You're never too old to start learning, and you're never too young to aim high and achieve great things.
My life has never been a part of a big plan. It's more of an unfolding adventure.
As we learned after President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff at the outset of the Great Depression, vibrant international trade is a key component to economic recovery; hindering trade is a recipe for disaster.
Proper training and federal supervision in state-federal partnerships are essential to both assuring constitutional rights and enforcing our immigration laws. Our Founding Fathers' concept of federalism does not prohibit such cooperation, and we have learned from experience that joint efforts work best.
We would certainly welcome the recipient nation to put their inspectors on our shores, if they wanted to make that investment to help protect that shipment that is outgoing.
The words are frightening - how you're going to build a wall, how you're going to have Mexico pay for it. What does this mean?
We get divided generationally and in other ways - libertarians versus more traditional social conservatives, for example - and we've got to provide some flexibility there. But we don't need to have quite so many litmus tests. We need to have our big picture focused on economic issues.
As we approached our work, my colleagues and I looked to the U.S. Constitution for guidance. It states, 'No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' No person, no exceptions.
In an ever-changing global marketplace, the one factor any state can count on is the skills of its upcoming and existing workforce.
Whether you're looking at manufacturing and the use of robotics or the knowledge industries, they need computer programmers.
When you talk about mandatory minimums, it created a lot of unfairness in our sentencing.
We recognize that it is not only inbound but also outbound (cargo) that can pose a risk as well.
To argue that it is unconstitutional for local law enforcement to be a legitimate partner in immigration enforcement is shortsighted. It is evidence of a lack of commitment to securing our borders and a lack of appreciation for the proper role of the states in supporting federal law enforcement priorities.
It is not a crime nor an impeachable offense to engage in inappropriate personal conduct; nor is it a crime to obstruct or conceal an embarrassing relationship.
I think in some instances that the death penalty is required.
If we're talking about big-tent thinking in the Republican Party, I think we're all going to unite under a consistent economic theory. That's where our unity is, and that's what unites us.
To suggest that immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government, disallowing partnerships with local law enforcement, defies the will of Congress, not to mention reality. Numerous local jurisdictions have laws on the books dealing with immigration in a variety of ways.
People resisted having weapons on airplanes, but I oversaw the federal air marshals. It's a deterrent. No one sees that weapon, but they are protected on that airplane, and it's a huge positive impact on safety.
Historically, there is a presumption that the legitimate police powers of the states are not to be pre-empted by federal law unless Congress has made that purpose clear.
The phrase 'private option' itself has become politically toxic.
