Finally, after agonizing procedural wrangling that is only a preface to even more agonizing floor debate, the House in the next several days will take up the immigration issue.
But the truth is that debates about immigration are even older than the United States itself, built as it was by 17th-century Colonial immigrants who, when they landed on these shores, encountered Native Americans who were likely the original immigrants.
From the earliest debates on the issue, the character and content of the American immigration discussion has changed little. Many want to come in; some want to keep them out. They refresh American culture; they alter American culture. They are the engine of economic growth; they are the enemy of the worker.
Pulitzer Prizes have been won on the immigration issue (Oscar Handlin, "The Uprooted," 1952); reputations have been soiled by immigration (Sen. Pat McCarran of Nevada, whose legislation was passed by Congress over Harry Truman's veto); a political party was formed around immigration (the Know Nothings of the mid-1850s).
Throughout all of this, what often is missed is an unusual congruence of opinion by two men with the same initials, one a Democrat now identified with the liberal wing of his party (President John F. Kennedy) and the other a Republican once considered to be on the leading edge of conservatism in his party (Rep. Jack F. Kemp).
Kemp, who represented the area around Buffalo, New York, a center of 19th-century immigration from southern and eastern Europe, worried that the Republican Party was veering from its roots and embracing immigration restrictions that could, in his words, "turn the party away from its historic belief in opportunity and jobs and growth and ... inward to a protectionist and isolationist and more xenophobic party."
Kennedy, in a small book written in 1958 as Congress was considering immigration legislation, took a similar view, arguing that:
The interaction of disparate cultures, the vehemence of the ideals that led the immigrants here, the opportunity offered by a new life, all gave America a flavor and a character that make it as unmistakable and as remarkable to people today as it was to Alexis de Tocqueville in the early part of the nineteenth century.
That book was reissued a few years ago under the title "A Nation of Immigrants," and though the 35th president was serious about protecting American borders -- one of his last acts in the White House was to propose a major overhaul of the country's immigration policies -- he also believed that much of the heroic nature of America was based on the immigrant experience:They huddled in their hard, cramped bunks, freezing when the hatches were open, stifling when they were closed ... Night and day were indistinguishable. But they were ever aware of the treacherous winds and waves, the scampering of rats and the splash of burials.
That was part of the Kemp creed as well. He argued that "immigrants are among the most hard-working and industrious of all persons who reside in this society. They are far less likely in their working years to -- despite poverty -- rely on welfare programs."
This debate has often been spurred by emotion. Kennedy was the first Catholic president (1961-1963), but not the first Catholic presidential nominee. That was Al Smith (1924); Rose Kennedy dismissed the Smith precedent because one of the New York governor's grandparents was Italian and the other German, while all four of Kennedy's grandparents were Irish. But Kennedy knew that immigration meant disruption, and he wrote this of the immigrants:
They brought with them a bewildering variety of language, dress, custom, ideology and religious belief. To many Americans already here who had grown accustomed to a common way of life, they presented a dismaying bedlam, difficult to understand and more difficult to respond to.
Kemp was an extemporaneous speaker of great ebullience who, in accepting the 1996 Republican vice-presidential nomination, said: "We are a nation of immigrants. We must close the back door of illegal immigration so that we can keep open the front door of legal immigration."
Kennedy's 1963 immigration bill would eliminate the quotas baked into American policy for decades. In an address to the convention of the American Committee on Italian Migration, he said: "We have this situation which has become nearly intolerable, where you have thousands of unused quotas in some countries while you have members of families, close members of families, in other countries who are desirous of coming to this country, who can become useful citizens, whose skills are needed, who are unable to come because of the inequity and the maldistribution of the quota numbers."
That speech was delivered on June 11, 1963. Hours later he gave a nationally televised address following the fractious admission of the first black students to the University of Alabama. In that speech he said, "Today, we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free." Two speeches on the same day, reflecting and asserting the same values.
