A disservice to immigrants

While visiting with friends in California last week, I was taken aback by this ballot cover. Yes, you guessed it, I do not approve of multi-lingual official documents, especially not with something as important as voting. Before you jump to conclusions about my possible racist, bigoted, narrow-minded, etc. motives, keep in mind that as an immigrant myself I have an informed perspective an this matter from personal experience.

Before and after I immigrated to the US, yes, legally, it never occurred to me to expect anyone to speak my native language nor did I expect official government services to offer information in anything but English. After all, English is the language of America and critical to a newcomer's success in the "land of opportunity."

No citizenship act is more important that voting, but if you are not sufficiently fluent in English to understand your ballot, how could anyone possibly vote responsibly? By coddling immigrants, new and old, with services and instructions in their native language, we deprive them of the incentive to acquire critical English language skills to competite successfully in the job market and take advantage of the opportunities so many other immigrants enjoyed before them.

Defining Loyalty to America

How does a new American citizen define his loyalty to his chosen country? Should we question his loyalty based on origin or actions? How long does it take to prove loyalty? These and similar questions are brought once again to the attention of the country in the wake of the most recent terrorism attempt in Time Square by Faisal Shahzad, a newly naturalized American citizen of Pakistani origin. His act was nothing less than treason against his chosen country and a clear forfeiture of his citizenship.

Loyalty questions are entirely reasonable and will resurface with regularity during times of crisis. Our World War II experience logically led us to view Germans and Japanese with suspicion. During the Cold War we viewed with justifiable suspicion newly arrived immigrant from communist countries. After all, the Soviet Block had amply demonstrated its intentions and capabilities to launch sleeper cells for the purpose of penetrating American society and harming the country. And now during this era of continuing terrorism, we have good reasons to view Americans of Middle Eastern and south Asian origin with suspicion. America is an open society and largely welcoming to new citizens, but that is no reason to disregard reasonable caution for the sake of political correctness or misguided aversion to offending someone. The government’s primary responsibility is to defend and protect its citizens.

As a would-be American citizen, I experienced such suspicions and cautions first-hand. Upon my immigration to the US in the early 1970s I found it entirely reasonable and prudent for my adopted country to check me out and demand certain conditions in exchange for the highly sought-after and much-appreciated US citizenship. I gladly complied with the conditions of citizenship: a working knowledge of the English language, a basic understanding of civics, the promise not to become a burden to the state, and above all, loyalty to my chosen homeland. This was and still is accomplished with the oath of allegiance. The most important aspect of qualifying for naturalization as an American citizen, the oath requires the new citizen to renounce any foreign allegiances and to support and defend the constitution. This oath is quite clear and unambiguous and taken voluntarily by a new citizen.

These citizenship requirements were a small price to pay for the freedom I enjoyed, the ability to shape my own destiny, the unlimited potential I could pursue with perseverance and drive. Although lengthy, I never resented the thorough background investigations to which I was subjected before being granted a commission in the US Air Force and eventually giving me access to Top Secret intelligence information. To me it was the embodiment of limitless opportunities offered by my adopted country - a country I considered my own many years before ever setting foot on American soil.

At the core of American values is freedom of choice - we chose to live here because we identify with the American way of life. We also have the right to leave anytime we no longer feel comfortable here, unlike many other countries that lack of this option in. Not coincidentally, many of our immigrants are from just those countries. But the oath of allegiance should guide all of us -- native-born and naturalized citizens!

Improving the Human Condition

A recent AP article - Spending too much on AIDS? - cites health experts who question the wisdom of chasing boutique funding for high-profile diseases such as AIDS at the expense of addressing more basic health needs - a long-overdue re-evaluation of health-related funding approaches.

UN Secretary Ban Kimoon's declaration of 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation marks a milestone in scientific and funding focus to a more comprehensive global approach for improving human health conditions worldwide. Undoubtedly we can have significantly more impact on the lives and health of children and adults in underdeveloped regions by improving their living conditions and basic needs, rather than focusing on one disease or another.

