies with a man as he lies with a woman is detestable and should be punished by death. Again, this is Old Testament law. This particular passage of scripture goes on to detail a man offering his virgin daughter up to these men for their pleasure, imploring them to have their way with her instead of his men. Talk about your sexual immorality! The point is this: if we are still accountable for obeying the laws of the Old Testament, then everyone who has eaten a ham sandwich or a pork chop lately is in a world of trouble. We are no longer responsible for obeying and upholding those laws. The New Testament speaks out against sexual immorality in general, and while we are still accountable for those directives, we are accountable for all of them, not just one. This includes sex before marriage and promiscuity. Let's focus on the real issues here. Let's focus on the rapists and the child molesters, not the homosexual community.
Show more...

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 Good People Are Still Good People

I think homosexuality is wrong. But I also think it is difficult to openly think homosexuality is wrong...because our PC society has made it increasingly difficult to disagree intelligently.

I'm either an ignorant, holy rolling fundamentalist who thinks homosexuals should be euthanized or I'm a tree-hugging liberal that thinks everything is OK as long as it doesn't negatively affect me...
There is a balance between right and wrong where the answer to most difficult decisions can be found. But this place – of balance – can only be achieved through peaceful discussion and mutual respect.

And let’s face it - the majority of loud and obnoxious detractors are protestant Christians...mostly weirdoes – but protestant Christians, nonetheless.

That being said, moral guidelines and standards are not meant to be dividing lines upon which we ostracize, criticize and discriminate. Homosexuality (along with a myriad of other human behaviors) can be “wrong” without engendering hatred and judgment. And good people are still good people – even with flaws (present company included).

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#4 Hard To Come To A Clear Conclusion

I do not believe that that homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do not believe that is right as well. I find that it's hard to come to a clear conclusion because I don't fully understand homosexual attraction, though, I will give it a try. If we take a look at the human species - with disregard to any religious preference, the anatomical structure of mankind shows that it makes sense that a natural partnership would consist of a male and a female. When it comes to procreation, it makes sense that men and women were meant to come together. Though, when it comes to the intimacy and the connection of relationships, that's when it becomes interesting when validating same-sex attraction. One way of looking at the evolution of attraction is focusing on marriage. Over the past few decades it seems that the passion for same-sex marriage has significantly increased, while at the same time we have witnessed a decline in the importance of marriage among traditional relationships. I'll end my thoughts by saying that given my personal beliefs I maintain a certain opposition to homosexuality, though, since I do not fully understand homosexuality I am hesitant to completely disregard it.


Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#5 People Use Rationalizations To Explain Their Actions

One of the greatest moral questions our society faces is the issue of “gender-preferences” with relation to sexuality. As we have progressed in intelligence as a society so many moral lines have been crossed and broken as people use rationalizations to explain their decisions. “...this is what makes me happy...” “...I was made this way...” The excuses are numerous. I would like to approach this debate from a non-Christian perspective. (Even though biblically, homosexuality is clearly wrong) I would like to look at this from the standpoint of good-old-common-sense. All of nature proclaims that our purpose is to re-create or reproduce. Whatever your beliefs are about how we came into existence you cannot deny the inherent dangers involved in homosexuality. For the male, the damage caused is obvious. However, numerous studies have shown that a women that has given birth, breast-fed and so forth has a greatly reduced chance of numerous types of cancer and other health issues. As you look at creation; plants, animals, etc, you see an intelligent design that both provides and requires the ability to reproduce. Homosexuality is contradictory to that reality. No matter what your “spiritual” beliefs, something or someone, greater than us, has designed this entire planet, including our bodies, with a purpose for reproduction. That cannot be denied and because of that, homosexuality must be wrong.

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#6 If Something Is Natural, How Can It Be Wrong?

