wow...

I'll let Stephen Colbert sound off on this one...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/366030/november-17-2010/chair-apparent?xrs=share_copy

Thanks Mitch!

new developments on the issue of immigration reform in utah

In a grand twist of fate, luck, coincidence, etc., a coalition came together yesterday and signed a compact that basically refuted the Utah immigration reform bill proposed by the recently vilified Rep. Stephen Sandstrom. The compact basically states that we should leave immigration enforcement to the feds. Although the federal policy is flawed in many ways and has been throughout the history of the U.S., this is a crucial move forward by influential leaders in our community i.e. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese in Utah, John Wester, as well as several prominent conservative businesspeople here in Utah. And the biggest news? The LDS church endorsed the compact as well! Such an endorsement is significant because it means that the large population of LDS people in Utah- if they were leaning toward supporting the proposed legislation- may rethink their position and oppose the bill in order to support the Church's position. Here is a link to the article I read...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50656971-78/church-utah-compact-bill.html.csp

Utah's proposed immigration reform

Here is a letter I sent to Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, the Utah State Representative who is leading the push for immigration reform here in Utah, much like the highly controversial reform passed in Arizona. I wrote it in July 2010. He has not yet taken the time to respond, while several other representatives that I forwarded the letter to did respond, even though it was originally not addressed to them...

Dear Rep. Sandstrom,

My name is Todd Robinson. I am an undergraduate in history at the
University of Utah and I am also working toward applying to medical
school. I am lucky enough to be married to Evelyn Casillas Robinson, a
first generation citizen of the U.S. whose parents immigrated here from
Mexico. Every day I am grateful that I have the opportunity to be a
part of her family and enjoy the culture of Mexican Americans. I am
writing to you because I recently saw in the Salt Lake Tribune that you
were planning on backing an immigration law much like the one passed in
Arizona. I strongly urge you not to do this. There are several reasons
why such a law is a mistake.

First, I must say that I do not support illegal immigration.

I do not believe that hard-working Americans

should have to pay for social welfare programs that support illegal
immigrants who are not taxpayers themselves. This country is already in
dire straights and the added burden is unwelcome, to say the least.
However, passing this bill would not solve the problem. The law is only
aimed at a symptom of the problem, not the root. Our country has a
long, rich tradition of immigration. Unfortunately, our country also
has a long, dark tradition of de jure and de facto racism. Take for
example, the de facto racism in terms like "spic," "guinea," "mick,"
etc. These terms are offensive and they arose from the fear and hatred
whites had toward the seas of immigrants pouring into Ellis Island in
search of the American dream. They also arose from the competition
between the different groups of immigrants. The prejudice of white
lawmakers led to the passing of racist immigration bills like the
Johnson Reed Act of 1924, an example of de jure segregation. This act
limited immigration from "undesirable" areas of the globe such as
southern and eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, but allowed
unlimited immigration from the "desirable" areas of the globe, mostly
central and northern Europe and England. What was the motivation for
passing such a bill? Whites ("whiteness" had a very different meaning
then, you could have white skin and still not be considered white; for
example, the Irish were not considered "white") at the time feared that
immigrants were taking jobs away from "hard-working American citizens."

The argument has not changed in the 90 years since the passing of the
Johnson Reed Act. In reality, immigrants supply a source of cheap labor
and do not take jobs away from American citizens. When was the last
time you heard of Americans bemoaning the shortage of housekeeping jobs
in America? Or the shortage of landscaping jobs? There has not been a
widespread outcry against immigrants filling these positions. Times are
more difficult now with the state of the economy, but times are
difficult for everyone, immigrants included. They are not nor have they
ever as a general population usurped positions of power or taken jobs
away from American citizens en masse. Labor outsourcing and moving
factories to foreign countries is accomplishing that task. This brings
me to my next point. If we want to attack the root of the problem of
illegal immigration, we need to focus on two aspects. Number one, we
need to reform the nation's archaic immigration laws. Millions of
illegal immigrants from Mexico would be responsible taxpayers if the
immigration laws were changed. People from Mexico and other South and
Central American countries need to be put in a special immigration
category just by virtue of their proximity to the U.S. Of course there
must still be some restriction on the number of people who can
immigrate per year, but the fact of the matter is, we are bleeding
valuable tax dollars trying to enforce an outdated immigration policy
and at the same time we are missing out on millions, if not billions,
of tax dollars from potential citizens who would be paying taxes if
they were granted citizenship. Number two, we need to focus on the
reason why most, if not all, illegal immigrants are here: employment.
Someone is employing people illegally and exploiting not only
the immigrants, but the people of the United States. These business
owners are a huge part of the problem. They are getting cheap, tax-free
labor and they are perpetuating the problem of illegal immigration. If
we in the U.S. still subscribe to the argument (which I hope we do not)
that illegal immigration is taking jobs away from hard-working
Americans, then the businesses who employ illegal immigrants are truly
responsible for the problem. If such businesses did not employ illegal
immigrants then there would be no reason for them to be here in the
first place.

