This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Protect illegal students
UC vows to protect illegal alien students from deportation. Will this policy cause NNSA to bar UC from the next LANL contract ?
UC has already effectively barred itself from getting federal money from DOE labs that require citizenship and other information on foreign nationals involved with funded subcontracts. Napolitano's office is fixated on misguided principles.
As long as they are paying their own tuition (so CA tax payers aren't footing the bill) and they leave after graduating, it's probably OK. If they have criminal records kick them out immediately !
ÚC protects illegal students? How sad and disappointing? UC is teaching students to break laws, and proud of it. This country is going down hill fast. If I should break a minute law at the LLNL, I'll be escorted out of the gate immediately if no sooner. If I should break any law in Livermore, the police will be at my side in a couple of minutes and I'll be in jail. And I am a US citizen..but illegal students are protected by the UC...wow. so much for a higher learning institution.
Oh wait ! These are "dreamers". We can't kick them out. They don't know the villages/towns that they came from. And their folks and grandparents are here illegally. Sad.
This discussion is important and inevitable. In the fsr west, ee all know illegal immigrsnts. Most are fine people. Beacuse of widespead personal ties with so many, the majority of US citizens will not support mass collection and deportation. It hurts too may, both citizen and illegal.
But, we need effective, legal control of borders as well. So we can readily put the resources and public will to better control borders to acceptale levels. We can revise entry and migration requirements and quota.
Once this is underway, and we are confident of adequate border control, it is likely we will grant some sort of ti e phased general or conditional amnesty, perhaps excepting criminals, revolutionaries, and deviants.. This is a practical way of quickly regaining the rule of law.
It has been done before when the national interest is served. Carter gave it to draft dodgers in the late 80s. Lincoln pardoned Confederate army "rebels", Tax cheats get occasional respites, Ford pardoned Nixon. It is a option which has an appeal. But of course, not everyone will support it.
If the position of liberal universities on providing "sanctuary" for illegals is not reversed by next year, there is a near certainty that the schools will loose all federal support. There is a clear example in the post VietNam relationship of federal government funding at universities. Those that would not allow ROTC units to operate on campus were not eligible to apply for grant money. It took almost no time for the feds to get the policies back on track.
UC didn't think this short-sighted action all the way through before making the announcement. When it threatens to cost every faculty member all possibility of any federal support funding, let's see how long it lasts.
If the position of liberal universities on providing "sanctuary" for illegals is not reversed by next year, there is a near certainty that the schools will loose all federal support. There is a clear example in the post VietNam relationship of federal government funding at universities. Those that would not allow ROTC units to operate on campus were not eligible to apply for grant money. It took almost no time for the feds to get the policies back on track.
UC didn't think this short-sighted action all the way through before making the announcement. When it threatens to cost every faculty member all possibility of any federal support funding, let's see how long it lasts.
It only applies to the 10 UC campuses not the UC labs. Also being in this country illegally is a federal "Civil" violation and not a "Criminal" violation. As such people are not subject to arrest and jail, only administrative proceedings. I'm sure that you republican Trump types want to use the police and military to round up illegal residents and put them in WWII style internment camps out in the desert, but that is not going to happen under the US Constitution!!!
The University of California today (Nov. 30) announced that it will vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.
“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” said UC President Janet Napolitano.
The University issued its Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community after Napolitano met earlier today with UC staff coordinators who support undocumented students at all 10 UC campuses. Napolitano also reviewed the recommendations of a UC task force that she established to study the most effective ways to protect undocumented students and other undocumented members of the UC community. --
UC will not only win the contract, they will start hiring illegals for NNSA labs--why not? They get more preferential treatment than citizens. Repeal the barbaric restrictions perventing dreamers and refugees from getting Q clearances.
1:04 PM is a perfect example of the law-breaking progressive movement. December 7, 2016 at 2:18 PM
The progressive movement cares only about results, THEIR desired results, and not laws or the desires of anyone else outside their progressive echo chamber. Voices from outside the box are "extreme right wing" no matter how moderate, and lately they are also "racist" and "sexist" too. This is what pushed Trump to victory, the obnoxious self-righteous progressive left and their echo chamber view of the world.
The announcement does not say UC STUDENTS, it says UC COMMUNITY. The notice says UC will protect the privacy and civil rights of illegals who are part of the UC community. The UC community includes faculty, staff, students, and administration.
UC has a legal obligation to not employ illegal immigrants.
If UC has hired an illegal as staff, as a research assistant, teaching assistant, or faculty, there's an anonymous way to report this to ICE. If UC is intentionally doing this, Napolitano can be prosecuted.
The progressives want to pivot the conversation from illegal to undocumented. If it looks like it's illegal and smells like it's illegal, it's probably illegal - even if it's wearing a t-shirt that says undocumented.
