An Open Letter to the Members of Congress

An Open Letter to the Members of Congress:

I’m writing this letter to you because I’m highly concerned about the
issue of immigration as well as the manner in which the issue is being resolved in
Congress. Due to the overwhelming supply of media coverage, I’m sure that
you have received many irate and somewhat fanatical e-mails and letters on this
topic; however, I would like to discuss it with you in a sensible manner,
while focusing on several key points, which I believe are all too often
overlooked. The key points that I would like to discuss with you are: the
“2 Europes” problem, the issue of human smuggling across our borders, the
efficiency of the system, and finally, our expectations of immigrants.


2 Europes


Like many who followed the US-EU Summit this year, I was surprised to
discover that the United States still hasn’t done anything to change the
way in which we view Europe. According to the Congressional Research Service’s
Report for Congress (Order Code RS22645, Updated May 14, 2007), “The U.S.
Congress and successive U.S. administrations have supported the EU project
since its inception as a way to foster a stable Europe, democratic states,
and strong trading partners. The United States has welcomed EU efforts since
the end of the Cold War to expand the political and economic benefits of
membership to Central and Eastern Europe, and supports the EU aspirations of
Turkey and the western Balkan states.” Considering that this is a true
statement, how can we attempt to support the EU project on one hand, yet, on
the other hand, deny the nations of Central and Eastern Europe the same
rights, such as a visa waiver, that we have given Western Europe? I
personally feel that it is highly hypocritical of us as a nation to support a
union of states without treating them equally. A difference in treatment
would be completely justifiable if there were valid reasons, such as a
terrorist threat or narcotics smuggling; however, without a valid reason, why
is this process still in effect?


Human Smuggling


Like myself, I’m sure that you’ve heard and, at the same time, been
horrified by stories of people being stuffed like cattle into a van to be
smuggled across the U.S. border. While this is a horrible thing that should
be stopped, many people seem to focus simply on more border security to end
this practice, without taking time to refrain and ask why it happens. People
will pay and take the risk of being smuggled across the U.S. border because
they see it as a better, faster, and potentially cheaper alternative than
dealing with legal government channels. So how do we break this relationship
of trust between immigrants and smugglers? Instead of simply hiring more
border guards or building walls and fences, which could easily become a
“black hole” for taxpayer dollars, why haven’t we made a priority of trying
to have a greater appeal to the immigrants for the benefits of being legal,
instead of simply using law enforcement and fear, which essentially drives
immigrants further into the hands of these human smugglers?


Efficiency of the System

While most people want to enter into our country for prosperity and a better
life for themselves and their family, I do realize that there are a few who
enter the country in order to perform illegal actions; therefore, we must
have security on our borders to keep such people out of this country. That
being said, for security concerns, I am sure that an overwhelming majority of
people could understand as well as tolerate a reasonable wait in order to
enter and stay in the United States; however, judging by the vast majority of
stories that have been told by people who have experienced U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services firsthand, the process looks to be neither
reasonable nor timely. I’m sure that you too have heard the reports of people
who have patiently waited for numerous months and even years just learn about
the pending status of their green card, a background check, or permanent
residency status. Understandably, this is the right and legal route, but at
the same time, is it fair to keep a person (and their family) in limbo for
such an unreasonable period of time?
Consider the immigrants’ point of view: if your family is relying on you
as the sole provider and your legal process is taking much longer than
anticipated, what do you do? Do you wait for the undetermined outcome of your
legal immigration process, or do you do whatever you can to support your
family? I strongly believe that most of us know what we would do in this
situation.
Taking these points into account, wouldn’t it be wiser to improve the
system before we start punishing those who the system has failed?