David M. Shribman
Now that Trump has solved Northeast Asia's problems, maybe he can get to a problem in our country -- in fact, within 10 miles of the White House. For some reason, The Washington Post recently ran an article on something important -- the MS-13 gang presence at a public school on the outskirts of our nation's capital, William Wirt Middle School in Prince George's County, Maryland.
The media's usual approach to the diversity being inflicted on us is: Don't report this! It's better if no one knows. Maybe the left has decided it's too late to do anything about the transformation of our country into a Third World hellhole, and Trump couldn't stop it even if he wanted to.
The Post reported that, like many schools up and down the East Coast, MS-13 has turned Wirt into a battleground. There have been near-daily gang fights, rampant drug dealing, one reported rape, gang signs on the walls, one shooting -- more in nearby schools -- and teachers afraid to be alone with their students. At least two students are required to have security officers assigned to them, walking them from class to class and watching them during lunch hour, on account of MS-13 threatening to kill them.
How many different categories of immigrants require special law enforcement officers devoted to them? Thanks to mass Muslim immigration, the FBI has terrorist watch lists in ALL 50 STATES. That's why whenever there's a terrorist attack, the FBI says, Oh yeah, we were watching that guy. And now we have police bodyguards for kids at schools wherever "unaccompanied minors" have been dumped by our government.
In addition to the free school lunches, transportation, housing and health care to pay for all this wonderful diversity, immigrants are also massively ratcheting up law enforcement costs.
It would be enraging enough if bad things were happening to our country and the immigrants were paying for it. But we're paying for it. Wait -- you are offering to bring gang warfare, drug cartels and terrorism? We'll go top dollar for that! Put your wallet away! Your money's no good here!
Having made the odd decision to report factual information about immigration, The Washington Post was careful to include the gigantically irrelevant, painfully idiotic cliche: The "vast majority" of poor Latin Americans pouring into our country "enroll in school and stay out of trouble."
Yes, and the vast majority of boa constrictors stay out of trouble too. Let's put them in our schools! In fact, far fewer boa constrictors kill Americans each year than Latin American immigrants do. Less than one a year. And boa constrictors don't undercut you at the construction site.
We never hear that "vast majority" argument about the policies that liberals like. The "vast majority" of gun owners never shoot up a school. The "vast majority" of smokers will never get lung cancer. The "vast majority" of Americans do not benefit from Wall Street profits.
Why are we subjecting ourselves to mass immigration at all? Hey, everyone, let's all get an HIV injection! Don't worry, the vast majority of us won't get AIDS!
We're certainly not doing it to be nice to Hispanics. They've been polled and polled and polled, and it turns out they DON'T want more people being brought in to take their jobs and drive down wages. Recent immigrants probably don't want their useless brother-in-law from Chiapas sleeping on the couch either.
In the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama's Spanish language ads didn't make a peep about immigration. Instead, he bragged about giving everyone free health care. (Sidebar: Unmentioned were the millions of people who lost their health care, thanks to all that free health care for immigrants.)
Less than two years ago, Republicans watched the most anti-immigrant politician in a century be elected president, with every major institution in America against him. Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than any Republican in a generation.
The Chamber of Commerce knows that Hispanics didn't come here to have their wages driven down by an unending stream of unskilled workers just like themselves. Republicans and Democrats know it. The only people who don't know it are Americans who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by opposing the constant importation of unskilled, poverty-stricken immigrants.
The reason for this transformation of our country, our culture and our politics is to flood the market with low-wage workers and Democratic voters. Obviously, those are losing arguments, so the beneficiaries of mass Third World immigration lie. They claim that anyone who doesn't want to supply the rich with cheap labor must hate Hispanics.
Trump thought North Korea was hard? With immigration, we have all of the most influential forces in our culture on the same page. Immigration is a great unifier of the rich and powerful.