" Also being in this country illegally is a federal "Civil" violation and not a "Criminal" violation. As such people are not subject to arrest and jail, only administrative proceedings. "
Might be true, but nothing in the US Constitution about this. Congress can easily change the immigration law, and the President is ultimately the chief law enforcement officer.
No law needs to be changed to fix this problem. The entire "dreamer" mess was created by an executive order, and that will go away on January 21, 2017. The country then returns to the rule of law, and all illegals should be rounded up and deported pronto.
Wait a minute. I'm a deplorable trumpftard, but its ok cause I'm' lovely, talented, rich, well armed, smart, yoing, humble, and people tell me I smell good.
The country then returns to the rule of law, and all illegals should be rounded up and deported pronto.
December 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Don't hold your breath. ICE will refuse Trump's orders. Only one of many such showdowns to come, It will be ugly.
December 9, 2016 at 6:13 PM
The selective enforcement of the Nation's laws is not an option under the Constitution. It either is against the law, or it is not, to be in the US without legal, documented permission.
Let's assume that you work at LLNL, and you decide that you want to selectively abide by certain laws. For example, you might determine that you do not want to follow the law related to prohibitions on removal of classified material from the Lab. You take a few hundred classified documents out of the Lab, and the police find them when they raid a drug den in a mobile home park.
We either are, or are not, a Nation that follows the rule of law. It is not up to some subset of the population to determine that laws with which they agree will be followed, and those with which they disagree are OK to flaunt and openly violate.
It is not up to some subset of the population to determine that laws with which they agree will be followed, and those with which they disagree are OK to flaunt and openly violate.
December 10, 2016 at 6:37 AM
And yet, somehow, it happens all the time. Imagine that.
It never happened in the history of the US, at least on a federal level, until the DoJ head made it a policy a few years ago. When you have the AG, as the top law enforcement official in the country, start selectively choosing what laws to enforce based on personal opinion, then the entire rule of law for the Nation becomes open to such personal choice.
Back to the point of 6:37 AM, you make a most compelling case, and one that is highly relevant to all workers in the nuclear weapons labs!
It never happened in the history of the US, at least on a federal level, until the DoJ head made it a policy a few years ago.
December 10, 2016 at 9:55 AM
Hey, Pollyanna, your lack of knowledge of US history is jaw-dropping. Corruption and ignoring the law has been happening in the federal government since there has been a federal government.
11:56 AM, please cite a documented example to support your opinion. Make sure that it is a case of the US AG going public that DoJ will selectively NOT enforce prevailing US law, because of personal opinion.
11:56 AM please provide a citation to support your opinion of some other time that a US AG went public that the DoJ was going to selectively NOT enforce prevailing US law, due to personal view.
You've apparently forgotten that your original statements which I responded to were very broad and general. Now you are asking me to provide a citation for something I never claimed. Every taken a course in rhetoric? Didn't think so.
You've apparently forgotten that your original statements which I responded to were very broad and general. Now you are asking me to provide a citation for something I never claimed. Every taken a course in rhetoric? Didn't think so.
December 10, 2016 at 8:22 PM
You are right and immigration laws are racist laws passed by those of white privilege. It took a minority AG and a minority president to see these racist laws for what they were and refuse to enforce them.
So it's ok to break the law by ignoring the law as long as you are a member of a minority group and don't like the law? The country is better off with senior officials who believe their personal views are more valid than duly passed laws? I'm guessing your answer is "yes," but only if you agree with those views. See the problem here?
History is full of examples of anti-immigrant sentiment arising whenever the citizens of a country feel that it's national identity is at risk. The Irish and German, and to some extent the Italian immigrants, were discriminated against as early as the late 1800's, and obviously not because of "white privilege." A little historical knowledge can prevent the trap of attempting to develop a dialectic and worldview based on relatively recent events.
People did not say "lets build a wall to keep the Irish out" that is just crazy. Never in the history of the United States did we decide to keep a race of people from coming to the United States and now overnight everything is changing, just like it it did in 1930's, exactly like that if you think about it. It is you my friend that need to study history and you only have to go back 75 years to see how all of this happened before, go educate yourself and read about Nazi Germany, Fascist Russia, and the Italians who followed Germany's lead and also went Fascist. The ignorance of some portions of the American populace is a disgrace.
31 comments:
Janet Napolitano had the courage to do what is right.
UC has already effectively barred itself from getting federal money from DOE labs that require citizenship and other information on foreign nationals involved with funded subcontracts. Napolitano's office is fixated on misguided principles.
As long as they are paying their own tuition (so CA tax payers aren't footing the bill) and they leave after graduating, it's probably OK. If they have criminal records kick them out immediately !
