Immigration Process Needs to be Fixed

In Two Countries, One Border, and Too Many Problems, Alyssa Wilkins discuss a very controversial topic that has dominated politics for years and is being highlighted in the 2016 Presidential Race.  Immigration causes such a mix of reactions and emotions, which lead to more issues being called into question.  Illegal immigration is a problem, more so in border states such as Texas, that will affect the entire Nation.  As Wilkins states, “many politicians agree but are too reluctant to speak up” about illegal immigration because of how it will affect their ratings and chances of being elected whether it is for president, governor, and some other political position. 

Wilkins present several arguments for why illegal immigration needs to be stopped, including “hurting our economy [and] bringing danger to our society.”  She also points to two things that upset Americans, especially those citizens of border states, about illegal immigration: “illegals getting handed free or reduced items” while there is a process for receiving American citizenship.

But Wilkins fails to address the real issue, which many seem to overlook, that while there is a process for gaining citizenship that process doesn’t work and isn’t enforced.  There is little repercussions against illegal immigrants, such as deportation.  Currently in order to gain citizenship, the process can take upwards of 10 years.  Many would wonder why wait that long, even to be considered for citizenship, which isn’t guaranteed, when coming here illegally seems to have no repercussions but plenty of benefits.  This needs to be fixed because the American economy cannot be sustained without these immigrants.  The solution to illegal immigration is to fix the process and let the people who want to work and make our country a better place come in to the United States.  As legal citizens, their taxes will then contribute to supporting necessary programs. This would be easier than making a giant fence, which doesn’t actually work, or having to pour thousands of tax payers’ dollars to end up with little to no result.  By looking at other issues, such as how long and hard it is to gain citizenship, a reduction in illegal immigration might be found and hard-working and deserving people would become legal.

Business Should Contribute to Better Infrastructure

The Texas Legislature just finished its 84^th regular session on June 1^st, but before they adjourned, Texas’ elected officials passed a number of bills, not all of which will help Texas.  A week before the session ended, officials passed a tax cut for the business margin tax, which results in an estimated $2.54 billion reduction in tax revenue from businesses.  This bill, House Bill 2, seems to hold many advantages for businesses including reducing the franchise tax from1 percent to 0.75 percent.  The money that will be lost, however, would have gone a long way to help fix a much more pressing problem that is not only a problem in Texas but is a problem for all of the United States.  Transportation infrastructure, roads and bridges, is failing each and every day.  However, the funds to fix the problem don’t exist.  The Texas legislature announced that they had a solution, one that the voters would have to approve, which would dedicate a portion of sales tax on vehicles bought and give more sales-tax revenue to the highway fund.  These constitutional amendments would bring in $2.5 billion; however, there is no proof that the public would be willing to support such amendments. 

Texas’s roads currently have a grade of a D and that will continue to decrease if nothing is done to improve their quality.  Infrastructure plays a major role in everyday life and is something that businesses rely on in order to ship and receive products as well as bring in business.  Businesses can’t operate without good infrastructure; however, not enough is being done to improve the quality of Texas’s infrastructure.  Since businesses are so reliant on infrastructure to operate and make a profit, they should be required to make significant contributions to the highway funds to fix this problem.  While $2.5 billion isn’t nearly enough, whether it is coming from the public or businesses, the combined total of the two groups that depend on infrastructure would help to make some drastic improvements.  The public is more likely to support the amendments if they saw that business was also contributing to solve the problem instead of enjoying their tax cuts.

Rather than placing the responsibility of funding the highway funds on solely one group, while there are others groups who are just as reliant on the roads and bridges, the Texas Legislature needs to take another look at what the tax cuts will accomplish.  Our elected officials need to find a solution that doesn’t just help one group, but rather the state as a whole.  The problems facing the state in coming years, such as the failing infrastructure, do not rest purely on one portion of Texas society or another but rather on everyone.  The recent tax cuts for businesses may help businesses for the moment; however, putting the needed infrastructure fixes off to another day will just cause everyone to pay even more than they would today to fix this problem.

Confederates on State Grounds

R.G. Ratcliffe, a writer for Texas Monthly Burka Blog, published a post discussing the Confederate statues on the capitol grounds.  Ratcliffe has been writing posts for the Burka Blog since 2011 and has covered a range of topics such as Texas politics, the 82^nd Legislature, and political scandals.  In his most recent post, “Dead Confederates at the Capitol”, Ratcliffe discusses the history and purpose of the Confederate statues on state grounds and targets the general public, especially those who feel strongly about whether the statues should be allowed to remain.