My first thought refers back to what I’ve learned in at least 3 psychology of sexuality courses thus far, any time in history, in any culture, there are consistently between 3 and 5% of the population that are "homosexual". In more liberal cities, in more sexually liberal societies throughout history, this can be as high as 11-13%. But as for the “real numbers”, we can refer to the most credible source in the health and social literature at this time, the 1992 findings from NHSLS (National Health and Social Life Survey). Laumann, Gannon, Michael, and Michaels (1994, as cited in Rust, 2000) reported that 4.3 percent of women and 9.1 percent of men have engaged in one or more specific sexual activities with a member of the same gender since puberty. They also reported that 4.1 percent of women and 4.9 percent of men reported same-gender sexual behavior since age eighteen. These findings are consistent with the Center for Health Affairs Survey as well (conducted in 1993). So it is my firm belief on this issue that… if something is natural, how can it be wrong??? And if homosexuality is "unnatural", then why would you see these numbers consistently throughout time and cultures? It must be natural. Thus the creator made some people this way, thus it cannot be wrong. Modern science and research on brain chemistry, neural circuitry, and hormones would lead us to accept this as well.

Show more...

Submitted by Summer Cartwright.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Does Illegal Immigration Threaten the Safety of the United States of America?

#1 I Am Going To Get My Gun

I'm no national security expert. I have never even met anyone who works for Homeland Security (that I know of).

To answer this question, I will convert the situation to my level of responsibility.

I am a semi-well-educated lower middle class American homeowner.

If I discover strange persons in my home who are uninvited and refuse to introduce themselves, I am going to call 911.

What I mean to say is that I am going to get my gun.

It is the policy in my home that strangers are not allowed to come in the back door (or the back yard) uninvited. My husband and I feel that allowing this sort of trespass would threaten the safety and sanctity of our home.

It seems to me that the principles involved in the security of a sovereign nation should be similar.


Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#2 There Has To Be A Better Way

Of course illegal immigration threatens the safety of this country. It threatens this country in the same way the David Koreshes and John Walker Lindhs of the world threaten the United States. My point is that wackos who mean us harm are wackos that mean us harm regardless if they are illegal immigrants or United State citizens. In other words, illegal immigrants pose no greater harm to this country than The Boyd Family or say, Dick Cheney.

In my legal career, I've represented people who had no business being thrown into high security prisons with rapists and murderers simply because they, in desperation to give their children food or a chance for a better life, came into this country illegally. In terms of human rights, it's disgusting what our country is doing to people who are only doing what is in our nature as humans to do (e.g., provide for our and our childrens' basic needs at any cost). There has to be a better way to deal with illegal immigration than locking people up in this way or pretending the problem of exploiting these people for cheap labor doesn't exist at the highest levels of corporate policy. Immigration reform now, people!

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#3 The Prevention of Terrorism Cannot Be Related to Immigration

According to my understanding of the law, immigrants become "illegal" when they fail to meet the requirements of naturalization set forth by the government.


The use of the word "naturalization", though, makes me cringe. The US has adopted immigration policies based primarily on economic needs since the 1800s...and our historical (dis)allowance based on race, ethnicity, literacy, etc. is well documented. As a result, I believe the legal status of an immigrant has no relation to the physical safety of our nation - but maybe the economic safety...

Once naturalized, immigrants will forever contribute to the increase of the population of the US. But if naturalization policies are intended as economic tools, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the government would want those people to leave when the economy is down...?

It is pretty obvious that no moral individual would accept the practice of forcing naturalized citizens out of the country for economic purposes (e.g. when unemployment is high, etc.) - why then, do we base the legality of immigration on the economic potential of individuals?

In my opinion, the prevention of terrorism (though vitally important) can not be related to immigration and naturalization.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#4 Looking For A Better Life

If we’re speaking from a physical standpoint (does it have the potential to injure or even kill myself or my family?), I’d say no. No more so than walking down the street. I would wager that most people who are coming to the states illegally are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. Perhaps they’re fleeing from persecution and strife in their home country. And let’s face it, America is still a land of opportunity.

However, it’s the more intangible aspects I believe that harm our nation; Population growth, working outside of the system and therefore dodging taxes, etc. I’m all for assisting others, helping to give them that American dream and so forth. At some point though, our generosity is going to give way to freeloading. Why work when I’m being taken care of by others?

If someone wants to move to America, great! Go through the proper channels and become a citizen. I don’t mean to sound like a rule monger or anything, but if you’re going to come and be a part of this country, please do your part to ensure that we continue being successful. If I were to move to say France, I would be expected to do the same thing in order to buy a home, get a job, or drive a car.

