The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)

Television has shown recently several cases of illegal immigrant women claiming for their children who were given in adoption while their mothers were imprisoned or deported. After women finishing their sentences they try to recover their children, but they realized that they have lost the parental rights under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which requires states to terminate parental rights if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Is that situation right? Should be the children taken away from their mothers? In my opinion, this is a dramatic situation that should not occur because it affects the biological and adoptive mothers, but at the end, the most affected is the child.
First of all, it is important to mention that every year hundreds of women cross the U.S.-Mexico border looking for a better live for them and for their children. They leave their countries most of the time due to extreme poverty. They are able to arrive to the American territory thanks to coyotes. Once they enter into the U.S., these women and their families must pay large amount of money to these human dealers. In the case that they do not pay, their lives and their relatives’ lives are jeopardized. In order to pay that money, undocumented woman have to work intense hours without mentioning that they have to live with constant fear of being caught by the immigration authorities and being deported. There is a high probability that these ladies be caught by the authorities, and when it occur, they will be send to the prison or deported or both. When the children are separated from their mothers, they are sent to the foster care waiting for their parents to pick them up. However, according to the ASFA, parental rights can be terminated if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. After that time, the children can be given in adoption. Once undocumented mother are deported or incarcerated, they realize that after few months, they lose their children and start the process to recover them. This dramatic situation can be demonstrated through three cases: Encarnacion Bail Romero, Maria Luis and Lucia Leon. All of these are undocumented mothers who have lost their children in raids. These mothers lost their parental rights over their children while they were imprisoned and deported. The first case is the Guatemalan mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero. According to an article named, "After Losing Freedom, Some Immigrants Face Loss of Custody of Their Children," published on the New York Times, she was arrested in a raided in the poultry processing plant where she was working. She was sent to the prison. “A year and a half after she went to jail, a county court terminated Ms. Bail’s rights to her child on grounds of abandonment. Carlos, now 2, was adopted by a local couple.” The judge said, “The only certainties in the biological mother’s future,” he wrote, “is that she will remain incarcerated until next year, and that she will be deported thereafter.” Ms. Bail’s case is unfair because she did not abandon her son. Her son was carried away by the authorities. At the same as Encarnacion, Maria Luis and Lucia Leon also lost their parental rights over their children while they were imprisoned. Even though that these women are undocumented, poor and imprisoned, they should not lose their parental rights because they are mothers, and the fact that they are separated from their children is painful. Their children should be sent to the fore care homes until their mothers finish their jail sentences.
Besides the severe punishments that undocumented mothers face such as jail, deportation, losing their children, their children and adoptive families also suffer. It is not easy for adoptive families follow all the adoption process, adopt a child for a while and after lose him or her. When families adopt children, they do not expect that their children will be claimed by their biological parents. When they adopt a child, it is expected that they love and protect him or her and offering him or her basic needs such as food, housing, education, clothing among other needs. Once biological mothers begin the process to recover their children, their adoptive parents also begin a process to avoid lose them. Both families suffer because of the custody, and of course, who most suffer is the child, when he or she is separated from their parents whatever they be biological or adoptive. This process on children it also related to the age. If they are in age that they still remember their biological mother, it will be really painful for them to adapt to their adoptive families, and it will be pleasant for them to be with their biological parents again. Another scenario is when children are too little to remember their biological mothers. If they win the custody, it will be painful for the children. It is like begin the process of adaptation again which will be traumatic. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) just focuses on the physical or material needs that children have, but it does not focus on the emotional aspects of the children and families. Also, none one says how these kids will react when they grow up and understand that their biological parents did not give them away that it was the government that forced their parents to be away from their own children. Could it cause a unpatriotic feeling? Due to The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is relatively recent (1997) it is still soon to observe the social impact of the act. In brief, in order to avoid the children’s, and biological and adoptive mothers’ suffering, governments should not give in adoption kids while their parents are incarcerate or deported. The decision of giving a child in adoption should be the parents’ will.

Standing for Women!

