France and Britain announce plans to accept more refugees in migrant crisis

French President François Hollande gives the announcement
 during a press conference on Monday.

On Monday, President Hollande announced that his country, France, will accept 24,000 refugees over two years and British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the UK will accept 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years. An estimated 381,000 migrants have arrived in Europe in 2015, and about half are from Syria.

Cameron’s plan would likely accept only Syrians from refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, to discourage migrants from risking their lives in the perilous journey into Europe and to avoid favoring the refugees who could afford to pay for the trip into Europe at the cost of those who can not.

There are an estimated 4 million Syrian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey. (about 1.9 million in Turkey, 1.1 million in Lebanon, 630,000 in Jordan, 250,000 in Iraq, and 130,000 in Egypt, according to the UNHCR.)

Although they constitute the largest group of migrants, not all of the migrants are Syrians. Tens of thousands of Afghans, Etrians, and Nigerians, have come to Europe in 2015. People from these countries would not be included in Cameron’s plan, but might be able to find refuge in France under Hollande’s plan.

Cameron plans to expand the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, which would allow the accepted refugees to reside, work, and access public funds in Britain for five years, after which the refugees could apply to settle in the UK.

The 24,000 migrants President François Hollande would let into France would constitute France's part in a plan Hollande is pushing in which each of the 28 EU countries would take a share of 120,000 European migrants over the course of two years. Hollande has also called for “hot spots” to be established along the borders of Greece, Italy and Hungary, countries through which large numbers of migrants are passing. These “hot spots” would process asylum applications there and deny ineligible migrants before they make their way through Europe to countries such as France and Germany.   Both announcements came after a picture of a 3- year- old dead Syrian boy made headlines around the world, increasing international sympathy for the plight of migrants. Named Aylan Kurdi, the boy drowned off of the coast of Turkey after the boat he was on to get to Greece capsized. He was part of a Kurdish family fleeing violence in Syria. The image lead to calls in Europe to let in more refugees, and more pressure on political leaders to allow more refugees in.

Questions: What obligations do nations have in this crisis-- do they still have obligations to help refugees Saudi Arabia and other gulf states (like Qatar and Kuwait) have taken 0 Syrian refugees. Since Gulf states like Saudi Arabia helped fund fighting against Assad in Syria, are they obligated to take in Syrian refugees? Or do nations have no obligations to people of another country, regardless of their circumstances? Are European countries obligated to take in the refugees flooding into the continent? Is a state in which power is ostensibly derived from the people (referring to European parliamentary republics, not Saudi Arabia) obliged only to act in the best interest of its people, or do states have an obligation to help those in the greater global community with dire needs? When those two interests conflict, which should supersede the other?

The US has accepted about 1,500 Syrian refugees thus far and offers to accept 5,000 to 8,000 refugees next year. Should the US let in? Is the US obligated to promote the "general welfare" of humanity as well as her citizens, or does she only have to consider the well- being of her citizens?

All Sources: (in order in which they appear)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis.html?

hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/08/438539779/the-migrant-crisis-by-the-numbers

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34171148

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/France-to-take-24000-migrants-under-EU-refugee-plan-Hollande/articleshow/48856028.cms  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/image-of-syrian-boy-washed-up-on-beach-hits-hard-1441282847 (The picture of the Syrian boy can be found in this article. Warning: It is disturbing.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/25/434576046/u-s-to-accept-up-to-8-000-syrian-refugees-next-year

Source of the image displayed in this post: Reuters.

State vs Federal, Budget vs Justice

California legislature is currently debating a reform of the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws which, if signed into law, would mean “law enforcement would only be allowed to seize property and money if a property owner is convicted of a crime. The legislation also prohibits law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property and cash to the federal government.” This last sentence makes it very clear as to why the federal government would be so against such a reform;it would lose assets should this be passed. The federal government threatens California lawmakers with the fear of losing eligibility in the federal government’s Equitable Sharing Program, from which “California law enforcement agencies received more than $89.6 million.”