The rich are like sharks -- all appetite, no brain. With their cheap labor voting 7-3 for the Democrats, it won't be long until Democrats have a lock on government. What do you think they'll do then, Business Roundtable? Answer: Make it impossible to do business. Google "California."
With the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the Koch brothers' incessant lobbying for more and more cheap labor, we see exactly what Lenin said about the capitalists: They will sell us the rope with which to hang them.
The rich don't care. They can't think beyond next quarter's earnings.
"Ring of Fire" The Music of the Legendary Johnny Cash, now playing at the Broadway Palm is not a musical biography of Johnny Cash's life such as in the Jersey Boys. it’s not a show with a fictional story interwoven around famous songs, as in Mamma Mia, and it’s not a collection of Johnny Cash's greatest hits either. It’s more of a musical collage loosely representing accounts of his life portrayed through an almost continuous flow of songs associated with the artist, one that doesn’t tell of events in a traditional biographical sense, but as a reflection of the heart and soul of a performer considered to be among the most influential musicians of the past century. Bringing each spectator on a trip down memory lane, while being drawn in by an engaging cast who take you through 30 stellar songs (not all original Cash tunes, but all recorded by him) that are the backbone, heart and soul of the show.
The cast of Danielle Barnes, Alex Canty, Tim Capal, Dani Cohen, Andrea De Vriendt, Tim Drake, Justin Droegemueller, Allison Fund, Alexander Kosmowski, Gary Leone, Jonah M. Martin, Matt McCllure and Emily Woods (in no particular order, but as listed in program) perform and interact with each other seamlessly. In fact, one of the most impressive aspects of this performance is their versatility, they not only have fabulous voices for singing and acting but at the same time play an amazing variety of instruments, from upright bass, banjo, ukulele, mandolin, fiddle and guitars, to harmonicas, spoons and a washboard too.
This cast makes it look easy, moving and interacting with one another effectively all the while singing and playing instruments. The female vocals were outstanding and even though never directly impersonating Johnny Cash, the male cast members made sure the spirit of the man in black was always in attendance.
The opening of the second half is a treat as Justin slaps that Upright Bass into a crowd-pleasing, musical frenzy, teasing us as he appears to slowly wind down, only to return and deliver a little more.
The cast is at their finest doing five-part harmonies, (or was it six), in songs such as “Daddy Sang Bass,” and at other times getting the audience going in favorites as "Jackson", "Ring of Fire" and "Cocaine Blues." At those times, the whole theater is moving with the audience dancing in their seats, toe-tapping or singing along. And while adorable in her lighter moments with her fiddle and her great smile, Emily Woods particularly shines when she displays her fiddling skills in "Orange Blossom Special." With a little encouragement from the cast, the crowd was soon challenging her with "faster, faster" and she was certainly up to the task.
One of the most telling songs for me was when the whole cast joined in on "I've been everywhere " which is a great representation of Cash's love of travel and performing live around the country .
Despite the serious elements of Cash’s life presented in many of these song, most of the musical elements are upbeat and joyful, under direction from Curt Wollan and presented with fun choreography from Candice Lively.
In closing, you will not come away from this show with a huge knowledge of Johnny Cash’s life. His troubled path, his relationships, and his addictions are never explored in the way the biographical film, "Walk the Line," was able to present them. Instead, you’re left with a sense of celebration; an uplift that comes when music reaches out and succeeds in pulling you in, something every performer desires when audiences hear their work. With this "Ring of Fire" cast it happens......in abundance; you don’t simply enjoy the songs, you leave the theatre finding yourself searching Youtube to hear them again with a desire to learn more.
The Center welcomes University of Maryland’s Holly Brewer, University of Virginia School of Law’s Risa Goluboff, and University of Iowa College of Law’s Lea VanderVelde to discuss the battle over race and equality across American history, from the Founding to Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Revolution. CLE credit available. In partnership with the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Guggenheim Fellowship in Constitutional Studies.