With over a billion people worldwide estimated to lack access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, these basic health needs are far more critical than the prevention of more high-profile diseases such as AIDS. Without safe water and minimal sanitation, many of these people, especially children, will succumb to diarrhea, amoebic dysentery and other water-born illnesses long before they have a chance to contract AIDS.

It is precisely this realization that drives Rotary International's (http://www.wasrag.org/) focus on global health and hunger, with specific emphasis on safe water projects. This is not the first time Rotary has partnered with the United Nations and the World Health Organization to attack disease on a global scale - note Rotary's commendable efforts in polio eradication over the past two decades, again in partnership with UNICEF, the WHO and CDC.

Beyond debate - FISA Court ruling

Before citizens become outraged about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's recent refusal to release classified documents - let's take a deep breath and resist the media frenzy. The fact that this is about classified information should be a sufficient indicator. There are good reasons why certain national security-related information is not available to the general public, let alone potential adversaries.

The government is charged with the safety of our citizens and a potential compromise of "sources and methods" must always be a serious consideration when safeguarding intelligence information. Without these safeguards effective intelligence operations are impossible and endanger national security. Forcing the FISA court to reveal its deliberations over the intercept of terrorist communications would enable any adversary to determine how to circumvent U.S. intelligence collection. And if that is too esoteric - let's remember that preserving valuable intelligence resources funded by taxpayers is just as important. Granted, the U.S. intelligence budget, estimated near $40 billion, may not be the most significant portion of the national budget, but it is definitely relevant to the average taxpayer.

Regardless of occasional past transgressions, the U.S. intelligence community does classify sensitive information responsibly. More importantly, all of this is overseen by the two congressional watch dogs: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Since these committees consist of our elected representatives, citizens' concerns should be adequately addressed. After all, that is what representative government is all about.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, has not released classified information in the past, nor should it now - for whatever reason. Neither is the ACLU in any way entitled to classified information, however much it considers itself a self-appointed citizen watchdog. Use of classified national security and intelligence information for political gains has never been legal or even acceptable and is not so now, despite intensified attempts in recent years.

"Beyond debate!" said U.S. District Judge John Bates. I could not agree more.

The Dual-Hatted Syndrome

Haven't we learned anything from past intelligence reorganizations?

Just two years ago intelligence reform efforts created the Director of National Intelligence and finally broke up the dual responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)/Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This long-standing position raised frequent issues due to the built-in conflict of interest, managed better or worse by successive incumbents. The DNI, currently retired admiral Mike McConnell, is expected to function as the actual head of our intelligence community, independent of potential conflicts of interest or loyalties to any of the intelligence agencies - THE intelligence czar. Meanwhile the Director of the CIA should be able to focus on optimizing the heavily-criticized performance of that agency, unhampered by other responsibilities. We'll see if all this works out as intended.

Last month the Department of Defense created, and congressional oversight committees approved, another dual-hatted intelligence position begging for conflicts of interest and chain-of-command confusion: designating the under secretary of defense for intelligence, currently retired general Jim Clapper, also as the Director of Defense Intelligence within the Office of the DNI. If anything, this seems to deepen the divide between the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. It begs the question of who will actually determine tasking priorities for defense agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, etc) - the DNI or the Secretary of Defense? Based on the DoD press release announcing this new position, SecDef Bob Gates appears to envision this as an equal, not subordinate function to overall U.S. intelligence activities, supposedly directed and coordinated by the DNI. And Gates has experienced the pros and cons of a dual-hatted DCI and CIA director himself. So much for ONE intelligence Czar!

Perhaps more details will emerge soon and make this all appear more logical.

This initial perspective is based on the DoD news release of 24 May 2007 and intentionally without the benefits of any media "wisdom" on this issue.

SUV Bashing -- Enough Already!

