IMMIGRATION!? WHAT!? WHERE!? THERE!!!

               Immigration is a major legal issue in the United States area. Unauthorized immigration is one of the hardest things to figure out. Mexico is the number one immigration problems that the U.S has had throughout the years. What’s the reason for this unauthorized immigration that is being produced?  

               We’ll there are thousands of Mexicans that cross borders with their families. They rely on people they call “Coyotes” to smuggle them in by paying them an amount of money they find reasonable for such a big job.  Mexicans travel to the U.S to look for work. Living conditions in Mexico are much worse than they ever will be in the United States. Mexicans also travel because of the rising population in Mexico. According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation “Mexico’s population projected from 100 million in the year 2000 to 135 million in 2025.” Mexico also has an almost outrageous unemployment rate. (25% unemployment.  The people who still live in Mexico survive from the money relatives send from the U.S; sometimes it’s hard to survive in an almost dry area like Mexico.

              Mexicans who often are unauthorized immigrants only come to the U.S to make money, after that they plan to make a trip back home while having everything they need

Border Patrol has really increased their agents to try and address the issue of unauthorized immigration. In cities and towns such as California, Texas, and Arizona, the border patrols have been working on stopping the unauthorized immigration from also happening in these areas. Trying to cross the border is a very stressful and mind tangling process when you are trying to smuggle and sneak your way in through others. Many people have died of exhaustion and of exposure trying to get across the border into the U.S.

             Question. Would it have been easier to just have legal access to live in the U.S instead of dying trying to smuggle your way in?

Many may wonder what the economic impact of this unauthorized immigration may have on our economy.  Let’s debate it then shall we!?

                A former commissioner of the immigration service, Lionel Castillo says

“Unauthorized immigrants create jobs and benefit the economy. He also states “Some individual workers may get hurt, but as a country, our economy is strengthened. 

The statement caught a lot of attention but where there’s an agreement, there’s a disagreement.

Mark Krikorian, Executive director of the center for immigration studies says

“Undocumented immigrants hurt both American workers and business, He also states Illegal immigration prevents innovation and causes the industry in question to lose its competitive edge in the long term.”    These arguments cause attention and cause all border patrol agents to be more aware, but people wonder what about the immigrants who mean no harm and want to really work and live in the U.S?

               Helping these immigrants would be a more reasonable solution. Depending on the economy, capturing and shipping immigrants back to their country should be a second opinion.

Taking the immigrants to get legal authorization into the U.S would be a first choice. If the immigration is indeed bringing the economy down, the employers should check the backgrounds of all Mexican immigrant workers , that way money would be saved and the economy can help and also stop unauthorized immigrations in the U.S.                                                    

Who Cares About Some Dumb Old 8th Amendment....(WE DO)

Unfortunately todays society doesn't really know a lot about the constitution and what keys the amendments hold  to our equal rights and freedom. The 8th amendment prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, but what does that mean to todays world ?
 "Does that apply to disciplining my children" 45 year old Alex Matthews asked. Punishment towards children can be a crime, but only certain types ABUSE that some people call punishment will be covered by the 8th amendment and could cause a parent or a guardian jail time.
Who really cares about this 8th amendment anyway? Well  Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate does.
In the case Hudson v. McMillian, Keith Hudson claimed that he was beaten by Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian (Prison guards),  while their supervisor, Arthur Mezo, watched.
 Hudson took the case to federal district court where the judges stated "The guards used excessive force when there was no need therefore violating the 8th amendment and was entitled to damages". 
7 votes for Hudson and 2 against was the majority opinion so you could say justice was served.
So How much do people on the street really know about the 8th amendment? 
Asking questions like these would test their legal knowledge; Do you care about the 8th amendment in the U.S?
Does the 8th amendment truly serve justice? How old do you have to be to be covered by the 8th amendment? If you were an inmate and were brutally attacked by the guards would you rely on the 8th amendment to cover you?
When asking these questions you may receive a lot of scratchy heads, but there will be some who can tell you that the rely on this law 100% if they were charged an unexplainable fine or were exposed to cruel and unusual punishment by parents, guardians, or guards.
My opinion is to stick with the 8th amendment, Cruel and unusual punishment should not be exposed, not even to criminals. 
All people deserve equal rights and also protection, thats where the 8th amendment lends a helping hand.