There are dissenters to this legislation even within California. Alice Dery, deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, has made it clear that should the proposed legislation be passed, California law enforcement of all levels would not be eligible for the Equitable Sharing Program. Sean Hoffman, director of legislation for the California District Attorneys Association, wrote that the reforms “will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking.”

If, as multiple reputable sources indicate, the new legislation will only result in a lower budget and worse ability to combat drug traffickers, then the answer is clear: do not pass the legislation. However, it has already passed, with a vote of 38-1, and the state Assembly is to debate the changes this week.

Let us not forget, however, that this legislation would help to prevent the unjust acquisition of private property. But does this legislation that would inspire inefficiency in an already bureaucratically-burdened system provide better for the common good than the current system? What the article ultimately presents is a choice: lose millions of dollars of federal funding and help to stop the unjust theft of private property, or keep millions of dollars and be able to more efficiently fight crimes?

Link to the website here

Pope Francis' visit brings up Religion in US politics.

Pope Francis will make his first ever visit to the United States on September 22, 2015. In his visit, the Pope will first meet with President Obama at the white house. After doing so, he will give an address to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. This specific address is special, as it is something that has not been done by any other Pope in history. Pope Francis will then go on to New York city, and later give another address in front of the United Nations. Click here for more information.

The Pope's visit brings up the topic of religion in United States politics. The visit and the address that he will give to congress offers us a look at the great evolution of the acceptance of different religious views in US politics. Looking at Catholic religion we can see this distinct evolution by looking at how, "President John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholic faith more than half a century ago," (CRUX) But nowadays this is not the case for politicians such as John Boehner (speaker of the House of Representatives) and Vice President Joe Biden, both of which are catholic and are so openly. These two politicians  in addition to many other catholics in US politics, do not have to "prove" themselves worthy for serving America just because they are Catholic, like President Kennedy needed to. This exemplifies the evolution of religious acceptance in politics that the United States has experienced throughout the decades. Even though Article 6 of the Constitution and the first amendment gave people freedom of religion when running for federal office, in the 19th and early 20th Century it was very difficult for a catholic to be elected to hold a high office in the US. This has now changed as nearly 30% of congress are Catholics(National Catholic Register). The Pope's visit, and especially the address he will give to congress has had people talking about the evolution involving religion in US politics and holding political office which I believe has been a great step forward because politicians should make their decisions on what the people they represent want and whats good for the country, and their personal religion should not affect the decisions they make in office.

In contrary to the federal government we see something different when looking at individual states. Article 6 of the constitution states that the government cannot issue religion tests to people running for office, but it didn't say that states could not do so. In fact there were states that had implemented some sort of a religion test in their constitution that tested weather candidates running for state office believe in God or a higher power. These tests were deemed unconstitutional and have been taken out for the past few decades but there are still a few states that have "language in their constitutions either requiring state officeholders to have particular religious beliefs or specifically protected"(Wiki) Wille I myself do believe in God, I still believe is is unconstitutional to have religious tests and even have language in the constitution like the states above do requiring religious beliefs in candidates, because it is discouraging people from trying to run for state office. The religious tests were deemed unconstitutional and I believe that was on the right grounds, but I also believe states should not have any sort of language concerning religion in their constitutions because there should be no correlation between political decisions and one's religion

Religion and politics is a very intricate thing to talk about, but is it even something we should even be concerned about? Because shouldn't politicians make political decisions based on what the people want, not their own religious beliefs? 

Secondly, should the federal government further interfere with the states mentioning of religion in their constitution when it comes to who can hold federal office? Was it enough to make all religious tests unconstitutional or should there be completely no mentioning of religion in a state's constitution when it comes to who can hold state office?


