The use of technology in the Texas legislatures

I read a well done commentary blog on the Capital Annex website about the issue of twittering and texting in the Texas legislature’s open meetings. The author, Vince leibowitz, makes excellent points about the potential bad results of using technologies in open meetings. Leibowitz says, “The tools of the internet and smart phones can lead to quorum and open meeting violations.” I really like this line because I concur with leibowitz; Texas legislatures should not been texting or tweeting while they are working even with members of the legislation. Open meetings are meetings where citizens are permitted to come and watch what their legislators are doing, but if the legislators text with each other or with outsiders, people who go and see the open meeting would not have access to that information. Leibowitz knows that there has to be a measure, but he knows that if legislators or councilmen’s phone are examined for text messages, it would cause a big problem with their privacy.

 Leibowitz says that the solution will be that text messaging should be banned while legislators are in open meetings, and if they want to communicate with each other, to make them pass notes the old fashion way. The other solution that Leibowitz gives is to have an open record for each legislator and have each text message sent to the government body and be subject to regulation. Leibowitz ends his commentary by saying that he doubts that the legislature will go with one of the two solutions he has provided, and that he suspect that probably Texas legislators will do something more of their nature, a more bizarre solution.

Leibowitz, the author of this commentary blog, gives great solutions on the issue of the use of technology while legislators are in open meetings. He makes the reader become more interested by making his commentary humorous. Leibowitz’s credibility is good because he gives the readers examples of what other states have done with this issue and what can be done with this issue here in Texas.

The Dream Act

I read a well done editorial on statesman website about the Dream Act issue. The author, Alberta Phillips, begins by defining what the Dream Act is about. Phillips says that the Dream Act is a permit for the children of illegal immigrants who are also illegal immigrants to earn their citizenship through military service or a two year college degree. Phillips points out that there are 258,000 illegal immigrants living in Texas who would benefit under the Dream Act.  One thing that I like the most about this editorial is when Phillips says, “The premise of the legislation is noble. Its aimed at children who bear no blame or responsibilities in the circumstances that brought them to the U.S. Children who are American by virtually every measure- culture, education, except legal status.” I like this line because it sounds human, and it explains the reality of this situation. These children who are now adults came to the U.S. because their parents made the decision of bringing them to the U.S. so they could have better opportunities for education.  These children would not have a job opportunity after graduating from college without the Dream Act. Phillips ends her editorial by making a statement and saying that to make the dream act more acceptable for the public; students should be required to finish a two year degree plus two years of public service. I totally do not agree with this line because I think that is creating more barriers for every child who is illegally in this country. Obligating them to graduate from high school and graduate from college or serve in the military should be enough.

 Alberta Phillips, the author of this editorial, makes really good arguments in favor of the dream act except for her last line; requiring students who graduated from college plus two years of public service. The author’s target audience is people who are opposed to the Dream Act.