Ratcliffe begins with a short history of how and why these Confederate statues came to reside on the state capitol grounds.  On April 16, 1903, a statue to honor the Confederate war dead was dedicated in a ceremony attended Texans from all over the state.  This monument to honor the dead was a gift to the state from the Camp John B. Hood a division of the United Confederate Veterans.  During a reception following the dedication, former Confederate Postmaster John H. Reagan spoke of how the Confederates “were neither traitors nor rebels, but had been forced to vindicate themselves when the majority in the national Government trampled over their constitutional rights.”  Several days later, Reagan spoke again reporting that “slavery was the occasion but it was not strictly true to say that it was the cause of the war” but rather was caused by sectional jealousy, greed of gain, and lust of political power.  But Ratcliffe then points out that the Texas secession law specifically mentioned the servitude of African Americans.

Ratcliffe questioned whether these Confederate monuments are meant to honor Texans who fought in the Civil War or if they are really a homage to the Confederacy.  In an effort to answer himself, Ratcliffe asks his readers to look at who headed the committee that created the monument, which included former Governor Frank R. Lubbock and Postmaster, who both supported Confederate President Jefferson Davis.  Words inscribed on the monument, which includes “Died for State Rights Guaranteed under the Constitution,” and a listing the number of causalities also provide some insight.

Ratcliffe reflects back on his own experience with the Confederate monument when he first came to work at the state capital.  Ratcliffe mentions how his first impression of the monument was that it is a guise of honoring the Texans who fought in the war and was rather a tribute the Confederacy and its ideas.  With recent events involving Confederate memorials, questions have been raised and people are demanding something be done, whether it be the removal of the statues on state grounds or the continued existence of where they reside.  Ratcliffe offers his own suggestion for a solution: installing a new historical marker that puts the monuments into context rather than tearing down the monuments.  These monuments could be turned into a learning experience rather than being destroyed and taking a piece of history with them.  I agree that we need to preserve these monuments to remember this dark period of our past, but should add new plagues that explain why the statutes were erected and by whom.

Republican Influence on Texas Government

In Daniel Hung’s Daily Texan article, Hung is targeting the general public; however, the main intended audience is individuals on the University of Texas at Austin (UT) campus.  The article asserts that the economic success in Texas is the result of the pro-business and pro-growth policies put in place as a result of the Republican Party’s control of state government.  Daniel Hung is a second-year law student at UT who has written editorials on open-carry bills, Texas education, student tax cuts, and UT’s affirmative action policy.  Hung claims that during the times that the Republican Party has held political power in Texas, the state has prospered more than when the Democrats were in power.  Hung argues that while there is room for improvement in the state of Texas, such as public education, the improvements that the Republican Party has made in Texas should allow it to stay in power.  In his article, Hung quotes Paul Burka, the former senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, saying that “Texas has prospered under the republicans” and that the “economy has been strong, tax collections have likewise been consistently good, and the Rainy Day fund is bulging with money.”  Burka, who covered Texas politics for more than 40 years, believes that everything about the economics of Texas is good.  Hung acknowledges other arguments that the Republican Party isn’t responsible for Texas’s economic success but rather that the fact that the state is blessed with abundant natural resources, such as oil, is the real cause of that success.  These natural resources mean nothing Hung asserts, however, without pro-business policies that help develop the resource.  He contrasts the success in Texas with the level of success in California, which also has abundant resources, but little pro-business policy.  Hung argues that all of these pro-business policies have been implemented while Republicans have held power, which in the legislature has been since 2003 and the governorship for the last 20-years.  Even with all these arguments for the good that Republican leadership has caused, Hung still points to improvements that the party needs to make, including tax cuts for everyone, a full time legislature, and the elimination of the affirmative action in University admission.

Government Spending on School Funding

On July 14^th, the Austin American Statesman posted an article titled “Not every district gets a boost in funding” where state school funding distribution is discussed.  In Texas, an estimated $1.5 billion will be added to school funding in the next two years.  But with this additional money, some school districts, including Eanes, will receive less state funding for education in the coming 2015-2016 school year.  There are also new state mandates that will cost school districts money, such as “installing cameras in special education classrooms, changing campus signs for new gun laws, and supplying 1.5 percent more to employee’ retirement.”  While some argue there is an acceptable amount of educational funding, they question how the funds should be disbursed as well as the cost-of-education index, something that was last updated in 1990.  While there are funds available, the solution to helping Texas children may need to come from new and innovative ways rather than simply the collection of more money.  This article is worth reading because it provides information that is important for the public to know whether they have children in schools or not.  This basic information allows the public to form ideas and opinions on how taxes are used for school funding.