Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Bipartisan bill “dead on arrival” in Congress


Following months of discussion between Senate negotiators from both Republican and Democratic parties, a comprehensive, bipartisan bill was proposed. It aims to alleviate domestic and foreign national security concerns. Summing up to $118 billion, the bill provides for border policy provisions, aid to Ukraine, Israel, civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and “others caught in conflict zones,” and for allies to protect against the Chinese government in the Indo-Pacific region.


This act by Congress would be the first on immigration in decades. It was motivated by the recent dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from Mexico seeking asylum. The border provisions, in particular, would end the “catch and release” policies at the southern border to make the immigration screening process for migrants from Mexico seeking asylum tougher and more efficient. “Catch and release” policies are defined by Republican Senator of North Carolina Thom Tillis as “requir[ing] the government to release illegal immigrants into the United States' interior after detaining them for six months, if no other country accepts them for deportation.”


Though the bipartisan bill was approved by the Republican chief negotiator, Republicans are now threatening to back out of supporting the bill, claiming that the provisions for border security are not adequate. Some Republicans are going as far as saying that the bill will encourage immigration. This backlash is led by Republican candidate Donald Trump, who called the bill a “gift to the Democrats.”



Photo from NBC News
Donald Trump (left) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (right)

To me, these events reveal the significant informal power Donald Trump has, despite not currently holding an elected position. The loyalty of the Republicans to his criticism of the bill is remarkable. This phenomenon can also relate to the power of affiliations in Congress. By privately meeting across chambers, Republicans decided to present a unified front against the bill, demonstrating how forming alliances in Congress is powerful.


We can also see the impact of social media on politics through these events, as the outrage from politicians regarding the increased polarization in Congress can be felt on social media directly by the public. Democrats criticize the sharp right turn Republicans took when the bill was revealed: Democrat Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii wrote on X: “They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.” Democrat Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut calls this turn of events “embarrassing” for Republicans. 


I believe this development additionally reflects what we learned about public opinion and its power in holding politicians accountable: even without elections but through polls, the public can influence their elected officials. Some Republican Congress members are hesitant to support the bill due to recent polls that reveal Republicans are less willing to send more money to aid Ukraine.



Photo from Associated Press
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

While the Senate is more willing to pass the bill than the House is, they still face a 60-vote threshold to break cloture, which would stop the minority’s ability to filibuster. This concept is also relevant to our course, as the Senate’s capacity to filibuster makes the vote for passing the bill more difficult than a simple majority vote and hence less democratic. Though the vote will take place Wednesday, 2/7, Republicans are now requesting more time to review the bill, and it is unlikely that the vote will be successful. Furthermore, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called the bill “dead on arrival,” capturing how, even if it passes in the Senate, more resistance will be found in the House. This development reinforces the polarization of Congress, which creates political gridlock that leads to stagnation in policymaking.


Sources:
Posted by at 5 comments:

Monday, February 5, 2024

Joe Biden Wins South Carolina Democratic Primary

Joe Biden won the South Carolina presidential Democratic primary by a massive landslide. Competing against the former chairman and co-owner of Talenti Gelato Dean Phillips and self-help author Marianne Williamson, Biden received over 96%  (over 125,000) of the overall votes. Biden’s re-election campaign cost about $400,000 and in the end won 55 South Carolina delegates.




South Carolina isn’t the first state Biden has won over. In the New Hampshire primary, Biden won the majority Democratic votes through write-ins since his name was not on the ballot for the New Hampshire primaries. According to state law, New Hampshire was to host the first primary; however, the DNC (Democratic National Committee) wanted Biden to start in South Carolina because of his ‘not-so stellar’ track record (placed 5th in 2020) in New Hampshire and ultimately decided that he was not to participate. Biden still won through thousands of people writing his name down despite not being on the poll at 64.8%.


Biden’s overwhelming victory shows that Williamson and Phillip are not serious threats to Biden and that he will be winning most, if not all, future Democratic votes in the primaries. From the looks of it, he is guaranteed to be the Democratic Party’s nominee. The next Democratic primary will be in Nevada on February 6th, so be on the lookout if you're interested!

