There are millions of illegal immigrants in California.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistic there was an estimated 2.6 million illegal immigrants residing in California in 2009. In total, illegal immigrants represent about 6.8 percent of the state's population.

So, it is no wonder Assembly Bill 26, proposed by State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, died in committee this month. In fact, it was probably never really alive.

The bill, similar to that of Arizona's controversial SB 1070, would have required employers to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm the legal work status of all employees, imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers.

"Sanctuary cities," like San Francisco and Los Angeles would have also been barred under the legislation, allowing any citizen to sue his or her local government for operating as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

AB 26 would have made it a misdemeanor trespass for any illegal immigrant to be on public or private land, reinforcing federal immigration laws which already make it a crime to be in the United States illegally.

The hot-button issue of immigration almost always leads to the same place: racism.

It is virtually impossible to be in favor of enforcing current immigration laws without being labeled a racist. People simply assume that if you are against illegal immigration you must be against immigrants in general.

Katherine Sheldon, junior psychology major, agrees with that position.

"It's subconscious racism," Sheldon said. "There's an underlying tone of racism in propositions like that and the people who support them."

Bills like AB 26 and Arizona's SB 1070 are designed to uphold and enforce federal laws that are already on the books. They are not, as some might assume, simply the political desire of the right wing to stop immigrants to come into the country.

It is not racist to require people to come into the U.S. through legal means.

The United States was built on the backs of immigrants and it has always been a place that welcomes people from around the world. Immigration has created a rich and diverse society and has made our country one of the most desired places to live on the planet.

However, we are also a nation of laws. It is just like a parent who makes rules for his or her children but then allows them to be broken. If we continue to allow people to come into the country illegally, we might as well throw out the laws and open the borders.

But, as Donnelly found out, being in favor of enforcing federal immigration laws is not popular in California.

Ryan Nowshiravan, freshman biology major, likes the idea of sanctuary cities and does not believe employers should be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants in California, even if it is against federal law.

"Everybody deserves a chance," Nowshiravan said. "There should be some kind of requirement that they should be working, but that means employers have to hire them."

However, hiring undocumented workers perpetuates the cycle of illegal immigration. It creates an incentive for people to go around legal means of getting a work visa or applying for citizenship. It pushes employers into the dirty business of choosing low-wage undocumented workers over higher-paid legal employees.

Immigration will be an issue to deal with for many years to come. There are many sides with valid points to consider. But we must have open discussion about it without allowing emotion to devolve the conversation into simple name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Disagreement does not equal racism.

Kelly Walters can be reached at [email protected].

What are you willing to risk to pursue your dream?

Students studying in Japan through the California State University's Global Education program recently faced that question when a massive earthquake and tsunami ravaged the country in March. Within days of the tragedy, CSU Chancellor Charles Reed issued a memorandum closing all CSU study-abroad programs in Japan.

Jack Godwin, director of the Office of Global Education, said students were not "ordered" to leave the country. Indeed, they could have chosen to stay. But, if they did stay, they would be on their own because the program was no longer available through the university.

The university did the right thing in canceling its program.

According to Reed's memorandum, damage to infrastructure and the ensuing uncertainty of the developing situation were enough to call students home.

And if the earthquake and tsunami were not enough, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station quickly became the next emergency as it began to leak radiation after being damaged by the tsunami.

If studying abroad, I would be very reluctant to come home early. The loss of units would set my graduation deadline back. But, the loss of the experience would be devastating.

"Almost every student who comes home from a study-abroad program says it was the most important thing they ever did," Godwin said.

It would definitely be the experience of a lifetime.

But the risk of long-term health problems as a result of a nuclear catastrophe would probably convince me to come home, even if the university had not cancelled the plan.

According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, exposure to radiation may lead to an array of deadly cancers that can take years to develop. It also causes reproductive problems that last long into the future.

Studying abroad for a year may be the best thing that could happen to a student, but radiation poisoning could be the worst.

Some may say there could be educational value in staying. Working under duress in the face of tragedy teaches resiliency, it allows a person the opportunity to serve as a volunteer and, possibly, help relief efforts on the ground. A student would come home with an experience he or she would never have had in a typical study-abroad program.

While providing relief efforts to those affected by tragedy is important work, it is not the purpose of the program. Reed had to make a choice. Was it safe to allow students to stay and should the university take the risk?