Should convicted murderers be executed?? (Criminal Law)

The question is still asked, even today, Should convicted murderers be executed? Many arguments have been conducted over this question but none have been fully taken into serious consideration. Depending on many of the crime situations, convicted murders only serve 12-25 to Life in prison.
Articles and continuous blogs have been discovered on this particular question. They also show the pros and cons of the death penalty, also known as capital punishment. Some people call the death penalty "Cruel and unusual", Some even say it should be abolished for good. With a good side comes a bad as well, people who oppose the previous statements say "The death penalty is the best thing that could have happened to this city and most importantly the world. I say who should really decide how to gamble with the lives of these convicted felons.
In the article of New York Times, which was published in 1895 agrees with giving the death penalty to convicted murderers.  Back then convicts had more of a chance to escape a death trial than a homeless man trying to retrieve a slice of bread.
Some people take this topic into religious matters (Example):
Steven Hayes, a 47 year old convicted  murderer is on trial for the death penalty. The charges were the murder of three minors and the mother.  Dr. William Petit Jr, father and husband of the victims was asked to stand in trial to testify for this matter.The jury sentenced Hayes to death on six counts: killing Hawke-Petit (mother) and Michaela and Hayley (daughters)  in the course of a single action; killing a child under the age of 16; also on the count of kidnapping  and the count of sexual assault.The family was tortured for 7 hours straight, while the husband had been badly beaten and unconscious.
Which brings me to the point of should convicted murderers be executed? When interviewing people on the streets I would ask these variety of questions: Should ALL convicted murderers be executed? Would you judge a murderer who committed crimes 10 or more years ago? Would the streets be safer with all murderers put behind bars? These questions may impact some people because they have family who are convicted murderers and were on the verge of being executed.
In my  personal and strongest opinion I believe convicted murderers should be punished for their crimes but I don't believe that all should be executed. When looking into a murder case, you must look for the purpose of the murder and the most important part "State of mind", but look carefully you might be executing an innocent male/female or traumatically executing a mentally retarded person.

U. S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633 |

 

Sex Crimes.

Sex crimes, also defined as an illegal sexual act, activity, or behavior are somewhat common around the United States.

Sex crimes usually emerge when there involves a young woman and an older man, or an older woman and a younger male. There is a special unit for these sorts of crimes dealing with rape and murder or just the kidnapping of a younger child called the “Sex Crimes Unit”. This unit protects and serves justice for the greater good of the young and abused. All in all, "Michigan has the third largest sex offender registry in the nation—at least it did in 2004 when there were 33,000 people. Today there are 43,964". (Quoted Wendy, Member of the law professor blogs network). Not all Sex crimes are caused by adults; some are actually caused by minors. Wendy also states, if a youth is convicted or pleads to criminal sexual assault in the first or second degree, he or she will end up on the public sex offender registry list for 25 years, or even for life. There are rates for which these crimes happen, surprisingly 22% of sex crimes are committed by traveling immigrants. Women are often charged with two types of Sex crimes, Violent (62%) and Non-violent (42%).

There are various comments made about sex offenders made on websites, posted in blogs, and publicly discussed, which brings me to an exclusive question. "Should Sex offenders have the same rights as they did before they were sentenced to prison or should they be limited to there freedom?"  

A numerous amount of people stated that  sex offender is someone who can be rehabilitated and renewed from there old ways, A sex offender is not always a sex offender, he/she is just labeled as one and should receive the same freedom as the people walking on the streets today. While on the other hand, there is the opposing side that stated some very harsh comments about what sex offenders should really receive but same equal freedom is out of the question. A blogger by the username of J Stated a rather harsh comment saying: "I think sex offenders should be castrated with a butter knife", while an Unknown blogger stated: "This system is so screwed up, put them back on the streets and their right back at it.

In my opinion I think that sex offenders should receive limited rights once released from prison. Nothing can change the fact that they are already entered in the system as a sex offender, so the outcomes can never be predicted. Some of the harsh statements were also true, once you put a sex offender out on the streets their right back to their M.O. So the limited contact they have with underage girls or underage guys will help rehabilitate the person's mind. Programs could also be a good source of help and limited time around minors under the age of 17.

If I were to interview regular everyday people on this topic I would ask: -How do you feel about former sex offenders roaming the streets freely? –Do you think a rehabilitated sex offender would go back to his/ her old actions if they had the opportunity? – Do you believe sex offenders should be chased out of their homes if there crime was committed 20 or more years ago? _If you were the Sex Offender and you were being portrayed all your life as nothing but a rapist how would you feel? Would your opinion change?

The outcome of the situation might be as harsh as some of the comments people have said before, "Sex offenders deserve nothing but a jail cell and a post card waving goodbye to their life. I believe that in the future these comments and statements can become helpful in the eyes of officials so that they may plan a way for offenders to have time to rehabilitate themselves and try to prevent them from being local targets on the streets.