Next, as a plea to the civil rights advocate in all of us,
I urge you not to pass this law because it promotes racial profiling.
This bill gives law enforcement officers a reason to single out anyone
who they feel could be here illegally. It does not take a genius to
predict which ethnic group will be targeted. I grew up in Utah and I
know that the primary group targeted by the already passive racism that
permeates this state is the Hispanics. They will be targeted under this
bill because it is primarily Hispanics who make up the bulk of the
illegal immigrants in this state. But what about the LEGAL immigrants
like my in-laws? What about my brother- and sister-in-laws? What about
their children? What about my wife? Am I to sit back and watch
contentedly while they are lumped into a single group of potential
"illegals" for no reason other than the color of their skin or the fact
that they speak Spanish? I will not. I have studied too much social
history to know that this will not end well in the majority of
instances. Race is a very sensitive issue and this bill will only
exacerbate the problem. I will therefore not stand by while my family
is targeted under this proposed bill, and I urge you to do the same.
This bill is not the way to fix the problem of illegal immigration, it
will only intensify the financial strains on this state, as well as the
racial tensions already present.
Finally, the bill would put Utah in a negative light. Criticism against
Arizona has brought even the wrath of the federal government down upon
itself. No matter what people say about President Obama, he is actually
quite moderate, and for his administration to file suit against Arizona
is a huge indication of the discontent with the law. Not only has
Arizona been labelled racist and backward, now they have to deal with
covering the expenses of a federal lawsuit. I do not want the same to
happen to Utah. I realize now that this country is severely polarized
and there is not much bipartisan cooperation, but I would like to end
that. I want to be a part of the reconciliation of U.S. politics. Your
slogan says "Conservative causes. Traditional values." This is an
American cause because the conservatives, liberals, and the moderates
all see illegal immigration as a problem. Please be a part of a
bipartisan solution, one that will benefit not only the hard-working
immigrants who seek a better life here in the states, but also our nation as a whole, and not just our ego.

Thank you for your time.

letter to Utah's newly-elected tea party Senator Mike Lee

I wrote this letter to the newly-elected Senator Mike Lee in response to his victory speech the night of November 2, 2010. I may have to send it again because I sent it to his campaign email and I'm not too sure if he will pay much attention to that email now that his campaign is over...

Dear Newly-elected Senator Mike Lee,

I write to you today to respond to what I consider a very ill-concieved victory speech, which you delivered to the people at Republican Headquarters, SLC on the night of November 2nd, 2010. I took issue with several of your remarks, including your remarks about how we need to decrease the size of government, decrease government spending, return to an idyllic period of U.S. exceptionalism, and your efforts to "reach across the table" to democrats while in almost the same breath talking of promoting the republican agenda, and finally your remark that President Obama acts more like a king than a president. These remarks may have fooled many people into supporting, or continuing to support you, but I for one will not support you as senator unless I see a fundamental change in the way you approach the political process of the United States of America.