Admission information: Free for 1787 Society Members – $10 Members, teachers & students – $18 Non-Members – $35 Members w/ CLE –$40 Non-Members with CLE. Registration is recommended for all programs. Guests can call 215-409-6700 or click here to reserve seats.
This America’s Town Hall program will be streamed live at constitutioncenter.org/live.
National Constitution Center
525 Arch Street I Philadelphia, PA I 19106
T: 215-409-6645 I C: 215-370-0387
Although the term D-Day is used routinely as military lingo for the day an operation or event will take place, for many it is also synonymous with June 6, 1944, the day the Allied powers crossed the English Channel and landed on the beaches of Normandy, France, beginning the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi control during World War II. Within three months, the northern part of France would be freed and the invasion force would be preparing to enter Germany, where they would meet up with Soviet forces moving in from the east.
With Hitler’s armies in control of most of mainland Europe, the Allies knew that a successful invasion of the continent was central to winning the war. Hitler knew this too, and was expecting an assault on northwestern Europe in the spring of 1944. He hoped to repel the Allies from the coast with a strong counterattack that would delay future invasion attempts, giving him time to throw the majority of his forces into defeating the Soviet Union in the east. Once that was accomplished, he believed an all-out victory would soon be his.
On the morning of June 5, 1944, U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe gave the go-ahead for Operation Overlord, the largest amphibious military operation in history. On his orders, 6,000 landing craft, ships and other vessels carrying 176,000 troops began to leave England for the trip to France. That night, 822 aircraft filled with parachutists headed for drop zones in Normandy. An additional 13,000 aircraft were mobilized to provide air cover and support for the invasion.
By dawn on June 6, 18,000 parachutists were already on the ground; the land invasions began at 6:30 a.m. The British and Canadians overcame light opposition to capture Gold, Juno and Sword beaches; so did the Americans at Utah Beach. The task was much tougher at Omaha beach, however, where 2,000 troops were lost and it was only through the tenacity and quick-wittedness of troops on the ground that the objective was achieved. By day’s end, 155,000 Allied troops–Americans, British and Canadians–had successfully stormed Normandy’s beaches.
For their part, the Germans suffered from confusion in the ranks and the absence of celebrated commander Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was away on leave. At first, Hitler, believing that the invasion was a feint designed to distract the Germans from a coming attack north of the Seine River, refused to release nearby divisions to join the counterattack and reinforcements had to be called from further afield, causing delays. He also hesitated in calling for armored divisions to help in the defense. In addition, the Germans were hampered by effective Allied air support, which took out many key bridges and forced the Germans to take long detours, as well as efficient Allied naval support, which helped protect advancing Allied troops.
Though it did not go off exactly as planned, as later claimed by British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery–for example, the Allies were able to land only fractions of the supplies and vehicles they had intended in France–D-Day was a decided success. By the end of June, the Allies had 850,000 men and 150,000 vehicles in Normandy and were poised to continue their march across Europe.
Normally a Florida resident is free to dispose of his or her property through a will as they see fit. But there are special rules that apply to a person's primary residence or “homestead.” The Florida Constitution actually restricts the “devise”–or transfer by will–of a homestead if the owner has a surviving spouse or minor child. Instead, Florida law directs the surviving spouse shall have a “life estate” in the homestead, and upon his or her death the property shall go to the children. Alternatively, the surviving spouse can choose to take a one-half interest in the homestead outright, with the other half divided among the children.
Florida Legislature Clarifies Law Governing Waiver of Homestead Rights
Of course, Section 732.702 of the Florida Statutes provides that a spouse can “wholly or partly” waive homestead rights at any time. Such waiver must be done in writing in the presence of two witnesses. The waiver itself may take many forms, such as a clause in a prenuptial agreement or a separate contract signed after marriage.
The Florida Legislature recently added new language, to be codified as Section 732.7025, that further clarifies the law regarding waives. This new section, which takes effect July 1, states a spouse can waive his or her constitutional homestead rights by including the following language in a deed: By executing or joining this deed, I intend to waive homestead rights that would otherwise prevent my spouse from devising the homestead property described in this deed to someone other than me.