(Picture Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/pope-francis-is-coming-to-america-after-avoiding-it-for-78-years.html)

Trucker Wins Democratic Primary for Mississippi Governor

Robert Gray, the Democratic Nominee for Governor of Mississippi

 
JACKSON-- Robert Gray, a trucker from the small Mississippi town of Terry and an unknown, won the Democratic primary in the Mississippi race for governor, despite the fact that he never campaigned. In fact, his own mother never knew that he was running. 
Robert Gray owes his victory to two main factors-- (i) that his name was first on the ballot and (ii) that Mississippi voters do not to register by party, meaning that Republicans could vote in the Democratic primaries if they do not want to vote in their own party’s primary.

Gray won roughly 51% of the vote, beating two candidates who actually ran campaigns: Vicki Slater, a trial lawyer, and Dr. Valerie Short, an obstetrician-gynecologist.

This is by no means an isolated incident for Southern Democrats-- as the Democratic party has lost all of the hold that it once had over the South, statewide elections are almost certain to go to Republicans candidates, and serious candidates are often beaten by the first name on the ballot. For instance, in Tennessee, a man named “Charlie Brown” won the 2014 Democratic primary for governor, thanks in large part to the fact that his name was first on the ballot. Brown, a retiree, sent letter to state newspapers in which he commented that he would like to strap the Tennessee governor to an electric chair, due to Brown’s anger over the governor’s death sentence policies.

Gray’s win is evidence of the dismal state of Democrats in the South, and their growing irrelevance in Southern statewide elections-- in the Deep South, the Republican primary could be considered is the only vote that counts in gubernatorial elections, ie. the de- facto general election.**

Questions:

Uncompetitive elections and partisanship: Are uncompetitive general elections a threat to democracy, or merely a sign of deeply held beliefs? Is such partisanship an example of the threat of faction, as Madison mentioned in Federalist paper #10? Or rather, is it not a threat because their party allegiance comes from beliefs about what is best for the nation, and is not a case of putting the good of the party over the good of the people?

Do frivolous elections alway spell bad news for our democracy?

States’ voting procedures: Additionally, should all states have voters register by party? Would the election results have been different if only registered Democrats could vote in the Democratic primary?

**(Note that this only refers to the Deep South. Some States in the upper South, such as Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia, have Democratic governors.)

Sources:

NPR Article

New York Times Article
Article from "The Tennessean," a Tennessee local newspaper

Image source: Andrea Morales for the New York Times, from the same article cited above.

An Aging Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States, the most powerful federal court in all of the US, is composed of nine members with lifelong tenure. For some background information, their current ages range from 55 to 82, with the average age of the justices being 75 at the end of the next president’s first term.  Some, like the advocate group Fix the Court, believe this aging Court needs multiple reforms.

Fix the Court specifically believes firmly in a new system where Supreme Court Justices serve 18-year terms. Even Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 79 the dangers of a “superannuated [out-dated] bench.”  Fix the Court specifically cites the high percentage of 5-4 rulings under Chief Justice Roberts as a reason for change.

But close-cut decisions do not necessarily indicate a “partisan” bench. Just “this past spring… Chief Justice Roberts [a conservative] voted with the four liberal justices to save Obamacare” and that Justice Thomas voted against the Conservatives, “permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates” (S.M.).

It is also necessary to mention that an infusion of new members will, at the very least, provide new views and beliefs in the Supreme Court. But is this beneficial? Do fresher voices provide more impartiality, more justice? What even is justice? Is it Christian values? Is justice pro-life or pro-choice? If justice has a dynamic definition, does it not make sense to have a similarly dynamic Supreme Court?

And, perhaps most importantly, are we high school students even capable of responding to these questions fairly?

Link to the article here.

Kentucky county clerk defies court

Kim Davis made national headlines today when she was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She defends her actions by citing her first amendment right to religious freedom.

Some have publicly applauded Davis, including Republican presidential candidates Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Says Huckabee, “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme branch and it’s certainly not the Supreme Being.” 

But Fiorina, another Republican presidential candidate, thinks differently. “First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways. Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role. When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And, while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear.”

It may not help that this is an issue that a lot of us feel very strongly about, but what do you think? Was it right for Davis to be charged with contempt of court? Is her behavior in any way defensible? How far do your first amendment rights go? Do you think others will be influenced or encouraged by Davis's behavior?