My first question to you, Senator Lee, is this: how exactly do you expect to decrease the size of government and as a result decrease government spending? I am really quite curious as to how you plan to go about this. I hear this complaint from hard core conservatives all the time, and yet I hear no suggestions for how it should be done. The only way I see that this could be done is to cancel government funded projects like the construction on the I-15 corridor, the construction at the Museum of Natural History, etc, or even the new project that your new conservative compatriot, Orrin Hatch, endorses: the military contract to build the new private sector office buildings in northern Utah. These are government funded projects that cost billions of dollars. But we could do without them, right? I think not. Both the I-15 corridor and the increased funding for the Museum of Natural History directly affect my family. I have one brother in law who works on the I-15 corridor and another who works on the museum project. The museum project is especially important because it means when the contractor who has hired his crew needs them to work, he doesn't have to leave his wife and three girls and travel to Montana or New Mexico for odd jobs. Since you so desperately want to achieve this goal, perhaps we could cut funding for social security, medicare, welfare, and the other social services the U.S. is fortunate enough to be able to provide its citizens. Never mind the elderly who depend on medicare to pay for medication or other medical services. Never mind the widows whose husbands are deceased and who, with no education and no job training, are expected to provide for their children working minimum wage jobs. They are free loaders anyway... Actually, no. My grandfather worked as a teacher for 20 years, and now depends on medicare so he can afford the increasing amount of medical care he requires as a result of the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps we could cut funding to educational institutions like elementary schools and high schools. With decreased funding and lower teacher salaries we could decrease the national deficit. Then, as literacy rates decrease along with college enrollment rates, we could cut funding to public universities and save even more money. I hope you can see the utter folly of this route. I have seen the effects decreased funding to public universities produces. The University of Utah, for one, was forced to cut the admissible number of first year medical students from over 100 to less than 90. With the projected increased need for physicians America will experience in the next few years and the already admitted shortage of physicians we now see, this lack of dedication to principles of education has immediate and detrimental effects. Will we cut funding to the FDA, the NSF, the EPA, the BLM, and the myriad of other government institutions that play a crucial role in our society? I hope not. We need these institutions to protect our way of life and to improve it as well. Finally, the government spending is not as completely out of control as you assert. As of 2009, the gross deficit was just under $12 trillion (whitehouse.gov). In comparison, The GDP was just over $14 trillion (bea.gov) for the year of 2009. In 2009, the government spent approximately $1.6 trillion more than the GDP, which is 11% of the GDP by my calculations. According to usgovernmentspending.com, in 1943 the federal government reached 28% of the GDP that year in deficit spending. Following the initial prosperity of the post WWII years, this figure has been around 3% (at the end of Clinton's administration we actually saw a couple surplus years). The years where the economy did not do as well this percentage was higher. While it has not been as high as it is now in the last 55 years, the trend has stayed the same: in years where the economy did well the figure was low, and in years where the economy did worse (relatively) the figure was higher. My point is that things are not as bad as the apocalyptic preachers of the right wing have made it out to be. 11% is not 28 %. We are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. We need to work to improve the economy and then government spending will take care of itself. Please stop using fear-based rhetoric to further your political goals. Instead, be pragmatic in your approach and speech.

In response to your statement that we need to return to the period of U.S. exceptionalism, I state that there never was a such a period. That idea of U.S. exceptionalism is rooted in the doctrine of Imperialism. Following the age of exploration, European powers established economic ties to various regions of the world, and this led in many cases to the formation of colonies and political systems of rule by the foreign Europeans over native peoples. This occurred for the most part in Africa and Asia (I leave the Americas out of this because we were an independent nation by the time the U.S. "Exceptionalist" critique of imperialism became prominent). European powers became like the great empires of old: the Roman, the Persian, the Ethiopian, the Mongol, etc. The U.S. was left out of this game until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when we liberated Cuba from the Spanish and told the Europeans to stay out of the western hemisphere (the Monroe Doctrine) and took the Philippines away as well. U.S. occupation of the Philippines falls under the category of imperialism, not to mention our conquest of Hawaii or even of the entire United States as we know it, which were first "colonized" by settlers and then conquered by the U.S. when those settlers directly or indirectly infringed on the Native American way of life. We in America are buoyed by a lofty set of ideals, but in reality, we are guilty of the same crimes as the Europeans of old were, sometimes to a greater degree. We may have had more "noble" intentions (at least we assume so, ideologically) like the spreading of democracy, civilization, etc., but mostly we were motivated by economic gain. In the end, the result was the same as many of the European powers: we denied the Filipinos the right to self government until the situation got out of control and we had to give in, and we left Native Americans unable to support themselves and diminished their sovereignty until they were but a shadow of what they once were. But, as the "Exceptionalists" argued, because we were somehow an exception from the trend of imperialism none of this is actually applies to the U.S. This is a blatant lie. Senator Lee, exceptionalism is a myth that has been debunked time and again by reputable historians and I urge you to stop perpetuating these lies.

