Liberty weeps - her lamp extinguished

The US is now separating parents and their children at the border.  AG Sessions has said that if parents want to keep their children, they shouldn't bring them across the border illegally.

Sessions does not know the law. Someone seeking asylum status MUST apply from WITHIN the country. That means they must cross the border. Most cross the border and immediately go to the immigration office to file their asylum request. THIS IS THE LEGAL PROCEDURE. 

Under US law, asylum seekers have one year in which to file their paperwork (form I-589). During that year, they are in the US unlawfully (a civil, not a criminal, offense). If they crossed the border without going through proper procedures, they have, at worst, committed a misdemeanor (which are not normally considered criminal offenses) - and since this IS the legal asylum procedure, they HAVE arguably gone through proper procedure.

From the USCIS website: (https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum)

AsylumAsylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

1. Meet the definition of refugee
2. Are already in the United States
3. Are seeking admission at a port of entry

So these people, who have already suffered victimization, and are following the legal procedure for seeking asylum, are being treated as criminals and having their children ripped from them.

Sessions implies that separation is a deterrence and punishment for the parents. That assumes they know that the US has adopted this bizarre stance, and that the asylum-seekers have a choice. These are people who can't go home, remember; that's part of the definition of being a refugee or asylum-seeker. We also know from numerous studies that such a separation traumatizes the children, and can cause permanent psychological damage. And for what? For some dubious political score?

I am ashamed of this country, There is no excuse for that.
The Statue of Liberty no longer speaks for us.
The new colossus has proven to be a bully.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus
November 2, 1883

Immigration, once again.

Immigration is once again front and center in national news. The President referred to immigrants as "animals". He then backpedaled to say he only meant gang members, but his initial comments could certainly be interpreted as applying to immigrants in general, even legal ones. [One does have to wonder what Melania thinks of his statements.] But on we go.

Time to review the legal facts about immigration:

ILLEGAL ENTRY (crossing the border without going through proper immigration), while it is a crime, is only a MISDEMEANOR, not a felony. It is on a par with public drunkenness. The charge must be proven in a court of law and not just assumed because of unlawful presence.

UNLAWFUL PRESENCE does NOT imply illegal entry. Most undocumented people entered legally but overstayed their visa. This is a civil offense, on a par with a parking ticket. It is NOT a crime, and people here unlawfully are not criminals.

The federal STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS is normally 5 years, so if someone entered more than five years ago (and did not use false citizenship papers), the charge of illegal entry is no longer applicable. (Entry using fake papers increases the statute of limitations to 10 years.) Unlawful presence is an ongoing status, not an event, so the statute of limitations doesn't apply. The (non-criminal) penalty for unlawful presence is deportation.

The administration is treating a civil offense as a felony,. They seem to be ignorant of the actual law. They - especially the Attorney General - have no excuse for this; their duty is to know the law. Their misrepresentation and misapplication of the law may, itself, be a legal offense.

Since the general public is also ignorant of the actual law, the anti-immigration faction gets away with using this fear-mongering tactic to control the discussion.

We need to inform the public. Only when people know the facts, and the law, can we begin to have an intelligent discussion about revising immigration policy.

If I made the rules - Congressional pay and benefits

I have seen several posts lately expressing outrage that members of Congress get paid their salary for life.

Now, while I don't like what Congress is doing any better than the next person, this outrage is misplaced.

 Congressmen participate in FERS, the Federal Employee Retirement System. It is NOT a "free ride for life", as many would have it. But it IS an employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plan, and pensions of that sort are increasingly rare.

 The plan itself is not terribly outrageous. They are vested after 5 years, which means three 2-year terms for a Representative and one 6-year term for a Senator. If that's all they serve, then at age 62 they can receive a pension of $17,588 for six years of work. Not earth-shattering, but not trivial either.

 However, if they serve for 25 years, they can get up to about $68,000 a year. And there ARE some unique aspects to the pension. "Serving" can be in any federal job, not just serving in Congress, so it becomes easier to make those extra years. And the calculations are based on the three highest-earning jobs, not the most recent.

 Congressmen can also participate in a TSP, which is the public-sector version of a 401k. The government matches their contributions up to 5%. Again, this is not outrageous; that level of employer match is not unusual.

 They DO participate in Social Security. But because their salaries are so high, their initial benefits can be about $30k a year, and that's on top of their pension. Note that one proposal to "fixing" social security is simply to lift the cap on contributions. For 2017, the cap is $127,200; the current salary of members of Congress is $174,000. Congressmen are also allowed to earn up to $28,400.00 in "outside earned income", so raising the contribution limit to 250k would capture most of this income.

 So what can we do, to save taxpayers from the burden of these (possibly overgenerous) congressional pensions? One theory is that minimizing income and class disparities would help our elected officials identify with, and actually serve, their constituencies. We should not have a ruling class.

 We could start by adjusting their base salaries. Pay Congressmen the median salary of their constituency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the entire US, this is currently $44,564 per year. This would both put Congressmen on a level with the constituencies they represent, and reduce the ongoing financial commitment of taxpayers to pay their salary-based pensions.

If Congressmen say they need the higher salaries to do their jobs effectively - they need to maintain an appropriate house in Washington,  they need to host or go to the appropriate soirees - then those supposedly-valid expenses should be line-items in the state's budget. Let the voters decide if the expenses are warranted.

Unfortunately, this may not be much of a constraint on Congressmen, most of whom go into their jobs as millionaires anyway.

 Another possibility would be to give Congressmen the same options given to most workers today. Pension OR 401k, not both. Or, as suggested here, replace FERS with Social Security.

 To address the fear that reducing the salaries of members of Congress will make them more susceptible to bribery, I suggest that we a) make financial disclosure mandatory (ie, all elected officials must release their tax returns) and b) make such a disclosure mandatory again when they leave office or are re-elected. Let the public - their bosses - decide if any moonlighting they do has been interfering with their primary job.

Some complain that those in Congress get free Cadillac healthcare. Again, not true. Currently, Congressmen DO have to buy their healthcare on the marketplace, but in Washington DC (a district, not a State) they have options not available to their constituents. My solution would be to say they have to buy a standard plan offered on the state exchange of their state of residency. If they don't like what is offered there, they can work to get good, affordable plans offered to all.

Better yet, they could institute a national health plan, so residency doesn't dictate health care.

 So - if I made the rules...