The Legislature's amendment was prompted by recent Florida court decisions addressing the subject of whether a spouse could waive homestead rights via a deed. A state Senate report said these court cases were “very fact-specific” and did not provide a “consistently clear” picture of “when a knowing and intelligent waiver has occurred.” By adopting a clear legislative standard, the Senate said it hoped to “reduce the expense of litigation, reduce court time dedicated to resolving these legal conflicts, and reduce the chance that a waiver in a deed is made by mistake or misunderstanding.”
Need Help Understanding the Homestead Exemption?
It should also be understood the new legislation is quite limited in scope. A spouse who waives their homestead rights for purposes of inheritance does not necessarily do so in other legal contexts. For instance, Florida's homestead exemption also protects a subject property against unsecured creditor claims. The new legislation makes it clear, however, that a waiver of inheritance rights does not affect the protection of the property against creditor claims.
Keep in mind this only applies to unsecured claims. A mortgage, deed or trust, or other creditor claim secured by homestead property is still enforceable regardless of any homestead rights a spouse may possess. And the homestead exemption only applies to “devises” that take effect at the time of the owner's death. A married person can still gift or sell their house during their lifetime without spousal consent, assuming they have sole ownership rights.
If you have any questions about how the new law may affect you, or if you want to know more about Florida's homestead rules, a qualified Fort Myers estate planning attorney can help. Call the Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., at 239-333-4529 to schedule a consultation with a member of our estate planning team today.
The Battle on the Blueway 2018 will be held June 9th, on the gulf side of Fort Myers Beach, FL.
This sanctioned WPA points event will feature two distance races (7 mile, 2 mile), a kids' and Special Olympic race, a demo day, vendors displaying paddle merchandise, and great raffles: 2 YOLO Beach bikes, a new paddle board to name a few.
We contacted Mike Hammond at ‘The Great Calusa Blueway’ about the event and he told us that the event is set up as a paddle board race but all “paddle” vessels are welcome to enter, they already have single outrigger canoes entered and kayaks as well.
Registration will begin at 7:30am and the first race: The Ron Jon Pro Race, a 7 mile race, will start at 9am, followed shortly thereafter by the 2 mile race. (actually a little less than 2 miles)
The race will start at Crescent Beach Park on Fort Myers Beach and head north past the pier, paddlers will turn around near the Best Western Hotel and head back to Crescent Beach Park, with the 7 mile pro competitors doing 4 laps.
Spectators can watch anywhere along the beach between the park and the hotel but a great place to watch the whole race will be on the pier.
The awards ceremony will be held at Crescent Beach Park following the pro race.
This event is part of the Fastest in Florida which consist of 8 SUP races in the state of Florida giving points to the top 5 finishers.
One of our local paddlers is leading in points for the women. Great job Cindy Welton Gibson and good luck!
This is a safe family oriented event that will have safety crews, the Fire Dept, and life guards on hand with a festival atmosphere that brings paddling and Florida's native wildlife and Calusa heritage together. Benefiting Lee County Special Olympics.
Over the centuries, many species of animal and plant life have been introduced to our local environment, some turned out to be beneficial, some....... not so much!
From the first medieval pigs abandoned in Florida in 1521 through the invasion of the lionfish, this presentation, held at The Fort Myers Regional Library, located at 1651 Lee St, Fort Myers, FL. 33901, looks at how escaped or introduced species have impacted the indigenous flora, fauna and sealife of the Sunshine State.
The presentation will take place on June 18th from 6:30 till 8pm.
With information derived from the award-winning The Living Gulf Coast - A Nature Guide to Southwest Florida, author Charles Sobczak takes a sobering look at everything from the Burmese python to Brazilian pepper. Other invasive species included in the presentation will be Australian pines, iguanas, starlings, Tilapia and nutria. Sobczak will discuss possible solutions and warn of other, even more harmful animals, that could impact Florida in the years to come.