ÚC protects illegal students? How sad and disappointing? UC is teaching students to break laws, and proud of it. This country is going down hill fast. If I should break a minute law at the LLNL, I'll be escorted out of the gate immediately if no sooner. If I should break any law in Livermore, the police will be at my side in a couple of minutes and I'll be in jail. And I am a US citizen..but illegal students are protected by the UC...wow. so much for a higher learning institution.
Oh wait ! These are "dreamers". We can't kick them out. They don't know the villages/towns that they came from. And their folks and grandparents are here illegally. Sad.
This discussion is important and inevitable. In the fsr west, ee all know illegal immigrsnts. Most are fine people. Beacuse of widespead personal ties with so many, the majority of US citizens will not support mass collection and deportation. It hurts too may, both citizen and illegal.
But, we need effective, legal control of borders as well. So we can readily put the resources and public will to better control borders to acceptale levels. We can revise entry and migration requirements and quota.
Once this is underway, and we are confident of adequate border control, it is likely we will grant some sort of ti e phased general or conditional amnesty, perhaps excepting criminals, revolutionaries, and deviants.. This is a practical way of quickly regaining the rule of law.
It has been done before when the national interest is served. Carter gave it to draft dodgers in the late 80s. Lincoln pardoned Confederate army "rebels", Tax cheats get occasional respites, Ford pardoned Nixon. It is a option which has an appeal. But of course, not everyone will support it.
Meanwhile people adapt. Trouble continues.
If the position of liberal universities on providing "sanctuary" for illegals is not reversed by next year, there is a near certainty that the schools will loose all federal support. There is a clear example in the post VietNam relationship of federal government funding at universities. Those that would not allow ROTC units to operate on campus were not eligible to apply for grant money. It took almost no time for the feds to get the policies back on track.
UC didn't think this short-sighted action all the way through before making the announcement. When it threatens to cost every faculty member all possibility of any federal support funding, let's see how long it lasts.
If the position of liberal universities on providing "sanctuary" for illegals is not reversed by next year, there is a near certainty that the schools will loose all federal support. There is a clear example in the post VietNam relationship of federal government funding at universities. Those that would not allow ROTC units to operate on campus were not eligible to apply for grant money. It took almost no time for the feds to get the policies back on track.
UC didn't think this short-sighted action all the way through before making the announcement. When it threatens to cost every faculty member all possibility of any federal support funding, let's see how long it lasts.
Didn't know Big Sis to be so radical, I thought she was more moderate.
Interesting with this and our Director's latest memo about getting along at work.
Just an opinion but both sound a little like TDS?
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
It only applies to the 10 UC campuses not the UC labs. Also being in this country illegally is a federal "Civil" violation and not a "Criminal" violation. As such people are not subject to arrest and jail, only administrative proceedings. I'm sure that you republican Trump types want to use the police and military to round up illegal residents and put them in WWII style internment camps out in the desert, but that is not going to happen under the US Constitution!!!
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-releases-principles-support-uc-community-members
--
The University of California today (Nov. 30) announced that it will vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.
“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” said UC President Janet Napolitano.
The University issued its Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community after Napolitano met earlier today with UC staff coordinators who support undocumented students at all 10 UC campuses. Napolitano also reviewed the recommendations of a UC task force that she established to study the most effective ways to protect undocumented students and other undocumented members of the UC community.
--
1:04 PM is a perfect example of the law-breaking progressive movement.
UC will not only win the contract, they will start hiring illegals for NNSA labs--why not? They get more preferential treatment than citizens. Repeal the barbaric restrictions perventing dreamers and refugees from getting Q clearances.
1:04 PM is a perfect example of the law-breaking progressive movement.
December 7, 2016 at 2:18 PM
The progressive movement cares only about results, THEIR desired results, and not laws or the desires of anyone else outside their progressive echo chamber. Voices from outside the box are "extreme right wing" no matter how moderate, and lately they are also "racist" and "sexist" too. This is what pushed Trump to victory, the obnoxious self-righteous progressive left and their echo chamber view of the world.
The announcement does not say UC STUDENTS, it says UC COMMUNITY. The notice says UC will protect the privacy and civil rights of illegals who are part of the UC community. The UC community includes faculty, staff, students, and administration.
UC has a legal obligation to not employ illegal immigrants.
If UC has hired an illegal as staff, as a research assistant, teaching assistant, or faculty, there's an anonymous way to report this to ICE. If UC is intentionally doing this, Napolitano can be prosecuted.
The progressives want to pivot the conversation from illegal to undocumented. If it looks like it's illegal and smells like it's illegal, it's probably illegal - even if it's wearing a t-shirt that says undocumented.
I wonder if our Director is interested in applying this after that letter he sent out? I am only saying that I could see him go there.
" Also being in this country illegally is a federal "Civil" violation and not a "Criminal" violation. As such people are not subject to arrest and jail, only administrative proceedings. "
Might be true, but nothing in the US Constitution about this. Congress can easily change the immigration law, and the President is ultimately the chief law enforcement officer.
No law needs to be changed to fix this problem. The entire "dreamer" mess was created by an executive order, and that will go away on January 21, 2017. The country then returns to the rule of law, and all illegals should be rounded up and deported pronto.
Better not be helping anybody from $tanfurd. That's unforgivable.
Go Bears.
Wait a minute. I'm a deplorable trumpftard, but its ok cause I'm' lovely, talented, rich, well armed, smart, yoing, humble, and people tell me I smell good.
The country then returns to the rule of law, and all illegals should be rounded up and deported pronto.
December 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Don't hold your breath. ICE will refuse Trump's orders. Only one of many such showdowns to come, It will be ugly.
The country then returns to the rule of law, and all illegals should be rounded up and deported pronto.
December 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM
Don't hold your breath. ICE will refuse Trump's orders. Only one of many such showdowns to come, It will be ugly.
December 9, 2016 at 6:13 PM
The selective enforcement of the Nation's laws is not an option under the Constitution. It either is against the law, or it is not, to be in the US without legal, documented permission.
Let's assume that you work at LLNL, and you decide that you want to selectively abide by certain laws. For example, you might determine that you do not want to follow the law related to prohibitions on removal of classified material from the Lab. You take a few hundred classified documents out of the Lab, and the police find them when they raid a drug den in a mobile home park.
We either are, or are not, a Nation that follows the rule of law. It is not up to some subset of the population to determine that laws with which they agree will be followed, and those with which they disagree are OK to flaunt and openly violate.
It is not up to some subset of the population to determine that laws with which they agree will be followed, and those with which they disagree are OK to flaunt and openly violate.
December 10, 2016 at 6:37 AM
And yet, somehow, it happens all the time. Imagine that.
December 10, 2016 at 8:36 AM
It never happened in the history of the US, at least on a federal level, until the DoJ head made it a policy a few years ago. When you have the AG, as the top law enforcement official in the country, start selectively choosing what laws to enforce based on personal opinion, then the entire rule of law for the Nation becomes open to such personal choice.
Back to the point of 6:37 AM, you make a most compelling case, and one that is highly relevant to all workers in the nuclear weapons labs!
It never happened in the history of the US, at least on a federal level, until the DoJ head made it a policy a few years ago.
December 10, 2016 at 9:55 AM
Hey, Pollyanna, your lack of knowledge of US history is jaw-dropping. Corruption and ignoring the law has been happening in the federal government since there has been a federal government.
11:56 AM, please cite a documented example to support your opinion. Make sure that it is a case of the US AG going public that DoJ will selectively NOT enforce prevailing US law, because of personal opinion.
11:56 AM please provide a citation to support your opinion of some other time that a US AG went public that the DoJ was going to selectively NOT enforce prevailing US law, due to personal view.
You've apparently forgotten that your original statements which I responded to were very broad and general. Now you are asking me to provide a citation for something I never claimed. Every taken a course in rhetoric? Didn't think so.
You've apparently forgotten that your original statements which I responded to were very broad and general. Now you are asking me to provide a citation for something I never claimed. Every taken a course in rhetoric? Didn't think so.
December 10, 2016 at 8:22 PM
You are right and immigration laws are racist laws passed by those of white privilege. It took a minority AG and a minority president to see these racist laws for what they were and refuse to enforce them.
So it's ok to break the law by ignoring the law as long as you are a member of a minority group and don't like the law? The country is better off with senior officials who believe their personal views are more valid than duly passed laws? I'm guessing your answer is "yes," but only if you agree with those views. See the problem here?
History is full of examples of anti-immigrant sentiment arising whenever the citizens of a country feel that it's national identity is at risk. The Irish and German, and to some extent the Italian immigrants, were discriminated against as early as the late 1800's, and obviously not because of "white privilege." A little historical knowledge can prevent the trap of attempting to develop a dialectic and worldview based on relatively recent events.
December 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM
People did not say "lets build a wall to keep the Irish out" that is just crazy. Never in the history of the United States did we decide to keep a race of people from coming to the United States and now overnight everything is changing, just like it it did in 1930's, exactly like that if you think about it. It is you my friend that need to study history and you only have to go back 75 years to see how all of this happened before, go educate yourself and read about Nazi Germany, Fascist Russia, and the Italians who followed Germany's lead and also went Fascist. The ignorance of some
portions of the American populace is a disgrace.
Post a Comment