It was very disappointing and unpleasant to find the article called, “The Incredibly Shrinking Women,” published on November 9, 2009 on the blog “In The Pink Texas.” This article, or better this poor note, talks in favor on men and against women involved in politics. The author supports his or her ideas by showing a video of a debate related to the “Unruly Republicans Disrupt Health Care debate.” In this video, Democratic women are trying to be heard, but Republicans do not allow them to talk by repeating all the time, “I object” “I object.” It is evident from the video that men are disrespecting women, but according to the author, the debate “was perfectly balanced.” In my opinion, this note does not deserve be read for several reasons related to respect for women and political contend.
First of all the article fosters the male chauvinism. The author clearly shows displeasure against women by saying, “Whenever I see a woman talking, I tune her out until a man starts speaking because I don’t want to hear about “boyfriends” and “cramps” and “does this make my butt look big.”” In addition, the authors says, “before you get all feminazi on me, I’m not saying that all women are stupid. I’m just saying that men are smarter.” After reading the article, it was really interesting for me to realize that the author of the article is a WOMAN!! Her name is Eileen Smith. Now I ask myself, how this woman can stand for men? Even worst, this lady’s pink blog has been the winner of the Austin Chronicle’s best political blog awards in 2007 and 2008. I just wish somebody tells me that I misunderstood the article because I cannot believe that this beautiful, journalist WOMAN stands against her gender.
A second reason for not reading the article is that it is poor in content. The author just states horrible feelings against women, but nothing else. What was the message? What was her purpose? It is not clear. It just stands for men’s positions. But the truth is that women are underrepresented in the political arena in the United States. Women are the largest population in the country. According to the article, “US Population Data by Age and Sex Released,” the U.S. population is conformed by 50.73%. Then, women should have a stronger political representation, and they should be respected by others, especially by men. As it is shown in the video, Republican men are very rude with women by interrupting them at all times.
In brief, the article should not be read because it fosters male chauvinism and is poor in content. The author could make the article stronger by making a deeper focus on her point of view.

Texas The Same-Sex Marriage

The United States, a country that proclaims itself as a free country and that stands for individual's freedom, is denying the right of getting married and divorced to a specific group of citizens, homosexuals. To understand the issue, it is necessary to start from the marriage definition. “The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman.” In other words, marriages of gays and lesbians are not legal. However, the process to change this definition has already begun. Today, the same -sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Recently, in Dallas, Texas a judge divorced a gay couple admitting that it was unconstitutional to deny them the right to get divorced. To many, this case opens the door for the legal recognition of homosexual couples in Texas. Although this can be considered as advancement for the gay community, there are many people who continue opposing to the issue. This opposition can be seen in the article, “One gay marriage, empathy is a two-way street” by Rood Drecher. This article was published on November 6, 2009 in the editorial section of the Dallas Morning News. It can be inferred from the article that the author opposes to the legal recognition of homosexual marriages. Should the same-sex marriage be banned in Texas? In my opinion, it should be legally recognized.

First of all, gay marriage should not be banned because it violates the Texans' equal rights and freedom. Everyone is free to choose the person with whom he or she wants to share his or her life. If a person chooses somebody of the same sex, Texas government should not interfere with this important, personal decision, and government should not deny the right to get married or divorced to this person. Mr. Dreher, in his article, “One gay marriage, empathy is a two-way street,” mentions some of the negative consequences of recognizing of gay marriage. For example, he writes, “And thoughtful traditionalists understand that legalizing same-sex marriage almost certainly would bring about serious restrictions on freedom of speech and association, particularly for churches and religious organizations. Nobody is going to force pastors to marry same-sex couples.” He points out the church's restrictions, but what about the restrictions of people's decisions? It is a direct violation of individual's freedom. Moreover, Mr. Dreher says, “Gay marriage opponents are not crazy to fear what may be done to them should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. In California, supporters of Proposition 8, which repealed same-sex marriage, have suffered vandalism, job and business loss, intimidation and harassment by activists.” Once again, the author just worries about the opponents' situation. From his statement, it can be understood that it is good to keep illegal the homosexual marriage in order of protecting opponents' integrity. Mr. Dreher mentions the potential problems that these people could face, ignoring the discrimination and abuses that homosexuals facing everyday. Although Texas is a very traditional, conservative state, fortunately significant changes are occurring that narrowed the gap of the same-sex marriage legalization. The article called, “Judge: Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional,” published in the DFW News, on October 2, 2009 talks about a judge who divorced a gay couple in Texas. The Judge Tena Callahan conceded the divorce to a homosexual couple who had gotten married in Massachusetts. According to the article, Judge Callahan said, "the state's bans on same-sex marriages violate the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law." This is a clear evidence of advancement in favor of legalization the gay marriage.

