Updated 12/19/07: We have removed "Current Conversation: Court Rules the Seals Must Go," because the conversation turned into a forum for offensive, uncivil comments and KPBS cannot condone this type of discourse on our Web site. Additionally, the discourse moved far beyond the discussion's intended purpose. We asked the simple question "What's your reaction" to the court ruling that the Children's Pool had to be returned to the children, but the discussion deteriorated into people on both sides of the debate attacking each other in a most uncivil manner. Although we generally prefer that users self-moderate their comments with corrections and civil challenges to each other's ideas, that did not happen in this discussion.

Please read our guidelines before posting a comment. Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments (You can email us to flag inappropriate comments).

(Update Oct. 1, 2007) The U.S. Senate is was expected to vote this week on an immigration measure that would give tens of thousands of undocumented kids a chance at legalization, but the bill has died in the Senate for the time being, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to get the measure through the chamber by mid-November.

The legislation, known as the Dream Act -- Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors -- would give high school graduates, who arrived in the United States illegally before age 15, and who have lived in the U.S. at least five years, eligibility for conditional legal status, provided they attend two years of college or serve two years in the military.

The Dream Act is controversial because opponents say it rewards illegal behavior. Opponents also argue that attaching the bill to the defense department is a ploy to pull young adults into combat situations for which they wouldn't otherwise have volunteered. Supporters say it provides educational opportunities for children who did not choose to enter the U.S. illegally.

What do you think?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments (Please email us to flag inappropriate comments). Read Guidelines>>

The infamous Dr. Kevorkian, also known as "Dr. Death," was released from jail last week after serving eight years. Ironically, his parole comes just one week before the California Assembly is set to vote on the California Compassionate Choices Act - a measure to allow terminally-ill patients to die, with the assistance from a physician-prescribed medication.

Although Kevorkian's assisted-suicide actions prompted heated debates across the nation, not much transpired legally, during his time in prison. To date, Oregon remains the only state with a law in which terminally-ill patients can ask a doctor to prescribe a lethal amount of medication under certain circumstances.

A recent poll shows 68 percent of Americans say there are circumstances where a patient should be allowed to die, while 30 percent say in all circumstances, doctors and nurses should do all they can to save the life of the patient.

What do you think? Is it unethical for a doctor to actively help a terminally-ill patient end their life? Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

Two San Diego-based aircraft carriers, along with seven other U.S. military ships, entered the Persian Gulf last week in a show of force to Iran. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog -- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- is reporting Iran has once again defied a deadline to stop the enrichment of uranium, as demanded by the Security Council. The report will likely set the stage for a third round of increased Security Council sanctions.

Iran insists its nuclear program is only being developed for energy purposes, but the United States and its allies claim that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, and poses a major threat to the world.

What do you think? Should the United States and its allies take military action against Iran to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, or tolerate a defiant Iran by continuing to use diplomatic measures?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, and a contributor to CNN.COM.

September 22, 2006

We can't talk about immigration reform without talking about national security -- and specifically about border security.

Or can we? That's what we've been doing. We've spent the last two years brushing aside the issue of how to better secure the border (build a wall, hire border patrol agents, etc) so we could get on with debating what really gets our juices flowing: What do we do with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States? Should they get "amnesty" or a one-way ticket home? That's what Americans want to talk about. That, and the cultural stuff -- the perception by many Americans that the current crop of immigrants is somehow defective because, unlike the immigrants of old, they won't assimilate, learn English and otherwise get with the program.

What happened to the concern over national security? It's been reduced to a footnote. It's time to put it back front and center. First, we have to draw a common-sense distinction between terrorists who are coming to do us harm from illegal immigrants who are coming to do dinner, the laundry and the gardening. Next, we have to draw another distinction - between nativists who just don't like immigrants and Americans who have legitimate concerns over national security and fear the possibility that the next terrorist attack will be carried out by someone who - instead of boarding a plane – simply crosses the border. Lastly, we have to spend what it takes to secure the border but also secure the interior by locating and identifying as many illegal immigrants as possible.

This isn’t either-or. You can be pro-immigrant and still be pro-national security. A porous border is a danger to every American – and to the hope of getting an immigration reform package that is fair, compassionate, reasonable and comprehensive.

Also read responses from:

Pedro Rios of American Friends Service Committee
"It is unfortunate that much of the debate over immigration reform has centered on 'national security' issues as framed through the lens of the war-on-terror. Rather than promote policies that uplift human rights . . ."
Read More »

Andy Ramirez of Friends of the Border Patrol
"Border security should play the only role in the debate; immigration reform is not needed. The only thing broken is enforcement, not the manner of how people legally immigrate to the U.S . . ."
Read More »

Continue the conversation:

This question is open to public comments. So, how about you? What role do you think national security should play in the debate over immigration reform?

Jump into the Current Conversation »

Pedro Rios is director of the San Diego Area Office of the American Friends Service Committee.

