Thursday, September 6, 2018

Alex Jones and Infowars Permanently banned from Twitter

Source: Youtube

Summary and Analysis:
Alex Jones, a conservative radio host recently had his account and his Infowars account permanently banned from Twitter. While he was suspended before, there were no other consequences to his actions. Both accounts posted conspiracy theories with no evidence, and misinformed the audience, including claims that the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a hoax and the survivors were paid actors. Twitter is not the first social media platform to ban Jones, as Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and Youtube have already taken action to suspend or remove the accounts. Twitter at first did not consider Jones' posts to violate their policies. On Wednesday, Jones live-streamed a video through Twitter-owned Periscope app that showed him confronting a CNN reporter, Oliver Darcy, in Washington D.C., yelling about Darcy's support for censorship and calling him a rat for ten minutes.
At the same time, Republican officials have been complaining about the liberal bias of social media websites, citing the Russian election interference issue and various instances of attacks on free speech. Although net neutrality has been repealed during Trump's presidency, it is actually now exactly what some Republicans need. According to Quartz, the repeal of net neutrality "ended strong protections against any online provider selectively discriminating against content." While Republicans claim that social media sites are discriminating and censoring right-wing content, Facebook and Twitter say they "filter for abusive behavior, not ideology."

Opinion:
I believe that people should not be spreading misinformation especially when they have an audience as large as Alex Jones (900,000 followers on personal Twitter, 430,000 followers on Infowars Twitter). However, this brings us to how a misinformer could even reach that many people. How was Jones able to garner such a large following? How could his trolling thrive for such a long period of time? If the 1 million+ followers are just well informed citizens that want a laugh, then there is no problem. However, that is most definitely not the case and there are probably people who believe what Jones posts. Is that purposeful ignorance or a lack of education? Or both?

Questions:
How would you define censorship? Is censorship a good thing, to a certain degree?
Does the current political landscape affect how information is spread online?
Should Alex Jones have been banned on Twitter long ago?


Sources:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/06/technology/twitter-suspends-alex-jones-infowars/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/twitter-permanently-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-accounts.html
https://qz.com/1380495/trump-ditched-net-neutrality-now-he-wants-it-back-for-conservatives-on-social-media/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-permanently-bans-alex-jones-after-new-violations-1536269663
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645352618/twitter-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-cites-abusive-behavior
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-twitter-bans-alex-jones-20180906-story.html
http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/09/twitter-bans-alex-jones.html
Posted by at 4 comments:

Anonymous op-ed written by senior official exposes Trump and Republican "resistance"


Image result for op ed new york times
Source: VICE News

Summary & Analysis
An anonymous op-ed published Wednesday has shocked people across the country. Not only is it basically unheard of for a major newspaper like the New York Times to publish an anonymous op-ed, but the article itself is almost unbelievable: according to the source, a senior official in the White House, many of his top officials and closest confidants, fed up with Trump's “amorality,” and “anti-democratic impulses” have been part of a quiet resistance against him.
While the descriptions of Trump's beliefs and behavior are, at times, alarming, the op-ed attempts to reassure a country divided by Trump’s presidency: “Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” said the source. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”
The source goes on to describe a “two-track” presidency -- one "track" being that of a president who admires dictators, frequently flip-flops on important issues and betrays Republican ideals; the other being a cabinet of officials constantly desperately attempting to “walk back” his “ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.”
This article paints a picture of a White House we haven’t heard of before: one where Trump’s top officials complain about him in private and his staff hurry to try and keep his disastrous comments and actions contained in the White House.
Of course, this has created a rift in the White House, with many of his cabinet members (including Vice President Mike Pence) claiming they didn’t write the article. Trump went as far as accusing the author of the op-ed of "treason". The author and other top officials mentioned in the article certainly don't see it that way: “We believe our first duty is to this country,” the source said. “The president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
It seems as though President Trump and many of his top officials have different interpretations of the phrase “America First.”

Sources:
Read the op-ed here:
Opinions / Reactions from the left & right:


Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

Nike's new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick ignites nationwide debate



Image result for colin kaepernick nike
Source: NBC

Summary & Analysis
Yesterday, Nike debuted its new ad campaign featuring former NFL player and activist Colin Kaepernick. Around the country, people shared their anger, approval and surprise. Since first kneeling during the national anthem back in 2016 to protest police brutality, Kaepernick has been mostly ostracized by the NFL and its partners, like Nike.
Not surprisingly, the campaign was met with an overwhelming amount of condemnation. According to the New York Times, in the first 24 hours after the campaign was released, there were over 100,000 posts that contained the hashtag “#BanNike.”
Much of the criticism surrounding the campaign comes from the far right, who also criticized Kaepernick when he peacefully protested during the anthem.  Tyler Merritt, veteran and CEO of Nine Line Apparel, told Fox News that the campaign was “pathetic”: “This is likely to be the single most disastrous marketing decision in the history of sports.”
President Donald Trump, of course, commented as well. “It’s a terrible message,” he said, though he acknowledged that Nike has the right to run whatever kind of ad campaign they want.
Nike’s stock dipped by 3 percent after the campaign was first released, but it is safe to assume that choosing Kaepernick to star in its 30-year campaign was a deliberate choice both politically and economically. Marketing experts at Nike surely know their audience: nearly 70 percent of their customers are younger than 35. And 60 percent of millennials are “belief buyers,” according to a 2017 study -- meaning their personal (and political) beliefs are an important factor while making purchases.
The campaign also comes less than a month after four female Nike employees filed a lawsuit against the company for ignoring sexual harassment and paying their female employees less, which violates the Equal Pay Act.
While there has certainly been a negative reaction, the New York Times reported that there has been many more positive ones on social media."Critics of the NFL protests are deliberately trying to change the narrative to deflect away from discussing the realities of violence against African Americans,” wrote the USA Today in an opinion piece. “This is why it’s necessary for critics of Kaepernick to try to spin the protests into a ‘disrespecting the troops’ narrative.” 

 Sources:

Posted by at 2 comments:

Monday, September 3, 2018

Roe v. Wade could be reversed with Judge Brett Kavanaugh joining Supreme Court

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Zach Gibson/Getty Images and Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

 Summary and Analysis:
After the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, abortion became legalized throughout the United States to a certain extent. However, There has been a constant conservative push against the legalization of abortion ever since. In recent years, the Trump administration has banned abortion for illegal immigrant minors living in government run facilities. These immigrants must either carry through with their pregnancy and find an American sponsor who will take care of the baby, or leave the country entirely. With the addition of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a majority of the Supreme Court will be conservative and the they will be able to vote with a majority of 5-4 to get rid of the abortion rights that Roe v. Wade provided. This event can happen as early as next year and is nearly guaranteed considering the judges involved. Without this federal case, abortion rights would be up to individual states to decide. Of course, women living in liberal states will not be directly affected by this change, however some believe that with this victory, the removal of abortion rights may become a trend. Some believe that the lack of reaction from the democratic side is partially responsible for this event, where "Their anger will snowball once they see the grim reality of abortion bans... For now, though, they are watching the disaster unfold in slow motion, and few seem moved to even call their senators" (Slate).

Opinion:
Abortion definitely should be legal in some cases, and the mentality that all stages of fetuses can be considered living individual humans seems strange to me. When a fetus does not have a developed brain or a human shaped body, can it even be called a human or is it just a bundle of fast growing cells? If abortion does become illegal, then women will just find other ways to get abortions, whether dangerously doing the procedure themselves or traveling to another state. While we may not be affected by the reversal of Roe v. Wade since we live in California, I do believe that the vote against abortion could be a catalyst for a decline in women's' rights in the years to come. Because Supreme Court judges stay judges for such a long period of time, it is unlikely that legalization of abortion at a federal level could come back any time soon. There is still a small chance that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed, as abortion rights is a topic that can be agreed upon for both Democrats and some Republicans, however as time goes on the chance gets slimmer.

Questions:
What can be done for abortion in the United States at this stage?
How can we ensure the safety of women's reproductive rights if Roe v. Wade is reversed?
Is there anything that can be done to keep Roe v. Wade or is it pretty much gone already?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reversing-roe-v-wade-will-be-just-the-beginning/2018/08/17/02ea11cc-a18b-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7271b9e07047
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/can-democrats-stop-brett-kavanaugh-from-overturning-roe-v-wade.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/roe-v-wade-kavanaugh-collins/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-will-give-roe-v-wade-deference-but-could-vote-to-overturn-the-ruling/569203/
Posted by at No comments:

California Schools to start after 8:30am just in time for Seniors to complain that good things happen to their schools after they leave

Aragon Senior protesting unfair timing of new law                                 Aragon Outlook
In a cruel and ironic twist of fate, California lawmakers moved to require all middle and high schools in the state, public or charter, to start after 8:30am on the last day of California's legislative session and in the last year of high school for seniors across the state.

The bill, SB328, passed the State Senate and Assembly by a narrow margin after an intense debate with arguments that drew comparisons to those used in the SMUHSD's decision to have a late start rather than an early release on 2/4/6 block days.

Proponents of the bill pointed to research that showed that later start times could lead to better student performance and mental health while opponents of the bill claimed it would hurt students with extracurriculars and working parents. The California Teachers Association and California School Boards Association were among those opposed to this bill.

For those in extracurriculars and wishing to be home before the sunsets, there is still hope as the bill still needs Gov. Jerry Brown's signature before becoming law.

Sources:
https://aragonoutlook.org/2017/10/2017-halloween-rally/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/01/california-votes-to-bar-schools-from-starting-before-8-30am-to-help-give-students-more-sleep.html
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Middle-high-schools-can-t-start-earlier-than-13198460.php

Posted by at 2 comments:

Head of Student Loans Watchdog resigns

Mick Mulvaney, acting Director of the CFPB              Joshua Roberts | Reuters
Benjamin Franklin once said, "an investment in knowledge pays the best interest," but I don't think he would have predicted the student loan crisis in the US today. In the US alone, there are over 44 million people with student loans, totaling $1.5 trillion dollars of debt.

After the Great Recession in 2008, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed in 2010 with the intent to strengthen financial regulation in the US. In this legislation, a student loans ombudsman ("an official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration") position was created within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The position had been held by Seth Frotman, who helped the CFPB protect borrowers from predatory lenders, for-profit colleges, and other bad actors, "return[ing] more than $750 million to harmed student loan borrowers."

Frotman resigned earlier this week, and in his resignation letter, Frotman claimed that acting director Mick Mulvaney, a member of Trump's cabinet, had "used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America" by undermining the bureau's independence from the Presidential administration, crippling the ability to enforce the law, and by "shielding bad actors from scrutiny." You can read the full letter here.

Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/08/28/student-loans-cfpb-resign/#3dd05d381a14
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/27/642199524/student-loan-watchdog-quits-blames-trump-administration
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/27/seth-frotman-cfpb-resignation-student-loans-758036



Posted by at No comments:

"Don't Distort Her Death": Father of Mollie Tibbetts Speaks Out


Image result for mollie tibbetts father
Source: CBS News

 Summary/ Analysis:
Rob Tibbetts, father of the late Mollie Tibbets, spoke out on Saturday in a column in the Des Moines Register, demanding that politicians stop using his daughter's death as part of a “racist” debate.
He apologized to the Latino community and denounced the way many politicians have used Mollie's death as anti-immigration rhetoric: “The person who is accused of taking Mollie’s life is no more a reflection of the Hispanic community as white supremacists are of all white people.”
Donald Trump Jr. also wrote a column in the Des Moines Register this past weekend. Trump Jr. criticized the far left for downplaying Tibbets’ death in order to preserve their “love for open borders”: “Mollie was murdered by an illegal alien and her murder would never have happened if we policed our southern border properly.”
Tibbetts’ words come at a particular tense time. Latino festivals in Iowa were postponed out of “respect for Mollie” and a fear of racially-motivated incidents. “Deport Racists” was recently spray painted on the street of a predominantly-Latino city near Des Moines. A white supremacy group, “Road to Power,” sent out a robo call to multiple Des Moines residents calling for a “whites only” country and the death of Latinos: “Get rid of them now. Every last one.”

Opinion:
I think that Tibbetts speaking out is very admirable. I have a lot of sympathy for their family -- they have not gotten a chance to mourn because the death of their daughter was almost immediately politicized.
Even though Tibbetts alludes to Trump Sr. and other politicians who are using her death to promote anti-immigration policies, he also encourages people to look beyond the divide of political parties and understand that one murderer’s actions are not a reflection of their entire race or ethnicity. I found his statement on white people and white supremacists particularly powerful.
While the timing of him speaking out is slightly delayed -- news outlets on the far right, and even the president himself, have already used her death as the basis of their fear-mongering -- they are still extremely relevant. Tibbetts’ mention of McCain and Franklin and the way he connected it to the search for his daughter hopefully resonate with Americans, and remind them of the importance of cooperation and acceptance rather than separation and xenophobia.