In addition, the same-sex marriages should not be banned because it ignores the rights of people as a couple. Texas law opposes to legalize homosexual marriages. However, gay couples are stable couples that live in the same as heterogeneous couple live, sharing their lives, their place and their money. Therefore gays should have the same rights as heterogeneous have. Stable homosexual couples in Texas just dream when their relationship will be socially and legally accepted, and when they will have the same rights than the rest of the tax payers. According to the article, "Legal and economic benefits of marriage" published on the Religious & Tolerance Organization, “on the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits.” In heterogeneous marriages, the partner have some legal rights such as: joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, dissolution and divorce protections such as community property, immigration and residency for partners from other countries, inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare. These are just few of the legal rights that heterogeneous spouses have. However, NONE of these rights applies to homosexual partners in Texas even though they fulfill spouses' roles. It is very embarrassing that Texas law support homophobia, but it is even ore embarrassing that governor supports this discrimination. According to an article called, “Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question,” published on The Dallas Morning News on October 2, 2009, Governor Rick Perry supports the constitutional prohibition on gay marriage saying, “"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed."” But the truth is that gay partners have the same function in a relationship as the heterogeneous spouses have; however, the Texas constitution denies all of the rights to them, which is considered as discrimination. The Texan constitution should legally protect all partners in a relationship regardless their sexual inclination.

In conclusion, the same-sex marriages and divorces should be legally recognized in Texas because there are not reasons to ban them. The only reason could be homophobia. People, especially men do not like homosexuals and they cannot accept seeing them as legal couple. As it was said before homosexuals should have the same rights to get married and get divorced as the same as heterogeneous have. Denying this right is a violation of their freedom. Also, they should have the same legal rights that heterogeneous spouses derive from their partners such as joint to insurance policies, pension plans and immigration residence for partners and property among other legal rights.

Texas Capital Punishment

Texas is the state with the highest number of people executed. Many people including citizens and organizations have tried in vain to make Texas government abolish the capital punishment. To understand this issue better, it is necessary to know what is the capital felony, in what cases it is applied and what are the methods of execution. According to the "Tarlton Law Library: Jamail Center for Legal Research," capital felony is defined as, “is one in which an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual under special circumstances.” For example, “murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty, murder during the commission of specified felonies (kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, arson), murder for remuneration, multiple murders, murder during prison escape, murder of a correctional officer, murder of a judge, murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; [or] murder of an individual under six years of age.” Among the methods used for execution are: hanging, electric chair and lethal injection. Is the death penalty a fair punishment? Well, in my opinion, the capital punishment should not exist because it has been questioned that many of the executed are innocent people.
Death penalty in Texas should be abolished to avoid executing innocent people. Few weeks ago, Texas was the center of the national news due to the execution of Cameron Todd Willinfgham. The article called “Trial by Fire,” published by The New Yorker on September 7, 2009, talks about Cameron Todd Willinfgham who was accused of set fire to his home causing the death of his three children (one baby and one toddler). The facts occurred on December 23, 1991 in Corsicana, Texas. The article gives a touching description of the events occurred on that day. It describes how desperate Mr. Willinfgham was trying to save his children, but more importantly, the article describes the process of the original investigation of the fire. The investigation was leaded by a certified arson investigator, Douglas Fogg who had more than 20 years of experience and by a deputy marshal named Manuel Vasquez, who had investigated more than 1200 fires. Base on Fogg and Vasquez's investigation, Cameron Todd Willinfgham, was executed by lethal injection on 2004. As it is explained in the next paragraph, this investigation was found to be wrong. There is no evidence that proves Mr. Willinfgham’s responsibility.
Besides of the investigations that show that Cameron Todd Willinfgham was innocent, also there are governmental actions that make people to question the execution of Mr. Willinfgham. AccTexas Capital Punishmentording to an article called, “Capital punishment: From Arson to Politics” published on October 22, 2009, the Texas governor decision of substitute the commissioner that was investigating the fire was replace. Is that a coincidence or was intentionally? To many people, the governor is trying to cover a mistake. According to the article, “investigators testified that based on the burn patterns in the house, the fire had been arson. Mr Willingham was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.” The article also mentions that Governor Rick Perry was informed by that “the 1991 investigation was based on bad science and that there was no proof of arson.” Moreover than six other investigators got the same conclusion including Craig Beyler, who had been hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC), whttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannho said that the original investigation concluded, “nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation.” In the article, it is also mentioned that Governor Perry replaced the whole body of commissioners just few days before the hiring which generated suspicion about if Mr. Perry wanted to hide something. To many people, Texas governor wanted to avoid a scandal about the state of Texas executing an innocent.
In conclusion, Texas death penalty should not exist because it has been demonstrated that innocent people can be executed such as Cameron Todd Willinfgham. This case is a clear evidence to abolish the capital punishment. Now, it is late for Mr. Willinfgham, who said before dying, “The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man—convicted of a crime I did not commit.”