Vilified

     In his blog post "Keep e-cigs from being villianized in Texas" S. Singh pleads for e-cigs to not be viewed as harshly as cigarettes, and that they should be available for use in the public setting. However, I disagree with the de-vilification of e-cigs. Regardless if it's not killing you anymore, nicotine is still a very addictive drug that has had many problems through the years with teens getting a hold of it. With the state of de-vilification, vapor companies can begin targeting youth once again, also; with numerous people walking around vaping their e-cigs, it would only make it easier for the young to believe trying e-cigs isn't all that bad. From a young age if children become desensitized to the thought of nicotine, we could be dooming some youth from the start to a addictive, dependent life. I think that e-cigs should still be vilified in the public setting, but I will agree that it doesn't seem terrible to have at a bar, where everyone is of age and can make decisions for themselves.

All Roads Lead To... Unfinished Construction

     It's nothing new that Texas roadways are generally left unfinished once construction starts on a segment, and not only that, but; a lot of roads are getting very old and are in desperate need of updating. Well, for those who are sick of highly congested traffic because of small outdated roads (most growing cites should know the plight) or those who are sick of looking at unfinished projects on the roads commonly used (looking at you I-35 outside of Austin) are in luck because on November 4 an amendment to the Texas Constitution will be voted on which will redirect funding from the Economic Stabilization Fund to the improvement of Texas roadways everywhere. The Economic Stabilization Fund is basically a GIANT savings account only to be used for when the Texas economy gets in trouble. 

     I welcome this amendment with open arms as a Texas driver, and hope it is passed come November. Since this is just a redirection of current funding tax-payers will not see a increase in taxes because of this. Also, with more than 9 billion dollars in the ESF already, I think it is fine that the amendment will rout half of the money going to the ESF to some much needed road improvements. Additionally as a precaution, this money cannot be used for toll roads, ensuring that every driver will have an opportunity to benefit from this. One reason we see so much unfinished road work is that Texas is short 5 billion dollars on current production, this amendment will add 1.7 billion in funds in the first year alone allowing us to finish the job, in a timely manner, and get started on new work (stats according to Move Texas Forward). Being the state with the largest highway system and having a huge influx of new people moving in, I believe we Texans need this funding now more than ever and hope that we will get this amendment passed.

Justified

     In Jake Moser's blog post "Charge the Troops to your Campaign Fund Instead, Mr. Perry" he writes about Governor Perry's actions to send 1,000 National Guard to the border to alleviate the deficiency of border patrol personnel. In his post he takes a unfavorable stance toward Perry's action. His big focal point for the post was that crime rates have not risen since the crisis, and that the National Guard should only be invoked to help control crime.

     The issue I have with this argument is that, at the time, we didn't know the crime rates were not rising because the entire point of illegal activity on the border is to not get caught. If people are not getting caught then it's obvious that we can't say crime is higher now. With drastically less people patrolling the border (because they are having to care for these children and do a lot a of paper work for them) it's even easier for criminals to not get caught, thus; it means that the rate of crime would not go up because we simply don't know that the crime has happened. The National Guard was invoked to get manpower back to the border to ensure that crime has not increased and that it won't increase in the future. Accordingly, I believe it is short sighted to say, since crime didn't go up we should just wait for the national government to handle it, because if there are deficiencies in the border patrol it would only be a matter of time before the border is taken advantage of. Thus, I believe that Perry's call for the National Guard was justified.

A National Affair

     As of late Romney has been getting flak for wanting to invoke 1000 National Guard to the US-Mexico border. This news was initially leaked to The Monitor by anonymous sources under the title, "Gov. Rick Perry to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to RGV," and confirmed when Fox News interviewed him on TV, which can be found on Youtube following this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAwrEtpIBfU. Now, I actually agree with Romney that the border needs manpower and help; I also agree that the National Guard is a valid resource to help the boarder. However, just not for the reasons of a giant display of power. Romney said in his interview, "What we’re talking about now is sending the message back now so we can staunch the bleeding..." On the other hand, he does mention why I think the Guard should be sent to the border which in his words are, "It’s important to do that because this flood of children is pulling away the border patrol from their normal duties of keeping bad people — keeping the drug cartels. They’re being distracted. So, that is a very obvious that I would suggest to you that those National Guard troops should come play an important role." This is the important reason, in my opinion, for sending aid to the border, because according to CBS DFW in an article titled "Overrun By Immigrants, Border Agents Doing Paperwork Instead Of Patrolling" Congressman Henry Cuellar tells CBS DFW, "Almost 40 percent of the Border Patrol Agents are not at the border they’re actually filling out paperwork, transporting, feeding, moving these folks around." Considering it's been a month since then I can only imagine the situation is worse. Yet, it appears to be worse as Town Hall released their article "EXCLUSIVE: Photos Show Drugs Pouring Over Southern Arizona Border as Agent Resources are Overwhelmed" it shows you pictures of drug runners sneaking past the border while border agents are doing paper work. On top of that, the drug cartel is getting more courageous as Fox News reports, in their article "Cartels suspected as high-caliber gunfire sends Border Patrol scrambling on Rio Grande," on first hands accounts of the cartel fire rounds at border the suppress them long enough for smugglers to get children across. So, I believe the situation is dire enough to rally the National Guard to the border, especially if border fire continues or drug runners find more success. Do you?

