In-State tuition for illegal immigrants

I responded to Josh Huston's editorial on illegal immigrants now receiving in-state tuition in the state of California.

I have to fully agree with the point of view that this is a disaster and is completely unfair to full U.S. citizens. I feel a little on the fence about the situation due to the fact that I desire for every person to have the opportunities to educate and better themselves, but when it comes to being at the cost of my education it seems incredibly less important. The only requirement is that illegal immigrants attend a California high school for 3 years and successfully graduate? What about the rest of us who have been here our entire lives working towards our future and our college careers? This reminds me of what we just finished reading about affirmative action in chapter 5 and how it can turn into reverse discrimination or how it can prevent every day citizens from achieving their goals not based on merit, but on fairness. In my opinion merit is fair and so is becoming a full U.S. citizen before you reap the benefits of our country. I would also like to point out that in going to ACC I, an American citizen, would have to pay double or triple tuition fees if I even moved out of the district...let alone the state, but an illegal immigrant can cross our borders, spend a few years here and all of a sudden they have as equal opportunity as we do. The issue of illegal immigrants receiving this benefit may not cause big issues in most undergraduate schools, but what about higher education which is more competitive and whose schools accept fewer students? The fact that there are more people added to the competition who don't even legally have the right to be here is completely unfair to those of us that were born here and expect our government to serve us first.

FDA and Four Loko

I’m sure most people have taken notice of the rapid growth in popularity of alcoholic energy drinks among younger generations recently. Drinks such as Joose, Sparks, and Tilt seem to have popped up overnight as the widespread drink of choice for college age people. I wasn’t even aware of the existence of these drinks until recently, but since then can hardly go anywhere without seeing someone holding one at a party or buying one at a convenience store. One brand of alcoholic energy drink, Four Loko, has been receiving an immense amount of negative attention as of late due to the string of deaths involved with its consumption. There is some debate over the physical effects that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can have on a person. Some debate that consuming these drinks is equivalent to drinking a cup of coffee followed with a few alcoholic beverages, but others estimate that combining these two beverages into one drink can be dangerous. Caffeine’s ability to mask the effect of alcohol can lead to people not noticing how intoxicated they actually are and the FDA is not entirely sure at what point this becomes a danger. Recent cases include young men and women entering the hospital with cardiac arrest and in some cases, dying from it. The FDA is currently investigating Four Loko, and other alcoholic energy drinks, to better understand the effects that these drinks can have. The problem existing is that they must rely on accepted scientific evidence that these beverages are harmful in order to remove them from the shelves of our local corner stores and liquor stores. I think that the fact that there are people losing their lives in connection to drinks like Four Loko should elicit some emergency act on the FDA’s part. Isn’t there some way of stopping the sale of these drinks until further investigation has been completed? I understand the long process that the FDA has on their hands, but how many more irresponsible youths with die during the wait? There has been mention of sending disclaimers to manufacturers of these products warning them of their potential danger, but in the end it is up to the manufacture not to distribute them. I think in the end distribution will continue as long as it coincides with the amount of money companies are raking in due to the high sales volume, so this small gesture will only create a dent in the availability of these drinks. In my opinion, the FDA should have more power to remove products from the market that have such a reputation for hazard even if their investigations have not been completed.  

Minors and Murder

My response to a colleague's blog was Patrick Mendez's evaluation of minors accused of murder and the penalty involved. 

I completely agree with your opinion on the inability of the courts to charge minors to the full extent for murder. Is it really true that just because you are 18 years old that you all of a sudden have the maturity level to control their behavior? I don't remember being any more of an adult at 18 than I was at 16. The question arises of what would be a proper age limit to enforce life sentencing? I don't know that their is one. I believe every case of murder should be treated individually. The law that acts as a safety blanket for anyone under the age of 18 is ludicrous. Take the case of the group of teens in Queens, NY that ordered Chinese food delivery and beat the delivery man to death just for a free meal. Does the law really expect us to believe that these kids didn’t know what they were doing when they, no doubtfully, planned this, called in the order, waited for the food to get to their house and then beat this man to death with bricks? That’s a pretty far-fetched version of a child’s impulsive behavior. We were all teenagers at one point and have made mistakes. Some of us sneak our parents car out at night or skip school. How many of us go out in the world and kill? It is my belief that any child that is capable of murder at a young age is just the huge, glaring red flag that this individual will grow up to be a deeply disturbed and dangerous adult. 

