I'll be back
But Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said lawmakers should not encourage lawbreakers even if they disagreed with the law.
"It is irresponsible for this body to advocate that students leave school for any reason," Cox said.
He introduced a bill that would require a special school attendance audit on Monday, so that schools would not receive state aid for any student who was truant. School funding is based on attendance levels. O'Connell said the state would not grant waivers to schools that lose funding if students were absent while out protesting.
As seen on CNN, The DHS cannot take care of the number of immigrants here now:
• DHS is not doing the security screening on large numbers of aliens who are being given work permits, residence, and citizenship;
• Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, the DHS still has no idea whether many immigrants are members of organized crime syndicates, are on terrorist watch lists, or have lived sordid lives of crime or other anti-social behavior;
• These immigrant applicants just get waived through the line without full screening. At DHS, granting as many immigration benefits as fast as possible is nearly always the priority over providing for the physical security of American citizens;
• Not only is it virtually impossible for well-meaning DHS employees to provide for our physical security, but many DHS employees are intentionally endangering our lives. There are close to 500 pending complaints of criminal misconduct against DHS employees who are accused of espionage and acceptance of bribes, and even of helping suspected terrorists get permission to live here! Unfortunately, these cases are not being aggressively pursued because the agency's leadership refuses to provide the personnel or resources necessary to investigate them. On top of all that, employees with allegations pending often continue to hold great power over who enters the country.
How is the addition of more immigrants in the stream going to be handled? It will be a disaster.
April 20, 2006
Mr. Craig C
Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.
I appreciate knowing your views on the need to reform our immigration
laws. As you may know, the Senate's effort to pass comprehensive
immigration reform legislation recently collapsed, and it is unclear when
or if the Senate will return to consideration of immigration reform
legislation this year. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate appears
to have missed an historic opportunity to pass strong, comprehensive
immigration legislation today that would help bring millions of
undocumented immigrants out of the shadows, and that would help secure our
borders and enforce our laws. Instead, the Senate majority party has
chosen to play politics by blocking efforts to end debate and pass a
strong, bipartisan compromise immigration bill.
Clearly the federal government has a responsibility to address the
flow of illegal immigration across our borders. Immigration reform is a
national security issue. The federal government needs to know who is
living in our country and who is crossing our borders. For this reason,
we need to bring the approximately 11 to 12 million undocumented
immigrants out of the shadows so that we can conduct background checks and
have records of who is in our country.
I continue to believe that we need three components as part of
comprehensive immigration reform. One, we need tough, consistent
protection of our borders and effective enforcement of reformed
immigration laws. Two, we need to enforce sanctions against employers who
hire immigrants unauthorized to work. And, three, we need a
temporary-worker program, with documentation, that gives immigrants a
reasonable path to earned legalization by paying fines, learning English,
and paying back taxes.
I also hope that the Senate will include two important bipartisan
measures in any final immigration reform package; the AgJobs bill and the
DREAM Act. Senator Larry Craig's AgJobs bill provides for a stable and
legal agricultural workforce. The DREAM Act would allow qualified
undocumented students to be eligible for in-state tuition provided they
have graduated from high-school in the state and are pursuing legal
status, among other strict requirements.
Last December, the House of Representatives passed a immigration
reform bill that calls for criminalizing undocumented immigrants; rounding
up the 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants for deportation; and
charging with crimes anyone who might help them, including clergy and
church members. It is simply unrealistic to think that it is possible for
the federal government to round up millions of people and deport them.
One independent analysis concluded that it would cost over $140 billion to
deport these individuals and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
doing so would bring our economy to a screeching halt. This bill is too
punitive and doesn't address the underlying issues driving the influx of
undocumented workers in the United States.
It is long past due that we institute reforms to address our broken
immigration system. I am hopeful, that after the Easter recess, the
Senate will once again address this issue so we can pass a just and fair
immigration reform package - one that is true to our values and tradition.
I will continue to work to support bipartisan and workable immigration
policies that will reunite families, protect the rights of American
workers, and honor the values of the United States of America as a nation
Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don't hesitate to
let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.
United States Senator
Please do not reply to this email. To contact me, please log on to my
website at http://harkin.senate.gov/.
Hello Senator, thanx for your email about your feelings on immigration. Unfortunately, all you said in the email simply confirms what I already said to you before. The "failed" legislation you talk about is not what the American people want or need. Any program that legitimizes those who have violated our laws by infitrating across the border is unacceptable. The bill would not only give all of those illegals an opportunity to eventually become citizens (break the law, get on board), it also encourages further illegal entries by the next wave of infiltrators. In 1986, when then president Reagan authorized a "one time" amnesty, we in the know were all over it. I am a long time Conservative, voting Republican most of the time. But even back then I predicted (correctly) that the amnesty would encourage others to come. And did they come! The lack of prosecution of employers over the years has been the primary reason the Mexicans know they will find work here in the US. If we beef up those laws (make it a felony to hire an illegal) and prosecute the violaters rigorously, the illegals already here will find it very hard to live here. We cannot allow them to stay. They will slowly begin to go back, because they will be starving for lack of work. That's right, no government programs can be allowed to favor the illegals. No hospitals, no schools, no welfare. They will round themselves up. Force the Mexican government to take care of their own. And bill the Mexican government for each and every illegal who is apprehended and deported.
It's time to end the anarchy. Your election is when?
The Bush administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Sen. Harry Reid.
"We don't have the resources to do it" because of the ongoing war in Iraq," he said.
Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
Will we learn from our mistakes and apply tough diplomacy -- or rely once again on the failed doctrine of preemption?
By Dianne Feinstein, DIANNE FEINSTEIN is California's senior U.S. senator.
April 15, 2006
TEHRAN THIS WEEK claimed that it had enriched uranium, a first step toward nuclear weapons capability. The question now is whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or will it set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?
No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.
Instead, the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.
The doctrine of preemption, first articulated by President Bush at West Point in June 2002, was spelled out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy: "The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves."
Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S. may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.
First, it demands that our intelligence be right — every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.
Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general — especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.
Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.
The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.
There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.
As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.
This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.
There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of conventional options.
So what steps should the United States be taking?
The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.
We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.
At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation."