There are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between a "Democracy" and a "Representative Republic" because of the use of democratic elections.
At face value, "democracy" is popular vote. What the majority votes for in a list of choices, wins.
However, in a 'representative republic', people who have been elected to represent the peoples interests make those decisions via popular vote.
Both the left and right activists get it wrong. They assume because they are elected to represent the interests of the people, that means they are to look out for the 'best interests' like a nanny, making decisions which may disregard popular opinion, is what the nannies think is 'best' for the kiddies.
This is not correct either.
Elected representatives are granted time throughout the yer to go back to their state to touch base with the population they represent. This is meant to get a better idea of what the people in their state want done. Not to see what they think people need done.
This is where party politics has failed the American voters. The two dominating parties have assumed that they are in a position to tell the voters what is best for them instead of investigating and going back to Congress with their marching orders from the voters.
Remember, every elected representative, from congress people to senators to the president are public servants. Not literally implying that they are well dressed butlers, but they have an obligation to do what they are directed to do by the larger public.
When we say we need 'leaders' in government, we mean we need people who will stand up and fight for who they represent against those who would impose upon the interests of the citizens. These 'leaders' need to fight and find ways to make those things happen, to do those things the voters want done.
We send one or a few of our own from each state to represent our positions among the other states, instead of trying to conduct an over-sized mass public vote on every issue. That would be 'democracy'.
We just need to remind those representatives who they work for and not who they think they are lording over.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
How the U.S. Can Improve Legal Immigration
First off, it is ridiculous to criminalize just showing up at the border. Crossing it illegally is one thing, but people should be able to arrive at a 'processing station' without fear.
What is a processing station? Instead of just putting up more and more fences and sending more and more guards, they should strategically place small buildings at points known as high traffic entry points. At those points, people seeking to enter can be in a 'safe zone' they are not in the country illegally, but are not just wandering around either.
These processing stations can allow people to apply for legal entry and be staffed by agents with authority to do background checks, make contact with trustworthy employers seeing if there is legal work available for such immigrant workers, offer a resting place, bathroom to clean up, water, etc...
They can still turn people away, but they can be more humane about the conditions undr which these encounters happen.
These border guards can pick up people trying to sneak through and take them to the closest processing station to go through the system like everyone else.
Having these processing stations right on the border, people can still have hope of getting in to better their lives, they can know they don't have to die of exposure to the elements to get there and they don't have to be branded as a criminal just for trying.
The U.S. benefits by having better security, a more controlled and better managed entry system and continues to be a beacon of hope.
Will the government do this? Not likely. It's one thing to talk about making things better, but actually doing it isn't what most politicians are about.
What is a processing station? Instead of just putting up more and more fences and sending more and more guards, they should strategically place small buildings at points known as high traffic entry points. At those points, people seeking to enter can be in a 'safe zone' they are not in the country illegally, but are not just wandering around either.
These processing stations can allow people to apply for legal entry and be staffed by agents with authority to do background checks, make contact with trustworthy employers seeing if there is legal work available for such immigrant workers, offer a resting place, bathroom to clean up, water, etc...
They can still turn people away, but they can be more humane about the conditions undr which these encounters happen.
These border guards can pick up people trying to sneak through and take them to the closest processing station to go through the system like everyone else.
Having these processing stations right on the border, people can still have hope of getting in to better their lives, they can know they don't have to die of exposure to the elements to get there and they don't have to be branded as a criminal just for trying.
The U.S. benefits by having better security, a more controlled and better managed entry system and continues to be a beacon of hope.
Will the government do this? Not likely. It's one thing to talk about making things better, but actually doing it isn't what most politicians are about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)