Passing the Iran deal

Obama’s Iran deal is getting ready to come to a vote in Congress. While many representatives have openly voiced criticism – actually, a majority of them – the bill is expected to pass. 

Congress usually votes to approve a bill. If both houses approve, the bill is taken to the White House where the president either vetoes or signs it. However, in this case, Congress is voting to DISAPPROVE the Iran deal. If this goes through, it will still make its way to the White House, where the President would, supposedly, veto Congress’s disapproval, and it would go back to Congress to see if there would be enough votes to override the veto. This means that as long as 34 senators approve the deal (and they do, as of today), the President’s deal will stick.

Sen. Mikulski of Maryland was the decisive 34th backer. She has served for three decades in the Senate already and will be retiring next year, which is probably relevant because it means she didn’t need to fear backlash from constituents that couldn’t vote for her next term anyway. 

What do you think of this loophole? Clearly, an argument can be made that this is bad because it is effectively minority rule – especially considering how hard it was to get these 34 together. 

Relevant NPR interview question: a reporter asked Obama, “Are you entirely comfortable going forward with a historic deal knowing that most of the people's representatives are against it?” and he responded saying, “Well, what I know is, is that, unfortunately, a large portion of the Republican Party, if not a near unanimous portion of Republican representatives, are going to be opposed to anything that I do, and I have not oftentimes based that on a judgment on the merits, but have based that on their politics…and I am confident that, as we see implementation, we will see, in fact, more and more folks pull out of the immediate politics of it and judge it on the basis of whether it was the right thing to do for the country.” (Read the entire interview transcript at http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/10/431244020/full-video-and-transcript-nprs-interview-with-president-obama) 

Is it a politician’s job to represent our views or act in what he/she thinks is in our best interest? How much of how we elect our representatives is on the basis of how we trust them, their rationality and decision-making ability, and how much of it is dependent on how well we like the specific policies they advocate for? Does it count as democracy if they think they are representing the interests of their constituents even if those interests have never officially been voiced? Are situations like the passing of the Iran deal sometimes necessary so things can actually get done, or are they never justified? 

California Puts limitations on Solitary Confinement

Today I heard about the changes to the solitary confinement policy in California. After a lawsuit was settled, California says it is illegal to place prisoners in solitary confinement indefinitely. Some you ask where do the high risk, violent, totally evil prisoners go? The answer is to move prisoners to a new unit where they have more privileges, such as phone, and some leisure time.

This policy change comes after various court cases, hunger strikes, and studies reporting on how solitary confinement takes a toll on individuals more than it seems. The act of cutting off almost all interaction will affect their sanity. Along with the loss of sanity, some argue that solitary confinement does not really rehabilitate individuals. They also use the eighth amendment, no cruel and unusual punishment, to try to argue their point,m although I think I think that using the eight amendment is stretching it. There are negative affects to solitary confinement but the base of the act is to isolate someone, not torture them. However I do see pushing gang members automatically into solitary confinement, when they arrive, is unfair. Individuals should not just be judge on their past. Prison is meant to rehabilitate individuals, judging them on their past is against that.

The other side believes that prisoners are prisoners; they have no freedoms or guaranteed rights as they have lost that privilege due to breaking the law. Some guards also warn that solitary confinement is a method of suppressing the prisoners. Conclusively I think that solitary confinement should not be done away with, but like what this policy changes is prevent individuals to be in solitary confinement from being indefinite and more than 10 years. No matter the act there should always be some change in actions or violence.



You can read the original article on The New York Times here

Pope Francis Authorizes Priests to Forgive Women of Abortions

Pope Francis

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortions, therefore excommunicating any individual who has undergone or taken part in giving an abortion. Although there are various exceptions, such as when the mother's life is in danger, when the loss of a baby is unintentional, or rape victims. However, these are still very point of view based and views are very different based on the location or social view on abortions.