Charles Sobczak, a local writer, lives on Sanibel Island, Florida. His first novel, Six Mornings on Sanibel, was originally published in 1999 and is currently in its seventh printing. In 2007 Sobczak turned his attention to non-fiction and published Alligators, Sharks & Panthers: Deadly Encounters with Florida’s Top Predator-Man. The book went on to win several awards and continues to sell well in academic circles. In 2010 he published a nature guide titled, Living Sanibel – A Nature Guide to Sanibel & Captiva Islands. The book quickly became the best-selling book on Sanibel and rose to #34 in nature guide sales on Amazon.com during the winter of 2011.
Sobczak has appeared on National Book TV and has lectured on various nature topics to the Road Scholar organization, Audubon and Sierra Club groups. In early 2017 he became a featured speaker on board the Celebrity Equinox. Excerpts from his books have appeared in multiple local publications.
His second nature guide, The Living Gulf Coast – A Nature Guide to Southwest Florida, won the Gold Medal Presidents Award for the best work of Adult non-fiction, 2011, by the Florida Publisher’s Association.
The book covers all the birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians living within the six county region as well as 161 parks, preserves and eco-destinations where residents and visitors can discover these birds and animals in the wild.
This is a must attend event for locals that are concerned with invading species of yesterday, potential harmful invaders we are currently dealing with and those we need to be concerned about for tomorrow!
Two former National Football League cheerleaders who have filed discrimination complaints against the league have offered to settle their claims. They don't want a lot of money or even an admission of guilt. All they are asking for is the chance to sit down for a four-hour meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. It's hard to see how the league could turn down the offer -- unless, of course, it's not really serious when it says its commitment to a fair and respectful work environment includes the women who cheer on the sidelines.
A settlement proposal crafted by the lawyer representing former New Orleans Saints cheerleader Bailey Davis and former Miami Dolphins cheerleader Kristan Ware offers to settle all their claims for just $1 each if Goodell agrees to meet them in "good faith." The purpose of the meeting, which would include two other yet-to-be selected cheerleaders, would be to negotiate leaguewide reforms of the outdated rules and regulations affecting cheerleaders. Implementation of change, though, would not be a condition. "I understand that they could meet with us, patronize us and do nothing in the end," the women's attorney, Sara Blackwell, told the New York Times. "But it's a risk we're willing to take to try to have real change."
Complaints filed by Davis with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Ware with the Florida Commission on Human Relations contend that the NFL maintains different standards for its male employees and its female ones. The cases -- notably that of Davis, who was fired after posting a photograph of herself in a lace bodysuit on her private Instagram account -- have brought new attention to the treatment of cheerleaders. A series of reports by the Times has detailed the indignities they face, including extremely low pay, long hours and sexual harassment -- sometimes physical -- from fans.
Most appalling was the account of some cheerleaders for the Washington football team of a 2013 trip to Costa Rica for a calendar photo shoot. They said they were posed topless or in body paint in front of an all-male audience of team sponsors and stadium suite holders. Some said they were later required to accompany sponsors to a nightclub. The director of the cheerleading squad disputed much of the account, and a statement from the team touted the program as "one of the NFL's premier teams in participation, professionalism and community service."
Whether sideline cheerleading featuring attractive women in provocative attire is integral to the enjoyment of football or a sexist relic of the past is a matter for debate. Six NFL teams do not have cheerleading squads, some for philosophical reasons and one to avoid the impact of a class-action lawsuit over pay. What shouldn't be an issue is that the women who choose to do this work shouldn't be treated like second-class citizens or -- as Washington cheerleaders alleged to the Times -- sexually exploited. That Davis and Ware are willing to forgo any claim to monetary awards to tell their stories in the hope of bringing about change should convince Goodell that, at the very least, he needs to listen.