Several days ago the state of Arizona passed a law authorizing police to request proof of residence from anyone have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This has since sparked the latest protests from immigrants and their supporters, claiming civil rights abuse and the legalization of racial profiling. It is reminiscent of the "Day Without an Immigrant" movement several years ago, where illegal immigrants tried to band together and not work for a day to show the country their value to the economy of America. The problem with that movement was that in turn it caused more outrage from legal Americans and has since made people in this country more focused on fixing the immigration problems we are facing. So in other words, it backfired. The outcries against this Arizona law are just as misguided, and I believe will further demonstrate the people of this country's desire to expand such laws nationwide.
What no one in the mass media seems to be bringing up or emphasizing in this whole debate is the fact that we are talking about people who are in this country ILLEGALLY. By definition these are people who should not be in the country, and therefor they do not have the same rights as American citizens do. The President can try to change the wording of what he calls these people, but it doesn't change the fact that they came here without proper permission or background checks, and the majority are living under the radar and not paying into our tax system.
My other issue with this is also tied into the whole "Immigration Reform" debate that has been talked about for the last several years, where certain groups want to give amnesty to those here illegally. Most people, including the media and special interest groups assume when talking about illegal immigrants we are automatically talking about Hispanic people. But that simply is not the case as a whole. An illegal immigrant can be from Mexico as well as Russia, Pakistan, China, or anywhere else in the world. The majority of the men that hijacked the planes on September 11th were here illegally from countries in the Middle East. So think about it, any amnesty that is given to illegals not only allows Hispanics (which we assume are hard working, harmless people) but also any possible terrorists that may be here also. Do we really want to have an open door policy for anyone who wants to come into this country? We can not pick and choose who are the good immigrants and who are the bad ones, it's all or nothing. That is the basic reason why we have a process to enter the country and to become a citizen. I understand the desire for those who are struggling in other countries to come to America to make a new start, but how fair is it to those who go through the proper channels when there are so many that bypass the law and then cry for rights?
As far as the Arizona law, the one thing that I keep going back to is how outraged people are that the police now have the right to demand proof of residence. To me, the only ones who would feel threatened by this would be those who have something to hide and are actually here illegally. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? So that is like saying "I am a criminal, but you can not ask me if I am a criminal". How much sense does that make? And so if you are here legally and are asked to show proof, you should have no problem showing proof. My wife is of Hispanic descent but was born here, so if we were driving through Arizona and pulled over and she was asked for proof of residence, she has her driver's licence and Social Security card. No harm, no foul. So I do not understand how we somehow have gotten to the point in this country where we have laws yet are guilted into not enforcing them, as to not hurt anyone's feelings. I am in no way against anyone from any country coming to America to start a new and better life. But there is a process and if you don't follow it you might possibly be caught and sent back to the country where you belong. I do not find that nasty or cruel, it is only following the law. So please, think about the term Illegal Immigrant and then tell me what Arizona has done that is so wrong...
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
No Crime, Yet Still Punishable?
I have become very disturbed by what I have been hearing and reading and spoken about over the last several weeks concerning Ben Roethlisberger and possible action being taken against him by the National Football League. Now my outrage might not be at what most would think. those who know me know that I have always been very critical of professional athletes and celebrities who get themselves in trouble with the law. to me, with all the money these people make and the resources at their fingertips there is no excuse for a DUI and no reason to be hanging out with thugs and carrying guns. Why then, am I so upset by what has been going on with this case you ask? Because this situation is far different than that of Michael Vick or Donte Stallworth or Mel Gibson. In those cases you had rich professionals who were arrested for and convicted of crimes. All of those situations were a case of someone doing something they shouldn't have and being caught. The Roethlisberger situation is different, way different, yet the media and even sports apologists are chastising an athlete for something that he was accused of yet never charged with. For some reason which I can not fathom, this person has been found guilty in the court of public opinion, when in so many other cases the opposite is true.
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)