SB1070

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, better known as SB1070, was passed in April 2010 and has caused considerable debate over its implications since day one. For those of you who do not know what this act enforces it is Arizona’s new law that has put a heavy-hand on the anti-illegal immigration action in the U.S. It is already federal law that illegal immigrants register with the U.S. government and are required to have proper documentation in their possession at all times should they be questioned. Arizona’s law is now requiring that police verify every potential illegal immigrant upon containment for a crime and, if found to be in the U.S. illegally, must report them to federal immigration officials. It also makes it a state misdemeanor if a person does not have their proper documents in their possession. One of the biggest arguments Americans have against this new law is the idea of it being unconstitutional in the sense that it promotes racial profiling. How else are these officials supposed to single out potential illegals? Supporters of this law say that the law prohibits the use of race as the sole basis for investigating immigration status. I don’t know how people can make such broad statements like this with no proof to show that it’s true. Can you prove that Arizona police are not stopping every Hispanic person they see for any trivial violation they can possibly dream up? I guarantee that is what’s happening. My concern for this law is that almost all other U.S. states are seriously considering the adoption of the same type of measures. Isn’t it too soon to tell whether or not Arizona has made a huge mistake? Why not let them be the guinea pig for a little while longer until we see how this whole thing plays out? I do believe that there should be movements made towards controlling the influx of illegal immigrants in the U.S., but as far as how this should be done is a huge undertaking. I see the pros of Arizona’s law, but can also see straight through all the holes it contains as well. 

War on Drugs/Terror...Justifiable?

Glenn Greenwald's blog post discusses California's upcoming vote on Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana. Greenwald believes that the great War on Drugs is a waste of resources and has enough proof from other countries to show it. Greenwald has done extensive research on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal and wonders why America hasn't made a move in the same direction...or why we are so hesitant to. I agree with Greendwald's opinion that breeding  a "war" on drugs just creates a cyclical effect that fuels the growth of them. I have always believed that the only reason marijuana was prohibited in the first place was in order to make as much profit from it as possible by our very own government. They must and will control every resource that is produced from this land...or others for that matter. Think about how much of an economic loss it would mean to our government if marijuana were legalized. Look at the fines associated with possession of marijuana and how many people in this country are on years and years of probation on top of that. I do not condone the free use of other drugs that are actually harmful to our citizen's health and the people around them, but prohibiting marijuana is just preposterous to me. Greenwald also states his opinion that the War on Drugs is comparable to the War on Terrorism. Both of these so called wars are performed by instilling fear into the citizens of the U.S. in order to brain wash them into believing that the ridiculous propaganda that is fed them is the truth...and we will keep eating it up and voting to throw more money towards this "fight". Greenwald sums it up in a simplistic few sentences by saying

"These wars manufacture the very dangers they are ostensibly designed to combat.  Meanwhile, the industries which fight them become richer and richer.  The political officials those industries own become more and more powerful."


Glenn Greenwald is obviously speaking to the lefties on this one. I can't imagine Republican conservatives agreeing with any of his stances on these topics. He also was once a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York and has written two bestselling books analyzing the Bush administration and family legacy. His latest release, "Great American Hypocrites", was released in April of 2008.

Healthier Schools

An editorial in The New York Times discusses the reform of school lunches. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act has already been approved in Senate which provides more money to schools and sets higher standards for the food served to American children. The issue that the author is addressing is the bill that is currently stuck in the House that would provide even more money to American schools and initiate even more changes to the diets of students. The problem with the House bill is that time is running out. A move needs to be made soon in order to set it in motion. The author of this editorial believes that the chief sponsor of the House bill should make a compromise and settle for the Senate bill, at least for the time being. I completely agree with this stance. I think even a little bit of change is a step in the right direction and should be readily embraced. Childhood obesity is on the rise and has been for quite a while. While our government can't control the quality of diet that a child's parents give them they can definitely control the diet that they provide for them while they are attending school...and should. The Senate passed the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act on August 5, 2010. It now will move to be voted on in the House.

Don't Ask,Don't Tell

An article from NPR details the plight of a young U.S. soldier, Anthony Woods who was eventually fired under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the U.S. Military. This is infuriating. This young man, and many people like him, devote their entire lives to serving this country. For Anthony, it was the only thing he ever imagined doing. When I think about this individual's dreams being destroyed over plain and simple discrimination it makes my heart break. Haven't we already fought this fight in other forms such as women's rights and minority rights? When will we realize that we are just repeating our mistakes...or, at least, showing that this country is completely hypocritical when it comes to an individual's rights as a human being? How is discrimination against homosexuals any different from discrimination against African Americans? It is an innate trait that can not be helped just like the color of one's skin. I do understand the argument that DADT provides for a certain amount of protection for homosexuals in the military and supports cohesiveness, but to completely strip someone of their benefits due to their sexual orientation is not the America I want to identify with. I would like to here some of your opinions on this.