Sources:

Posted by at 1 comment:

Draft a new NAFTA: Ongoing trade talks with Canada

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1994 between the US, Canada, and Mexico and aimed to increase trade, create new jobs, integrate the North American economies and curb illegal immigration from Mexico. In essence, it lowered and eventually eliminated tariffs between the nations. Tariffs are taxes put on imports or exports, usually used to raise the price of foreign goods in order to make domestic goods more appealing or competitive in price.

Critics of this trade agreement claim that NAFTA costs American manufacturing jobs and create an evergrowing trade deficit with our neighbors to the North and South. Companies may relocate to Mexico from the US, where the cost of labor is significantly cheaper and sell goods produced without any tariffs to punish moving and costing the US jobs.

However, in a poll by IGM Chicago, 98% of the economists polled thought that the agreement helped the average American rather than hurt. Proponents of the agreement claim that lower costs for consumer goods and increased trade between nations has given the US economy a net gain than a loss. For example, NAFTA has been a huge boost to the US agriculture sector as Mexico and Canada are 2 of the top destination for US agricultural goods.

President Trump has been a harsh critic of NAFTA and has long sought to renegotiate it. In the past few days, the US came to new terms with Mexico on NAFTA which aimed at bringing back more automobile jobs to the US while talks have stalled with Canada.

Sources:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/trump-nafta-canada-mexico/569134/
http://fortune.com/2018/09/03/new-nafta-canada-trump-mexico-trumka-unions/
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-test-high-pressure-negotiating-style-as-u-s-canada-nafta-talks-resume-1535992792
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/americas-deal-with-mexico-will-make-nafta-worse
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/opinion/trump-nafta-deal.html
Posted by at 1 comment:

Turning Purple to Red: Gerrymandering in North Carolina

In the 2016 Presidential election, North Carolinians voted 49.8% Republican and 46.2% Democratic, while voting 48.8% Republican and 49% Democratic in the gubernatorial race, landing Democrat Roy Cooper the governor's seat. By all accounts, North Carolina is a purple state: it has a mix of both Democratic and Republican civilians. But take a look at the map for how Representatives to the house were elected:
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina

North Carolina sends 10 Republican representatives to 3 Democratic ones, despite being a purple state. You might have already guessed from the title as to why this has been possible. 

North Carolina's gerrymandered maps have been addressed in the past: a 2017 Supreme Court case ruled their maps unconstitutional on the grounds that they had been drawn along racial lines. However, as congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature, these maps were simply redrawn with a blatant partisan advantage in mind. In a 2016 House hearing, Republican state Rep. Dave Lewis said: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

This brings us to the present day, where a federal court ruled last week that these redrawn congressional maps were unconstitutional. This is huge as this decision was the first time a court has ruled that a congressional map is unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandered states, such as Texas and Pennsylvania, could follow suit, leading to a lot of changes in the House. However, don't expect these changes to show up in time for the 2018 midterms. The congressional districts in North Carolina won't be redrawn for 2018 midterms with less than two months before elections, and state legislators have already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. If the conservative Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, this case may be overturned.

Sources:
Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Why are Macarons so expensive?



Every time I walk into Draeger's, the first thing I notice is the assembly of macarons behind the display glass. And every time, I balk at the price -- $1.25 for each puny cookie. Why were these french cookies so expensive? So I did a little bit of research.
Apparently, it’s because of the preparation. First of all, macarons require the egg whites to be aged up to five days before getting mixed in -- this is to ensure that the cookie is fluffy and airy. Next, the almond powder and sugar must be refined and sieved multiple times to ensure that the domes of the cookie are perfectly smooth. After all that, chefs must mix the meringue with the dry ingredients. They must be careful; while stirring too much results in flat, hard cookies, stirring too little causes the formations of peaks and spikes. When the batter is finally ready, bakers must concentrate in precise piping; even the slightest slip can result in two atrociously uneven halves. Finally, before the cookies can be put in the oven, bakers must wait once more -- a 15-30 minute resting period is ideal in order for the cookie halves to develop the signature “foot” along the cookie edges.
With this much preparation and required skill, the price tag is kind of justified. In some places, macarons are sold up to $4 per cookie. Draeger macaroons are relatively cheap in that respect, but then again, most of their macarons had peaks, cracks, or dents. It didn’t affect the taste (I like the cafe ones the best), but an imperfection is an imperfection, and I guess that’s the reason why Draeger macaroons are only $1.25 each and not $3.