September 22, 2006

It's unfortunate that much of the debate over immigration reform has centered on "national security" issues as framed through the lens of the war-on-terror. Rather than promote policies that uplift human rights and dignity as core principles to dealing with the immigration phenomenon, policymakers on both sides of the aisle have settled on a misguided common denominator that resemble facile knee-jerk responses - the fixation on constructing miles of border fence and increased militarization, for example - that do little to deal with the roots of immigration. Both congressional proposals on immigration reform (H.R. 4437 & S. 2611) err on the side of political expediency in response to nativist forces, and subsequently perpetuate a failed border and immigration enforcement strategy that has led to a human rights crisis with over 4000 deaths along the border and numerous violations of civil and human rights for migrant and refugee communities.

As a starting point on dealing with immigration reform, policymakers should separate immigration matters from national security measures. The consequences of incorporating immigration matters as part of the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, exacerbates conditions where migrant communities are less safe, increasingly marginalized with fewer legal protections, and subject to greater exploitation. As a second recommendation, policymakers should focus on real national security concerns, like the impact that neoliberal economic agreements (NAFTA et al.) have on the ability for people to live sustainable lives in Mexico, the United States, and elsewhere. This agenda, more than anything else, is the real culprit in creating conditions for people to migrate and become more vulnerable. Real community security, where people can live sustainable lives, necessitates a reframing of the question over national security so that it focuses on human dignity as a principle value for structuring social, political, and economic regimes.

Also read responses from:

Ruben Navarrette of the San Diego Union-Tribune
"We can't talk about immigration reform without talking about national security -- and specifically about border security. Or can we? That's what we've been doing. We've spent the last two years brushing aside . . ."
Read More »

Andy Ramirez of Friends of the Border Patrol
"Border security should play the only role in the debate; immigration reform is not needed. The only thing broken is enforcement, not the manner of how people legally immigrate to the U.S . . ."
Read More »

Continue the conversation:

This question is open to public comments. So, how about you? What role do you think national security should play in the debate over immigration reform?

Jump into the Current conversation »

Panelists are invited to participate in Current based on their professional relationship to the weekly question. Their diverse perspectives provide a starting point for public discussion. KPBS makes every effort to be fair and objective in selecting a diverse group of panelists. Their comments reflect individual experience and judgment, and do not represent the views of KPBS.

Andy Ramirez is chair of Friends of the Border Patrol.

September 22, 2006

Border security should play the only role in the debate; immigration reform is not needed. The only thing broken is enforcement, not the manner of how people legally immigrate to the U.S. The government agencies responsible for enforcement, including the Border Patrol, are where the problem lies. Congress has called for independent investigations and oversight hearings into possible corruption.

As an expert witness that has appeared before Congress, I have repeatedly testified as to the role of law enforcement and policies by the U.S., which have favored but one nation, Mexico. Their government has not operated openly and honestly with the U.S., and has contributed to the current war on the border, which, as characterized by a Texas border sheriff, "goes western after dark" due to the extreme violence and levels of corruption on both sides of the border.

As 9-11 clearly identified, we have many flaws in our national security and need to correct them immediately so that it never happens again. But, this sadly will not happen until our own government puts security over propaganda, including their politically insignificant non-eligible voting block, and rejects the exportation of Mexico's labor force, which has increased corporate profits in America while leaving us open to another 9-11 style attack.

Therefore, it's quite clear that national security is the only role that should take place when you look at the corruption and threat presented by the traffickers of humans and narcotics, as well as terrorists who use that corruption to reach out to criminals residing and operating within our neighbors borderlands in order to illegally enter our nation, and bring their murder, and destruction to our communities and neighborhoods.

Please read my recent Congressional testimony presented in El Paso, TX at FriendsOfTheBorderPatrol.com to learn more.

Also read responses from:

Ruben Navarrette of the San Diego Union-Tribune
"We can't talk about immigration reform without talking about national security -- and specifically about border security. Or can we? That's what we've been doing. We've spent the last two years brushing aside . . ."
Read More »

Pedro Rios of American Friends Service Committee
"It is unfortunate that much of the debate over immigration reform has centered on 'national security' issues as framed through the lens of the war-on-terror. Rather than promote policies that uplift human rights . . ."
Read More »

Continue the conversation:

This question is open to public comments. So, how about you? What role do you think national security should play in the debate over immigration reform?

Jump into the Current Conversation »

Current is an online conversation about issues, ideas and cultural trends that shape life in San Diego. Every week, KPBS Online poses a Current question and invites responses from the public. We encourage a lively and civil debate in Current.

Guidelines & Agreements: This forum requires all participants to be real people with real identities. We ask that all comments include first and last names, along with a valid email address. (Your email address is never published, and is not sold or used for marketing purposes. However, we may use it to contact you for verification purposes regarding your comment.) KPBS Online trusts users to be honest, but will validate authenticity when in doubt.

KPBS Online expects users to be civil and courteous even when in disagreement. Personal attacks, profanity, harassment based on class, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other offensive conduct will not be permitted. Such conduct will result in users being banned from future participation. Offensive comments, and comments otherwise not related to the topic at hand, will be removed.

By posting content on KPBS.org, both users and panelists agree to grant KPBS exclusive, full, perpetual, royalty-free permission to excerpt, reproduce, publish, distribute or display content through any media technology currently available or that may become available. KPBS Online may periodically remove outdated topics of discussion.