But on September 1st Pope Francis has decided is too allow priests to forgive women who underwent abortions during the Church's Jubilee year of mercy from December 8th till November 20th in 2016.* Although I am personally pro-choice I still understand and respect why some religions feel to protect even fetuses or babies from abortions.Though I think it is barbaric, especially, to not allow abortions after rape.

Ultimately this news just furthers how accepting Catholicism is becoming. Rather than being an exclusive religion where only the hardcore individuals are allowed, it is evolving with the different social norms. I believe that everyone should be able to follow whatever religion in whatever method they feel as religion is more ambiguous than set in stone laws that every follower must follow. The way another person follows a religion does not affect another's and I do not see why Catholicism is so restricting when every human is different.

Read the article on CNN here
*Note: Jubilees are certain years when "indulgences" are forgiven, this jubilee has a focus Mercy and forgiveness.

The problem with Google's driverless cars

stay gold ponyboy

Stumbled upon this in the news today, which is so appropriate given the topic of our class discussion.

Google’s car is super cute. I almost wanted to give it a hug after I saw the picture in the Times. It belongs in a happy cartoon world where everyone obediently stays at the speed limit and stops at every stop sign and yields to every pedestrian and otherwise follows the law to a T, but unfortunately we don’t live in that kind of world. If you drive the speed limit on 280, you might be safe from the law, but what use is that if you’re fatally injured by the impatient, 75 mph driver behind you? 

One quote in the Times article that I thought was a little bit haunting: “One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage — paralyzing Google’s robot.” 

One more thing that’s not related to cars but still related to this idea. A movie called Ex Machina came out earlier this year that explored the boundaries of artificial intelligence. Without spoiling too much of the plot, what I gathered from it (not that I watched it. It was R-rated and I follow the law!!111!!) was that the only way robots are able to pass the Turing test and prove that they are human is to exhibit the most human trait of all – selfish manipulation. 

Are humans, like the Federalists suggest, naturally evil and selfish? Cars are a halfway decent analogy for the economy because some may argue that the economy regulates itself – likewise, everyone on the highway has to drive while considering how fast/slow everyone else is driving. Is the natural speed check that comes with the presence of other drivers enough, or is governmental intervention necessary? And if governmental intervention IS necessary, how can we make the most out of it, considering there are still people who don’t take the regulations seriously? 

What do you think? Feel free to give examples of situations other than cars, though you’re welcome to talk about that too. 

Trump talks of raising taxes, alarming G.O.P

       Donald Trump has recently talked about implementing tariffs on American companies and moving their factories to other countries. He also has talked about increasing the taxes on the compensation of hedge fund managers. Republicans have been known to consistently preach cutting taxes and bolstering business to help economic growth. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/politics/republicans-wary-of-donald-trumps-populist-tone-on-taxes.html?_r=0&referrer=

         Traditional republicans are in shock but the huge difference in Trumps view of taxes. They fear the Trumps opponents may start to adopt a more tax admitting stance to gain some support from some people on the fence on Trump. However, traditional republicans do not want to see a tax allowing nomination represent the Republican Party.

        Many republicans are fearful because while Trumps view on taxes may not align with republicans it does support the feeling of a great deal of voters. The club of growth is an anti-tax group that is investigating Trimps tax plan and is seeking to find flaws in it. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-is-set-to-blow-up-gop-orthodoxy-again/article/2571075

        I feel that Trumps view on taxes is a great risk for many Republicans. if Trump is seeking a tax increase, his opponents are going to be forced to allow for taxes at a greater frequency because they want to lessen the gap between themselves and the current leader of the polls. However, by doing so, the candidates are going against the orthodox republican view on taxes and this could become a big problem if some of their votes leave for a third party candidate in the election for presidency.

Ten years after Katrina

When I first heard about Katrina, I was too immature to understand. Instead of thinking about the billions and billions and billions of dollars it would take for the city to recover or how some parts could never be the same at all, I thought that maybe New Orleans could be like the next Atlantis, and even though all of this sucked, that would be pretty cool. Don’t judge. I was six. 