Questions:

Have you ever eaten a macaron? Favorite flavor? Other thoughts? Do you think they’re overpriced?

Posted by at 3 comments:

Friday, August 31, 2018

Trump Administration proposes to let states decide coal regulation.

Summary: Made in accordance to the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) was an Obama-era legislation that aimed to scale back carbon emission from power plants by 32% from their 2005 levels by 2030 (The Economist). The plan has yet to come into effect due to legal challenges by coal states, but on August 21, 2018, the Trump administration introduced a new legislation, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the CPP before it even comes into effect. The ACE essentially allows states to decide their own emission reduction targets -- according to the EPA, this plan would increase coal use by as much as 9.5% by 2035 (The Economist). Most reductions in noxious gas emissions imposed by the new plan is considerably less ambitious. For example, according to The Economist, whereas the CPP is would reduce sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide by more than 20%, ACE would only reduce these gases by 1-2%. Further analysis by The Economist predicts that like the CPP, ACE would likely face legal challenges; it is unlikely for the new proposal to be enacted before Trump’s term ends.

Opinion: Just from the statistics, I find ACE a disturbing replacement to the CPP. The Economist explains that the market itself is beginning to rely less on coal and more on Natural Gas (a fuel cheaper, cleaner, and more readily available due to fracking -- which is the extraction of gas from underground rock). Renewable energy is becoming less expensive and more viable as an alternative, and mining of coal itself has become more efficient due to automation (therefore needing less workers). The market can handle less coal, there’s less demand for coal and coal workers, so why adopt ACE? Even if coal production was increased, I feel like it wouldn’t create that many more jobs because of automation -- if the government really wanted to preserve jobs for the “little guy,” they should focus on AI and machinery regulation which can replace human workers -- just saying.

Questions:
--Discuss the Affordable Clean Energy rule. Is it something that worries you?
--Why do you think the Trump administration made this proposal? Who are they trying to appeal to? --Discuss the politics behind climate change.
--Would allowing more coal output generate a significant amount of additional jobs? Do your own research and discuss.
--Do you agree with the Economist’s analysis that the lessening use of coal is more due to market than government intervention? Why or why not?


Sources:
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Jacksonville Shooting

Image result for guns
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Summary:
24-year-old Maryland gamer David Katz opened fire and then killed himself during the Madden video gaming tournament in Jacksonville, Florida on August 26, 2018. According to CNN, 2 were dead and 10 were left injured from the shooting. Reports from CNN say that Katz had lost a game earlier in the day and that he has had a history of mental illness -- factors that may have contributed to the shooting. According to the divorce records of Katz’s parents, Katz had been undergoing psychiatric treatment since the age of 12. He had obtained a 9mm handgun and a .45-caliber handgun a month ago in Maryland legally -- despite his history, he had successfully undergone all background checks and trainings necessary to purchase a gun. Federal law mandates that those deemed “mentally incompetent” in court or who were committed to mental health institutions against their will (for 30 days+) are disqualified from obtaining legal firearm, but it doesn’t include precautions against patients with a history of psychological issues. (Update 8/29/18 : According to the Washington Post, Katz, although he has been hospitalized twice, none have exceeded the 30 days which would've prohibited him from obtaining a gun).
Analysis:
Dominating recent headlines, gun control and gun violence remains a pertinent issue of modern politics. Much of the debate is geared towards who should be able to obtain a gun and who shouldn’t. In general, democratic, urban states tend to have tighter gun control while Republican, more rural states have looser laws. In states with tighter laws such as California, they conduct universal background checks in order to close the federal gun show loophole (which essentially allows private sellers and sellers at gun shows the option of not conducting background checks) -- a universal background check essentially means that even private sellers have to conduct background checks. Other forms of gun control include waiting periods meant to cool down the impulsive or mandatory training. On the federal level, moderate gun control legislation have been introduced, but the NRA, probably America’s most powerful lobbyist organization, have continually influenced politicians to shoot those bills down in defense of the second amendment (the right to own guns).