Submitted by Brian McMeans.

#5 What Happens When There Are No More Jobs?

Yes and no. Immigration itself is what made this country. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, yes, but we are also the melting pot of the world. When immigrants came to America fleeing religious persecution, they were offered safety and peace of mind. They were offered a chance for a new life and an opportunity to better themselves in a way that their country had not provided. If not for immmigration, I'll wager that most of us wouldn't be in this country at all. How many people do you know whose grandparents came over on a boat from (insert country here)?

On the other hand, I think illegal immigration does threaten the safety of the United States today. When I think of safety, it's not always physical safety that comes to mind. It's the comfort of knowing that I'm provided for, taken care of, that my basic human needs will always be met. In the stressful economy of today, it's easy to become increasingly concerned about our ability to maintain a lifestyle we have grown accustomed to. What happens when there are no more jobs? Illegal immigrants are coming to this country to find a better opportunity for themselves andour opportunities are rapidly decreasing with each immigrant who is hired to work longer hours for less money.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#6 The Numbers Speak For Themselves

When dealing with issues of "morality" vs. "law", I tend to think that we should air on the side of law, unless the law is unjust. But in this case, the question is “Does Illegal Immigration Threaten the Safety of the United States of America?” For the answer, I think we should let the raw data and research be an indicator as to what the “right” course of action is.

Never mind the health system and education costs which have become an overwhelming drain on our budget in a system where much needed funds for essential programs are scarce (for education alone it is estimated by US news that in 2004 the cost was between $270 and $650 per household; The estimated costs of educating illegal aliens and their children for the entire US budget exceeded 28.6 billion dollars in 2004 alone.)

Why do I bring these figures up? Because money devoted to healthcare, especially for those NOT paying back into the system, takes much needed funding AWAY from other essential services, such as fire fighters and policemen, and eventually our defense budget on the whole. A case-in-point example of this is the California scenario:

"Between 1993 and 2003, 60 hospitals in California alone were forced to close, and many others had to reduce staff or implement other procedures which reduced the level of service they could provide. The article attributes these closings mainly to illegal immigration. [18] "In Fiscal Year 2001, the total cost for emergency medical care for illegal immigrants in California was more than $648 million. At the same time, the California Association of Public Hospitals notes that California’s public hospitals face a $600 million a year budget deficit."
It doesn’t take a mathematician to see how eliminating illegal immigration would turn a deficit into a surplus. And in the reverse, all of those dollars that California has been heaping onto the illegal immigration problem, has gone from putting Band-Aids on small lesions in 2004, to not having the money for gauze to put over gushing wounds in 2009. Now it has gone totally bankrupt – unable to pay its police force, fire fighters, and national guardsmen – thus the state is now in a total body-cast, with no one to pay the hospital bill finally. I would say that if this trend continues across the southwest, and Texas being next hardest hit after Arizona, the issue will go from merely funding healthcare and education for illegal immigrants, to not being able to fund necessary law enforcement and emergency services across the states.

If we want to address the question of “are illegal immigrants dangerous?” head on, I hate to go there, as I believe that most illegal immigrants are like the rest of us, they just want to earn a decent wage, provide for their family, and give their children the chance they never had – to live the American dream, not to mention, I personally know a few, who are my dearest friends, and are in fact living the American dream, earning PhDs and contributing to our society. However, the numbers speak for themselves:

"California and Texas are facing drastically higher levels of crime including, Rape, Murder, Theft, Drug trafficking, DUIs, ETC in areas with high illegal alien populations. The criminal system is inundated with illegal aliens. California law enforcement agencies are claiming that they are encountering MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF gang activity, which they attribute to illegal immigration. MS-13...ETC...MS-13's initiation ritual includes forcing initiates to rape and murder random women on the streets....Even George W. Bush citing federal agencies in 2004 (who is pro amnesty), claimed that 1 out of every 10 illegal immigrants has a criminal record in Mexico. If there are 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, then you do the math..." (taken from a US and World report blog, dated about a year after the hit of Hurricane Katrina)
Submitted by Summer Cartwright.