But even ten years later, I still can’t pretend to comprehend how long and painful the journey to recovery for New Orleans was. It did not help that New Orleans pre-hurricane already suffered from high rates of poverty and crime. Today, while the city is definitely on the road to recovery, it’s not quite there yet. Reflecting back on the natural disaster’s 10th anniversary, some think that disaster relief hurt the people it was supposed to help the most, and point out that there is disparity between some regions, that affluence and recovery fall along racial lines. 

(I like this article. It's informative and interesting and also has nice pictures.) 

Fast forward seven years later, and Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast in November. This time, FEMA was more prepared to address the natural disaster, bracing itself for the storm before it even hit. Obama’s approval ratings shot up after Sandy…which happened, lucky for him, right before the 2012 election. 

The Constitution does not address how the government should handle things like natural disasters, which are incredibly costly to manage. To me, especially because of what I can see in the difference between how Katrina and Sandy were handled, the answer seems obvious. The government is there to provide help in times of crisis, is it not? And while there is an argument to be made that the government should step out in times of recession because the economy may bounce back by itself in times of stress, I cannot see one that excuses government inefficiency and hesitance to respond during a natural disaster. To me, while this is not a power explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I see it as an extension of the government's duty to protect the security of the nation. 

What are your thoughts on the role of government in responding to natural disasters? Please provide a constitutional basis. 

Dick Cheney warns of another potential attack similar to 9/11

                                                                                             Former president Dick Cheney has criticized Barack Obama and Joe Biden for allowing ISIS to grow. Cheney claims that if Osama Bin Laden was able to assemble a force to attack America with airplane tickets and box cutters, then America could be at great risk because ISIS has the ability to get their hands on much more powerful weapons. He claims that ISIS could get their hands on chemicals that could inflict great pain that Americans should not be faced with. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/dick-cheney-terrorism-threat-isis/index.html                                                                                                                                                                                                 Dick Cheney sights Obama as the fault of ISIS. He feels that when he and president George W. Bush left office in 2009 America had Iraq under control, but Obama allowed Iraq to be left without American military soldiers. In doing so, Americans saw the rise of ISIS. According to Cheney, the most concerning issue is how ISIS is able to recruit people from America to fight in Syria and Iraq. Without high level security these Americans could return to the U.S and inflict serious pain. http://www.wdsu.com/politics/cheney-warns-of-potential-for-another-911/35020886                                                                                                                                                                           Cheney also referenced that ISIS is extremely terrifying with the prospect that a nuclear weapon could be made in the middle east. I feel that Cheney is trying to bring worry to Obama's foreign policy. He is calling for a much higher security and may be referencing that we must take a stand against ISIS. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/31/cheney-we-could-see-another-911-with-much-deadlier-weapons/

        While I feel that ISIS is a big risk, I feel that it is unnecessary to automatically take a military stance against ISIS. While ISIS is a dangerous organization, a war could not prevent deaths and would not lessen the tension between America and ISIS. However, I am fearful that American citizens that have joined ISIS could inflict damage to the U.S. I, however, trust American security and feel that we must just be cautious and prevent people from joining and strengthening ISIS. I do feel that we must not let ISIS obtain too much power because it would put America at risk. 

       This can be tied the to the Bill of Rights and how citizens have the right to bear arms. However, I feel that if people are putting the U.S at risk then they may be punished for their words. I feel that if Americans support ISIS then they are putting America at risk and therefore are subject to questioning.                                                                    

The USA considering building a wall between us and Canada

       Republican candidate Scott Walker has raised a controversial topic about building a wall between America and Canada. Walker believes that it is a serious issue. Walker claims that we have to fear a terrorist attack coming through Canada. Canada has seen two Islamist terrorist attacks in the past years and Walker feels that Americans could be at risk. The republican fight for nomination has been dominated by talk of immigration. Donald Trump has taken a strong stand against immigration and many republican however a majority of the discussion has revolved around Mexico.http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/30/scott-walker-canada-border-wall-immigration-terrorists