Students helping in relief efforts is "an interesting question, but it's not study abroad. This is a program for studying, not a work or tourism program," Godwin said.

Study-abroad programs are not intended to be life-or-death situations, and that is why the CSU system will not allow students to go to any country on the U.S. State Department travel warning list. According to the State Department website Japan was added to the list in March.

Students had fees refunded and financial aid reconciled, Godwin said. They were also given priority registration for the fall semester, he said.

Hopefully Japan will recover quickly and be made a part of the study-abroad program again soon. Although students did not get to complete the program this semester, the experience of living through the natural disaster must have provided an educational experience like no other.

Kelly Walters can be reached at [email protected].

There is nothing authoritarian regimes hate more than ideas, because ideas lead to revolution.

Throughout history, revolutions have occurred because of shared ideas through social networks of like-minded people. For instance, Thomas Paine's little pamphlet, "Common Sense," sparked the American Revolution by providing focus to the social woes of colonial days.

Today, though, revolution can happen virtually overnight through the power of the Internet.

Sites like Facebook and Twitter are becoming the medium for democracy movements around the world.

They offer an instant way to communicate and share ideas, photos and videos. People use the sites to organize and come together for a purpose.

When people get organized they can become a powerful force.

One of the most powerful aspects of the network is the ability to have instant worldwide communication. Some of the messages, photos and videos uploaded to the network have sparked just the right amount of outrage to push a population to revolution.

In 2009, Iranian protesters were able to share links, meeting places and other information using Twitter.

In fact, Twitter was such an important tool for the protesters that according to a June 2009 article in the New York Times, the U.S. State Department requested the site not be taken down for scheduled maintenance for fear that it would disrupt the ongoing protests.

Social networking is not the cause of revolution, but it is certainly a powerful tool in the revolutionary toolbox. It allows protesters to come together, and it allows the outside world the ability to see what's going on in far-off places.

Unlike seeing conflict from the perspective of an American journalist, posts and uploads on the network represent personal voices and experiences from the people on the ground. The powerful and hard-hitting reality of unedited uploads can shock the conscience of the world, leading to quick intervention.

If social networking has the ability to spark revolution, does it also have the ability to be used as a propaganda tool by governments to shut down opposition? The potential is certainly there, but unlikely.

David Andersen, government professor, said the Internet is a "pull technology," meaning people pull specific information that is important to them and ignore what does not interest them. Propaganda only works if the message is pushed on the people through more traditional media like television, radio and even textbooks.

"Social networking is probably more likely to create cloistered communities of similar people that pass on and share non-threatening information &- at least to themselves &- between each other," Andersen said via email.

Although using social networking sites as a propaganda tool may be ineffective, governments can simply shut down the sites in order to prevent protesters and revolutionaries from using them to gain momentum.

In January the Egyptian government effectively shut down its connection to the Internet for almost a week in order to thwart protesters, according to a Wired.com article. The Associated Press reported that Libya shut down Internet access in March ahead of scheduled protests primarily aimed at cutting off information to the rest of the world.

Shutting down Internet access is a desperate and cowardly act of a regime that knows it is in trouble.

Obviously, authoritarian regimes understand the power of social networking. They know that one picture uploaded to a popular Twitter or Facebook page can spread to millions of people almost instantly, causing outrage to spark from across all corners of the world.

So, it is not surprising that the Hosni Mubarak regime in Egypt stopped its violence against protesters once video of the brutality made its way onto the Internet. Dictators and authoritarian leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to mistreat their citizens because once the world is watching, it is difficult to get away with brutality and genocide.

Dictators who choose to go ahead with violence and oppression will find that the world is less tolerant now that we can log onto the Internet and see exactly what they are doing.

Facebook and Twitter will continue to galvanize people throughout the world toward liberty and freedom. Democratic ideals will spread more easily, without government influence, but instead in an organic process that happens as a result of communication among millions of individuals.

When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook I cannot imagine he ever could have seen his program as being a tool for revolution. Posts used to be "omigod I'm shoes shopping lolololololololol," but now posts like, "Bring down the tyranny! To arms!" are leading to real action.

Revolutionaries around the world will continue to succeed in their missions to do away with the archaic governments of the past as long as enough people "Like" the pages they put up.

Maybe Zuckerberg should be nominated for the Nobel Prize.

Kelly Walters can be reached at [email protected].