The final two points I wish to discuss are related. You talked about your effort to "reach across the table" to democrats and work together, and then within five minutes you implied that President Obama was acting more like a king than a president, and then you continued on to denounce "Obamacare" and instead promoted what to me was the ominous sounding "republican agenda." Senator Lee, I am a democrat. I am more liberal than conservative. However, I see the need for compromise and I denounce you for using such charged rhetoric and such politically inflammatory statements as those previously mentioned. If you truly want to facilitate cooperation in Washington and here at home in Utah, you need to work on not alienating the other large part of the population that does not agree with your views. Promote unity, not fear. And in defense of President Obama, he is much more accountable for his actions that the previous two presidents, one a democrat, the other a republican. President Clinton made a mockery of our justice system when he most obviously was guilty of plagiarism during his impeachment, and while it can be debated whether his personal affairs (in this case sexual) affect his ability to preside over this country, yet he did not act accountable for his actions. Neither did the former President George W. Bush. He justified the war in Iraq by falsifying reports about weapons of mass destruction, ran prisons for terrorists like torture chambers that spit in the face of American ideals, and helped push through congress the Patriot Act, which at the most fundamental level allows the government to deny citizens of rights guaranteed them under the constitution. Obama has, with the help of congress, passed a bailout bill following Keynsian economic principles, as well as a bill that aims at improving the health care situation in the U.S. We can debate the merits and mistakes of both these bills but the fact is, Obama is acting more like the leader of one of the greatest democratic nations in the world than his two predecessors. Your talk of Obama as king, and then referring to the health care bill as "Obamacare" is low class and solves nothing. It may help you to win elections in predominantly conservative states, but it will not solve the monolithic problems that face our nation, nor will it earn you the respect of your constituents across the political spectrum.

I therefore urge you to cease your propaganda, your historically false, and your otherwise inflammatory speech and focus more on understanding the issues, as well as the many possible solutions to the problems we face. The republican way is not the only way to improve our nation, neither is the democrat way. There must be compromise and unity for progress. There must be freedom. Please remember this as you serve in the U.S. senate and you will earn the respect of your constituents. Until then you will only serve as a hindrance to the progress of this nation.

first comment...

My name is Todd. I am graduating with a bachelor's degree in History from the University of Utah this December. My goal is not to be preachy, but I have learned a few things about how the world actually works in my studies, and surprisingly enough, it is not quite the way that the ideologues of our day make it seem. Many people lack a strong grasp on history and while I do not claim to be an expert, I do claim to be a student. To me, this means that I work toward understanding the past and how it influences and informs the present. This said, I recognize that academia's understanding and perception of the past constantly changes as new information and new interpretations add to the collective body of knowledge. I welcome this. When you build on an understanding of the past, you can make informed decisions in the present.

I don't mean to be philosophical or delve deep into the motivations behind the study of history, I merely want to make a point. Many of the people in power fill our heads with rhetoric and messages in order to inspire or shape our perceptions to support their decisions. This is not inherently a bad thing. Good leaders have done this since time immemorial. However, when leaders or people in positions of power fill our heads with messages based on myths or incorrect perceptions of history, they blow up our society like a balloon that could pop whenever someone with some truth comes along. I want the balloon of our society to pop before it gets too big that it pops on its own. In the words of John Lennon, "gimme some Truth." We need to make informed decisions. We need the truth.

If there is one thing I have learned from my study of history it is that life is ambiguous. No one and nothing is as good or as perfect as ideology, myth, legend, etc. would make them out to be. No one. History is full of contradictory figures who we consider heroes and who did their best in life according to their own understandings and perceptions. Few people are ahead of their times. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can move on and get over our disappointment.

I apologize that this has been all over the place, but I would like to end with a disclaimer. I am not promoting a "liberal" agenda, nor am I promoting a "conservative" agenda. I am promoting the truth.

Thanks for reading.