We are all affected by rising gas prices and the current media feeding frenzy on this issue only confirms that. But could we be just a little more accurate? It has been fashionable to bash SUVs as gas-guzzling environmental fiends ever since they first became available to the public. The real issue is gas-guzzling vehicles, including trucks, vans, sedans, and SUVs. Why not refer to gas-guzzlers, instead of singling out only SUVs?

As an SUV driver, I am fed up with these ignorant tirades. Our 2002 Ford Escape actually manages 28 mpg for highway driving - hardly an "offensive" gas-guzzling performance. Since we do primarily highway and little city driving (the nearest Safeway store is 56 miles away), this vehicle serves our all-round transportation needs adequately. I use my 49 cc Honda Metropolitan scooter (105 mpg) for local errands.

Fuel efficiency statistics available from the April 2007 issue of Consumer Reports list a number of non-SUV gas-guzzlers not usually mentioned in the media (from family and luxury sedans to pick-up trucks and mini vans). Just some examples: Subaru Legacy (18 mpg), Buick Lacrosse (18 mpg), Chrysler 300 (16 mpg), Dodge Charger (17 mpg), Infinity G35 (18 mpg), Cadillac CTS (19 mpg), Audi A8 (17 mpg), BMW 745 (18 mpg), Chevrolet Montecarlo (17 mpg), Dodge Viper (15 mpg), Nissan Frontier (15 mpg), Honda Ridgeline (15 mpg), Dodge Ram (11 mpg), Kia Sedona (17 mpg, Dodge Grand Caravan (17 mpg), etc.

A thoughtful part of this debate should include holding vehicle manufacturers responsible for not applying existing fuel efficiency technologies to today's vehicles. While hybrids can serve many consumers, they are most beneficial for city drivers. More useful would be an industry-wide improvement of all vehicle fuel efficiencies. I owned a 1982 Honda 1300 FE ("fuel efficient") which achieved a respectable 50 mpg with highway driving. Clearly fuel efficiency technologies existed then and, if anything, should be even more advanced now.

Let's encourage manufacturers to apply these technologies to start producing more fuel-efficient vehicles for the good of all consumers and the country NOW!

La Migra

Recent ICE raids against illegal aliens have been reported by various media outlets, but most reporting I have seen seems to focus on the "fears" of the targeted group and sympathy for their plight. While it is human decency to feel sympathetic with the plight of other human beings, this focus is misguided.

The debate, preferably lead by the media, should be about how to enforce existing laws in a nation based on laws. It seems to have become fashionable to expect enforcement of some laws, but not others, depending on political correctness or individual preferences. As citizens in a free society we always have the option of having our elected officials change these laws. Meanwhile, it is our responsibility as citizens to obey our laws and demand of our law enforcement organizations that they be enforced, equally and uniformly.

Rather than focusing primarily on the fact that illegal aliens are subject to law enforcement, I would like to see a number of relevant issues reported on and debated as well: since many illegals affected are from Mexico, how do we convince the Mexican government to start creating a society and economy conducive to keeping its citizens happily at home, with their families? What services to tax-paying citizens, such as our seniors, are suffering as a result of services extended to those not entitled to them? How are local governments' budgets affected by the presence of illegals? And can we really afford not to enforce our laws against illegal immigration in this era of budget constraints?

A related argument occasionally debated in this context is the issue of cultural identity and language. As a LEGAL immigrant I feel particularly strongly about this. There should be no question that someone choosing to come to the USA should be prepared to become functional in the language of the country. Being competent in English is one of the prerequisites for success in a capitalist society; without good English skills an immigrant will never be competitive in the job market. This is a reality and if that is not acceptable, nobody is forced to come here. And causing citizens in some states to have to function in Spanish just to be able to communicate with some public employees is unacceptable.

Same goes for cultural identity. This country does not force anyone to abandon their cultural heritage, but rightly expects its immigrants to become part of society, rather than remaining separate, and in some cases, hostile. Again, if that is not acceptable, nobody is forced to come here.

click on image above for more info