Our Expectations of Immigrants


As we attempt to legalize all illegal immigrants, I don’t think that it is
unjust of us to ask our illegal immigrants to take additional steps and be
somewhat penalized due to the nature of their illegal status; however, at the
same time we also must remember that the more strict and harsh the penalties
become, the less influence they will have and the more discontent they will
create. Taking into account that virtually all illegal immigrants are
employed in low paying jobs (minimum wage or less), how is it possible for
them to afford a maximum of $5,000 in penalties in addition to the fees
incurred for the legal process? How can they feasibly leave their sole source
of income, for an undisclosed period, and afford to return to their native
country and properly register? Instead of doing this, which could potentially
create more problems, more needless paperwork, more of a backlog, and still
not prove to be effective in reducing the number of illegal immigrants
currently in the U.S., why has there been no consideration to making the
penalties more reasonable and applicable to the situation, such as making the
penalty a percentage of their income (like a form of tax) or allowing them to
register through their embassy (in lieu of returning to their native
country)?


In conclusion, yes, it is obvious to anyone who has kept abreast of the news
and developments with this issue that the status quo is no longer acceptable
and something must be done, but my greatest fear is that, in the haste to
quickly hammer any immigration legislation through Congress, we may all be
sacrificing the potential of having a truly just, quality, and workable piece
of legislation for all sides.


Thank You,
Brandon A. Blosser
595 Laurel St.
Chillicothe, OH 45601

The Mr. Snuggles and the Dual Jason Theorem

For anyone that's seen Friday the 13th Parts V and VII (as well as the other 1-8) as well as for those unfortunate people who haven't, I would like to propose 2 theories.

1) The Mr. Snuggles Theorem. Through almost all of the Friday the 13th movies (and I'm referring to the classic 1-8, not this new rubbish), the film makers make it a point of showing a cat, which is in some way integral to the plot of the film. Why? What does this mean? The answer is simple. The answer comes from the fact that whoever finds the cat inevitably gets killed by Jason, and they are killed by Jason only when they experience a run in with the cat; therefore we can conclude that, as none of the victims or characters are known to have cats, the cat must belong to Jason. Due to the fact that Jason drowns as a boy, we can also determine that he, with his child-like mind, would give the cat a "warm and cheery" name, such as Mr. Snuggles.

2) The Dual Jason Theorem. Friday the 13th, Part V. According to the plot, we are supposed to believe that (SPOILER ALERT!!!!) the murders were committed by Roy, the paramedic whose son was killed at the Pinehurst facility, in order to avenge his son's killing. That is reasonable and more than explains the killing of the residents and staff of Pinehurst; however, it cannot explain the killings of Billy, Lana (who, funny/oddly enough, sees the cat), Vinnie, Pete, the drifter, Ethel, and Junior. None of them were directly involved with Pinehurst, and many if not all of them were unknowns for Roy. In fact, Vinnie and Pete only broke down near Pinehurst, and, as for Ethel and Junior, they were arguably more for the closing of Pinehurst than anyone. That being said, we can conclusively see that there were no viable reasons for killing them. If Roy did it, then there is entirely no motive for it. On the other hand, what if Roy didn't do it? What if Roy was (obliviously to him) acting in unison with the real Jason? Consider this: Roy had no known knowledge of the aforementioned people or their relations with Pinehurst and therefore no motive to kill them. Jason Voorhees himself is a recurring killer (in the same area), that kills in an indiscriminate fashion (as these murders were), and, on many occasions, kills people after their contact with his cat (as Lana had). These facts point to the only plausible solution, there are two Jasons, unknowingly acting at the same time.

The Glorious Commencement Post!

To those of you who said I never would, could, or should create a blog...HA! I guess this will show you! Of course, since none of you here know exactly who I am, the point is slightly diluted, but it still counts. I am Ethel the Frog. I'm just your typical metrosexual-ish guy who over-analyzes everything, over-thinks many things, and has an often-considered quirky point-of-view. I have an opinion about everything (from hockey to politics to economics to porn), which can often lead to arguments and pissing somebody off, so please take that into consideration when you read and comment on my posts. Yes, this is your warning...all topics are open, so there's a good chance I'll touch on a topic or issue that you don't like or don't want to read; therefore, if that is the case, then just don't read it. All things considered....sit back, get yourself something to drink, and read on!