Due Process?

     As of late Dallas police have pushing for increased time to build cases against individuals that they arrest. However, this would allow police to jail people who can't pay bail for more than twice the previous time. This grabbed the attention of the blogger, Grits for Breakfast; where he tries to get the word out to everyone on Dallas Police's plan which allows them to hold people prisoner for no reason at all for longer periods of time, with his post titled "How long should cops get to jail people without charges?" Grits for Breakfast, who claims to be a previous writer for The Daily Texan and editor for the Texas Observer, seems credible and uses some primary sources in his post. Thus, I trust validity of this writer and his post.

     By beginning his blog post with the words, "Here's a messed up story for you," I can just tell Grits is unhappy at the policy being pushed by police. Wanting to extend the amount of time they can jail for no reason from three days to seven days, Dallas Police complain that other counties are more lenient with their police on the amount of time they can spend filing a case. However, Grits makes note of how defense attorneys argue that the deadline is in place for those who cannot pay bail. I agree with defense attorneys on this one; although it may be a small minority at a loss on this, everyone is entitled to "due process" under the US constitution. Additionally, on the note of other counties being more lenient, Grits makes sure to point out Houston, who despite having a higher population, has an on-call officer ready to create a defined case before the arrest even happens. Thus this pushed policy from Dallas Police, in my opinion, makes them seem lazy. Also it's not just Houston, Grits claims other cities in the US better exercise due process, with New York being his prime example where they must file a charge within 24 hours of arrest. Altogether, I think it's not right for Dallas to go through with this, and I hope you read the post for yourself and add to the arguments.

So What Did Obama Come Here to Do?

     Sure Obama came to Austin recently to raise money for his party, but when the state is in the midst of a trillion dollar crisis with the border some are getting uneasy and are calling for action. One of these individuals who are calling for action is Senator John Cornyn who in the Texas Insider's opinion section titled "5 Things Obama Must Do to Fix the Border Crisis" reaches out for Obama to take action. Intending to get his opinion out to the public so that it may spread by word of mouth; Senator Cornyn, who serves as a reputable Republican in the Judiciary’s sub-committee of Border Security and refugees, calls on President Obama to take the five specific actions on the super-influx of migrant children, who are supposedly spawning from Obama’s change to the immigration laws concerning children. After laying down some facts and telling some of the treacheries of traversing across Mexico for Central American children, he begins to lay down what he thinks Obama should do about this influx crisis. These actions in his own words are:

• "First, [Obama] should publicly (and repeatedly) declare that the so-called deferred-action programs he announced in June 2012 will not apply to the children currently arriving at the border."
  
• "Second, [Obama] should publicly (and repeatedly) discourage people in Central America and elsewhere from sending their children on such a dangerous journey through Mexico."
  
• "Third, [Obama] should start enforcing all U.S. immigration laws, not simply the ones he finds politically convenient."
  
• "Fourth, [Obama] should make sure that Texas and other U.S. border states have the resources they need to handle the migrant influx."
  
• "Fifth, [Obama] should work with Mexican officials to improve security at their border with Guatemala, which most of these children appear to be crossing."

     These actions all seem to make sense to me, and I agree with Sen. Cornyn that Obama should be taking such actions. With the new system not working it makes sense for Sen. Cornyn’s declaration of his first point: “let’s just simply go back.” Although the old system may not have been the best, it at least worked. With regards to his second point the journey through Mexico is very dangerous, and relating to Central Americans facts, like six out of ten women who make the travel become victims of sexual assault, is important for parents to know before sending their children through “hell.” His third point is a stab at his policies of not always following the laws; which Obama, in my opinion, should work on changing if he doesn’t like them. Also, I agree with his fourth point that the Mexican Border States will need money to deal with all these children coming and taking resources such as public education, which already starved for money in Texas, and various other rights granted to American’s. Likewise, the call for diplomacy with Mexico regarding flow Central Americans is also a good idea, but I believe those efforts would be stumped by the cartel. All in all, I think this was a good opinion, and I hope that you will read the short piece of work Senator Cornyn provided so that you may see a little of the background for it and possibly retort it.

The Crisis Bill

The Texas Tribune - Texas Democrats Divided Over Border Crisis Bill

     Today the Texas Tribune put up an interesting article covering the reason why Democrats are split on trying to decide if they want to pass the proposed border legislation, with big changes in how children are processed at the border.

     The Democrats are split on the main point, but most were weary that children could be quickly deported back to their native homeland immediately if requested. It was believed that children would be pressured into volunteering to go back home for the sake of time and ease on the border officials. However, opinions aren't so one sided with regards to giving central American children equal rights under the law. Some believe the equal rights are needed; because without the right to due process these children are having to wait four to five years for a simple hearing on whether they can even consider staying in America. The piece of legislature would require the process to be cut down to giving them seven days to request a trial then a judge would decide if the case may continue within seventy-two hours. The other side of the argument is whether seven to twelve year old unaccompanied children can even be aware of their rights under the law and present themselves in the courtroom setting. This could prove to send thousands of children back to what could be a very hostile homeland and not give these children their basic right as a human being. This bill is tough one to see how it's going to play out if passed. However, in a crisis where thousands of kids are waiting in limbo to see if they can reside in America; we must decide to do something, and soon. I hope you will read the article for yourself, for this will show you the fate of many children in the near future.