Brandon Gonzales, 12, has been using a cell phone since he was 10. Almost all of his friends have cell phones, too. His mom, Elizabeth Gonzales, likes knowing that he can call home at any time. "It...
Brandon Gonzales, 12, has been using a cell phone since he was 10. Almost all of his friends have cell phones, too. His mom, Elizabeth Gonzales, likes knowing that he can call home at any time. "It gives...
Warren Buffett, right, wrote in the New York Times thewealthy should have to contribute more tax dollars than they donow, especially in this tough economic time.
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.
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.