       Scott Walker"s view on immigration has been shifting over the past two years. The governor of Wisconsin was quoted saying two years ago that it would be logical to grant citizenship to some of the undocumented immigrants. However, recently Walker said that undocumented immigrants were not entitled to amnesty. Also, recently Walker claimed that the number of legal immigrants may need to be curbed to protect American jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/24/what-does-scott-walker-believe-on-immigration/
   
       I feel that Donald Trump had a direct effect on Walkers shift on immigration. Trump strong stance against immigration forced Walker to take a stronger stand against immigration in fear of being denounced by Trump. Walker feels that if he stays highly tolerant of immigration he will be exploited by Trump and decided to lessen the gap between their views on immigration. Trump is leading the republican race right now and Walker does not want to be at the other end of the spectrum on such a heavily discussed topic like immigration.

       While immigration was not a overwhelming topic in the Constitution, the southern and northern states were split on the topic of slavery. In the Constitution the founding fathers did not know whether or not to count slaces toward the population. If Walker had stuck to his proposal of giving some illegal immigrants citizenship it would raise of the issue of representation in the house. In the constitution the founding fathers had to compromise to could slaves as 3/5ths of a person. However, immigration talks could cause some states to lose or gain power depending on allowing immigrants to enter or not.

       So while Walker claims that he would consider a wall between the U.S. and Canada due to terrorism risks, I feel that immigration could be another factor pushing his decision.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/08/30/walker-says-wall-along-canadian-border-worth-reviewing/u8pNzaDtZkUIqcYsCTNHhP/story.html

Sanders to tell DNC that 'establishment politics won't do it'

     


        On Friday, Bernie Sanders, seeking the democrat nomination, will step in from of the Democratic National Committee to express his views of Establishment politics. Establishment politics are conventionally known as a closed group of elites in the government. Sanders seeks to denounce these ethics and strive for a smaller elite. Sanders strives to convince the democrats that we must not follow the elite groups like Wall Street or big banks. However, Sanders has never spoken in front of the DNC so his views could easily be dismissed.http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/bernie-sanders-establishment-politics-dnc/index.html

       Everywhere I have read, the Democratic National Committee is said to be the most establishment meeting there is. Sanders is putting a high risk on himself by ripping establishment in front of a crowd that could easily shut him down.(http://www.kcci.com/politics/sanders-to-rip-establishment-politics-to-dnc/34963334). 

       

       Sanders has been pushing a anti-establishment view on the government in fundraisers; however, this is the first real risk he is taking. Sanders understands that he needs to gain the support of smaller organizations for his nomination. Sanders is taking a calculated risk, but I feel that it is necessary for his nomination. I feel that the attention in the democratic campaign has been tied to Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden. Sanders needs to take a risk to get his name out there. 

       Sanders is attempting to get the support of the lower class. He wants to implement a $15 per hour minimum wage and free tuition for college.He realizes that to gain nomination he needs to please a certain group of people with opponents like Hilary Clinton having control over certain parts if the democratic party. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bernie-sanders-chicago-fundraiser-met-0818-20150817-story.html

       Sanders view of the government ties in to how the Articles of Confederation attempted to bring down the power of the elite. Sanders seeks to give the lower class a higher influence in the government and seeks to please the. The Articles attempted to help the minority also by giving each state equal power and prevented taxing without unanimous decisions. Sanders is going away from the founding fathers view that there needs to be an elite class for a government to work. Sanders feelings that an elite class will hinder the government and society from moving forward.

Devaluation of the Chinese yen

                                                                               That is a lot. 

Devaluation of the Chinese yuan

Last week, over the course of a couple of days, China devalued its currency around 4 percent. This matters because currency devaluation can trigger a “race-to-the-bottom” effect – when a country weakens its currency, its prices are lowered, which increases its exports and market share because consumers want the cheaper products, which encourages other countries to do the same. 