Opinion:
The shooter in this particular event obtained his guns via all legal means so it seems that even with gun control, accidents can still happen. Even if we enforced a stricter set of criteria for mental health, there will still be cases where there’s undiagnosed cases of mental instability. While I am not saying we shouldn’t pay more attention to mass shootings, mass shootings only comprise of less than 2 percent of all gun related deaths, yet it seems to dominate headlines the most -- more than gun suicides or accidental misfires. I feel like the public should place more focus on child access prevention laws or help to the mentally ill so that there’s less suicide and less gun-related accidents.


Discussion questions:
Is the focus on mental illness in the gun control debate justified? Would placing more gun restrictions on the mentally ill be effective, or should the focus be directed elsewhere?
How else should politicians address gun control? What measures should be in place?
What is your reaction to this event? Is it more of an accident or is it a signal to strengthen gun control?
What can we do to diminish the power of the NRA? Should we? Why or why not?
What measures could’ve been placed in Maryland specifically to prevent this tragedy?
Sources

Vox youtube videos:
How powerful is the NRA?

Posted by at 1 comment:

An update on DACA -- Is DACA headed towards the Supreme Court?


Image result for DACA
Courtesy of Wikimedia
Summary/ Analysis:
DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals, is an Obama-era executive order that defers, for two years, deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought across the border as children. The status is renewable and at the same time, provides these immigrants with social security (SSN) numbers so that they can obtain work permits and driver's licenses.
DACA being an executive order* means that it’s not a bill -- it has the force of law but it can be directly issued by the president and bypass congress. Back then, Obama, a democratic president, faced a Republican dominated congress that tended not to favor his policies, so in order to bypass congressional procedure, Obama issued an executive order. Bills are harder to pass; bills require a majority vote in both Senate and House in addition to the president’s approval, but on the flip side, if a bill does get passed, it’s equally hard to repeal a law, (repealing a bill would require the same process as passing a bill).
The executive order is easier for the president to issue, but it can also be just as easily repealed by the next president. When DACA had first been implemented, Republicans argued that the executive order was an overstep of presidential boundaries. The Trump administration decided to end the program on March 5th 2018, but the courts of California, District of Columbia, and New York has blocked the action, claiming that in accordance to the Administrative Procedure Act, which dictates that for the repeal of any substantial program, agencies must publish proposed changes in the Federal Register, give the public a chance to provide feedback, and then give an adequate explanation of why the changes are not “arbitrary” or “capricious.” Court judges found the Department of Homeland Security’s justification inadequate, further arguing that rescinding DACA would negatively affect the hundreds of thousands of people already enrolled in the program.

The Update:
While California and New York federal judges had only ordered the Trump administration to continue renewing existing DACA statuses, DC federal court judge John Bates in early August went a step further and ordered the Trump administration to reopen the program entirely, to start accepting new applicants. Currently, the DACA case is again being heard in Texas by the conservative district judge Andrew Hanen, a judge known as an “immigration hawk” according to Vox. Ten states are presenting arguments that DACA is unconstitutional, but as of now, according to CNN, Hanen said that he would only consider the portion of the case that pertains to ending DACA immediately -- not its constitutionality.

With potentially conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in; If the case is heard now, there would likely be a 4-4 split along party lines as the Supreme Court is currently down a judge. Trump’s pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh will begin his Senate hearing/confirmation process on September 4th.


Connection:
Apart from obvious legislative checks and balance connections, DACA is a POLICY adopted by the executive branch during the Obama era that is a part of the larger POLITICS surrounding immigration and his struggles against a Republican dominated congress. While the democrats tend to favor a more empathetic approach, arguing that these immigrants are escaping from horrid environments and that DACA recipients especially, who didn’t have much of a choice in coming to the United States, should receive some sort of special exception, the Republicans embrace the view that the immigration laws in place ought to be followed, we should give job priority to Americans, and that it’s just not feasible to let everyone who wants to come to America do so.
Opinion:
I think this topic is quite interesting and shows the complexity of governmental controversies. I see the arguments on both sides so it’s hard for me to decisively side with one side or another. While I do agree that DACA recipients are here often under no fault of their own, I also think that illegal immigration should be deterred in some form (maybe not remove DACA, but at least strengthen border security) -- I feel like it’s unfair to immigrants further away from America who had to endure the wait and who went through the process legally.

Discussion question:
Since DACA is an executive order, does the Trump administration have the right to repeal DACA? Why or why not? Should they repeal DACA?
Was Obama justified in issuing DACA? Discuss the idea of an executive order.

Sources:
More on deportation:


Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)