Government, You Are Disappointing Me

I'm pretty disappointed that the House passed H.R. 10. Majority Whip Roy Blunt noted that it "passed by a strong, bipartisan majority of 282 to 134". I find it interesting that in this particular case, 96% of Republicans voted against our civil liberties, as opposed to 36% of Democrats (I was also surprised to note that we have an Independent representative, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has the distinct honor of being the longest-serving Independent representative. You go, Mr. Sanders.) Now, one might take that statement as an indictment of the Republican branch of government, which it certainly is. One might also take it as praise for the Democrats, which it is not. I think one of the biggest problems in our government today is the overwhelmingly bipartisan system.

Those of you who know me - and if you don't, why are you reading this? - know that I am not particularly outspoken on matters of politics. Indeed, I'm really not that politically active or knowledgeable. Lately, I've been trying to change that, at least insofar as the lack of knowledge goes...and I've run into a problem: I just don't trust any of these sources to tell me the truth. The political candidates and incumbents themselves, I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw a small house, but really, I don't think I trust the media either. If anyone has any reliable sources of information, I'd love to hear them. Lately, I've taken to reading the Guardian, but I don't really know whether it's unbiased or not.

Anyway, as I may have mentioned, I wrote my district's Congressman, Todd Akin, a few weeks ago regarding my concerns with the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (i.e. H.R. 10). Imagine my surprise when I got a reply. Granted, it was just "from the Office of" Todd Akin, but still, I thought to myself, "Neat, someone there actually read my email and took the time to reply." Whoops, no. My original email, which was sent through a form so can only be paraphrased at this point, was something like this:

Honorable Todd Akin,

It has come to my attention that the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (H.R. 10) contains a number of sections which severely curtail civil liberties for Americans, both citizen and noncitizen alike.

Of primary concern to me are Section 3032(a), which imbues the office of the Secretary of Homeland Security with the power to deport aliens to countries where they will be tortured or imprisoned, and Section 3032(b), which removes any and all court jurisdiction over such proceedings, essentially granting autonomous power to a section of our government.

[Blah, blah, blah, due process, human rights.]

I would like you to consider voting against H.R. 10 until such time as these valid concerns have been addressed.

Mind you, at the time, I wasn't even aware of the section which creates a standardized national ID card, by which a great deal of your information and activities can be tracked electronically.

The reply I received was:

I disagree. In fact, I strongly support the provisions of HR 10 dealing with border security and travel documents. I find it hard to believe in this age of terrorism Americans would, among other things, be opposed to establishing standards for identification required of aliens; dramatically increasing the number of Border Patrol agents; expediting removal of aliens that enter the United States illegally; and improve security for driver's licenses and personal identification.

Could I just say, what the motherfuck? Seriously, thank you, office of Congressman Todd Akin, for the courtesy of a reply, but let's examine this.

DO:

Disagree with me if that's what your party says you should do. I can take it.

Provide me with reasons why you find my request unfeasible.

Provide me with avenues to get more information.

DO NOT:

Imply that I am somehow un-American for questioning a piece of legislation, when in fact, I would be remiss in my duty as an American if I did not.

Attempt to scare me with that tired old "THERE ARE TERRORISTS UNDER THE BED" crap. I know there are terrorists out there. Christ, you guys have nailed that one home, okay? I'm getting to be more afraid of our government at this point.

Treat your constituents like idiots! I have seen this everywhere I have seen a pro-summary of this bill presented. Detailing a few innocuous "common-sense" portions of the act does nothing to alleviate the concerns I actually brought up. Either address what I said personally, create enough of a variety in your canned responses that it fits my letter, or just leave off entirely.

I wrote up this reply...

Thank you, office of Congressman Todd Akin, for taking the time to reply. It is appreciated, and I'm sure you are extremely busy.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what part of my original correspondance you disagree with, as it gave no indication that I am opposed to any of the points you "find it hard to believe" that I would be opposed to. I have read the bill as proposed, and I'm all for increased security, so long as the methods used to obtain it are virtuous in their own right. However, the points you have outlined below are not representative of the full impact of HR 10, nor are they unachievable without the sections I originally mentioned.

Again, the points that concern me the most are:

Sec. 3032(a)(3), which states that an applicant must "establish by clear and convincing evidence" that he or she will be tortured if deported/removed.

I'm sure you can imagine how difficult "clear and convincing evidence" might be to come up with under a great many circumstances, especially if applied retroactively to someone who has been here for several years, as is provided for in the bill. Regardless of whether someone entrusted with this power can be trusted not to abuse it, I firmly believe that the world's perception of such a passage will be extremely negative, and a negative view of America certainly does not help Americans.

Sec. 3032(b), which states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section".

I must be misreading that passage, because it sounds like it gives autonomous power to the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement whatever laws he or she sees fit, so long as they marginally support any part of Section 3032. I would find that notion as least as unsettling as terrorism. I'm probably missing something. We wouldn't give one person that much power.

As I originally stated, I am in no way suggesting that we abandon the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I was and am still asking that this bill not be rushed through, until some very justified concerns are addressed. Unfortunately, that is exactly what appears to be happening.

...but the email address they used does not accept replies.

I had something non-ranty/political to say, but I've forgotten what it was, this is long enough already, and now I must leave work to go and drink. Sorry!