There is much speculation over the cause of this rapid devaluation, which is the lowest the yuan has dropped in a 2-day period in a very long time. One thing most can agree on is that it reflects that China’s economy may not be as strong as the world thought it was and that its rapid yearly growth rate (the GDP used to increase by 7 percent every year) may be starting to falter. 

However, people think there is more to it than just an attempt to increase exports and boost the economy. I read lots of opinionated analysis on China’s reasons for devaluing. 

a) China has, in the past, been accused of initiating a “currency war,” which is another term for competitive devaluation. The United States has also, in the past, fallen victim to competitive devaluation, which causes loss of jobs and can force protectionist policies like the enactment of tariffs. Some news sources took the bad blood angle and “spun” the story to speculate that this may be the start of yet another currency war (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/currency-wars-whos-next-to-pull-the-trigger.html)

b) Others say no, starting a currency war won’t help China’s efforts to become an IMF reserve currency (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rallies-around-yuan-as-imf-mulls-reserve-currency-inclusion-1434366682), elevating it to the status of the likes of the dollar, the euro, the yen, and the pound sterling. Some articles I read (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-moves-to-devalue-the-yuan-1439258401 and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/your-money/currency-devaluation-is-a-short-step-in-chinas-long-advance.html?_r=0) “spun” the story in a more forgiving way, defending China by saying it was only trying to loosen its grip on the yuan and try to determine it by market value, which is what the IMF wants – free-floating currency.

The difference between how the prices of currencies are determined: The U.S. dollar is “free-floating,” which means that its value is tied to the market. The Chinese yuan is not currently free-floating. The central bank, not the market, determines its value every day, but it can be assumed that the central bank takes the market into account. 

(Now, awkward transition as I try to connect this to what we’re learning in class right now. Sorry.) Both of these countries’ exchange rate regimes reflect, to an extent, the overall structure of how they run their governments. China exercises tight control, the United States lets the people decide what they want and hopes for the best. The advantage of free-floating currency is independence from other currencies and freedom from complicated intervention policies, the disadvantage of free-floating currency is volatility. The price of freedom is volatility. Is it worth it (in any case…feel free to talk about government or economics, but other examples are also welcome!) ? 

FIFA Inquiry Yields Indictments

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/sports/soccer/fifa-officials-arrested-on-corruption-charges-blatter-isnt-among-them.html?ref=world&_r=0

As one of the most watched events around the world, it's safe to say the FIFA World Cup generates millions of viewers (and billions of dollars) around the globe each year. Discoveries about the 2010 World Cup, which was held in South Africa have lead to investigations that have yielded facts that South Africa was chosen due to high officials being bribed for their votes on where it should be held. The arrests of the officials involved did not come as a huge surprise, as the FIFA organization has been bombarded with accusations of bribery for decades. Like the Olympics, hosting a huge event such as this can bring great economic growth to a country: tourism, infrastructure building, and creating jobs for their people. Clearly the voting process ought to be more tightly regulated. How do you guys think they should go about having a clean vote? Who is supposed to make sure the officials stay on track?

US Holds Back to Prevent Harming Civilians

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world/middleeast/with-isis-in-crosshairs-us-holds-back-to-protect-civilians.html?ref=world

While it appears that the US has successfully identified some buildings that seem to be the headquarters of the Islamic State, the buildings have remained untouched by airstrikes and heavy military assualt. The reson for this is that the US fears civilian casualties, and has elected to wait until the area is clear of innocents before attempting a full on strike. Leaving the buildings intact has its drawbacks, however as it was reported that Islamic State fighters successfully drove out Iraqi soldiers, handing another round of victory to the Islamic State. The possibilty of killing civilians would "hand the Islamic State propaganda" and is cited as one of the main reasons that airstrikes are being withheld. While I'm not totally convinced, I do think this is the proper way to go, even if their cited reason isn't exactly why I'm supporting holding off on the airstrike. However, I can also see the urgency in the situation because wait too long, and the headquarters will be moved and disappear into thin air. What do you guys think? How clear of civilians should an area be before an airstrike is commenced? Do you think it's more dangerous to let the Islamic State soldiers run free?