Links:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/04/biden-nets-landslide-victory-in-south-carolina-democratic-primary-winning-96percent-of-votes.html


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/03/biden-wins-south-carolina-primary-00139479

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/23/why-biden-isnt-new-hampshire-primary-ballot/



(if any are interested in the primary calendars/results)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/calendar

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/calendar 
Posted by at 5 comments:

Sunday, February 4, 2024

Why Will Nevada Have Both GOP Caucuses AND a GOP Primary?

This 2024 election year, for the first time ever, Nevada will hold both GOP caucuses and a GOP primary election. The US Constitution gives each state the power to conduct their own primary elections, whatever method that may be. Nevada has historically been one of the few states to hold caucuses for their presidential candidate nomination contests, but following the national shift away from caucuses after 2020 because of Covid, there has been a lot of opposition towards the caucuses. Critics emphasize the unfairness and inefficiency of caucus meetings, arguing that they only represent a small proportion of the population (often the citizens who live the closest) and are thus undemocratic because of the low voter turnout. Taking the widespread criticism for caucuses in stride, in 2021, Nevada legislature enacted a law stating that “a primary, preceded by 10 days of early voting, be held on the first Tuesday in February” (Vox). 


Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images


Even so, many politicians believed that removing caucuses would be disadvantageous, as Nevada would miss out on the media attention and publicity that caucuses consistently gather each year. “We want to make clear that we stand together in protecting the presidential nominating schedule as it has existed for many years,” a group of pro-caucus GOP lawmakers said after the law was put in place (Miami Herald).


There is a lot of politics behind what happened next, but to quickly summarize, the Nevada Republican party invalidated the results of the primary election, scheduled a state caucus, and barred candidates who participated in the state’s primary from receiving delegates in the caucus. In other words, the only thing that will count in the coming election are the results of the caucus. If it seems unfair, it’s because it is. Trump will be a candidate in the caucus, scheduled for February 8, while Nikki Haley’s name will be on the Nevada primary ballot, of which the last day to vote is February 6. It remains unclear why Haley chose not to be a candidate in the caucus.


Photo from the Associated Press


So what’s the political significance of this mess? The biggest thing I have to say is that the double-election is disrupting the democratic process. As a journalist from Vox said, “Trump has effectively scooped up all of Nevada’s delegates before a single voter has even cast a ballot or entered a caucus site” (Vox). Plain and simple, it undermines a crucial aspect of American culture—our democracy, the ability we have to voice our opinions and VOTE for who we think will run our country the best. On top of that, this new system is bound to confuse voters, if it hasn’t already. The average citizen likely knows very little about the voting process in the first place, and this only blurs the procedure even more. Who knows what will happen when too many voters get confused about who is running in the primaries because they are not educated on how the election will work this year? The votes could be massively skewed.


Furthermore, it is important to note that Trump’s expected caucus win in Nevada won’t tell us anything about his actual political dominance (at least compared to prior caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire). I think it’s reasonable to say that Nevada's results will be quite diluted because of the double-election. Because Trump’s only opposition comes from very small, relatively low-profile candidates, he will secure the victory quite easily, but the distribution of votes would be very different than, say, if Nikki Haley were a candidate. In other words, we don’t know the full extent of Trump’s fan base, which clouds our view of his true campaign support, something that could prove to be disadvantageous as the election progresses.



Sources: 


 

Posted by at 2 comments:

Should Congress impeach Secretary Mayorkas?

Mayorkas calls for new immigration law amid renewed scrutiny and tragedy at the border - ABC News        

    Alejandro Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, is entrusted to keep our borders secure, however Republicans believe he is failing his duties. The House chair of Homeland Security, Mark Green, who rallied the committee's impeachment actions, said “Mayorkas has put his political preferences above following the law.” Mayorkas sent a letter to Green before the committee markup, in an attempt to defend that he has upheld immigration laws, the letter containing various examples of his enforcement record; however Green’s sentiments haven't changed. Last Wednesday morning, the House committee of Homeland Security voted narrowly along party lines to forward articles of impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas. These articles contained that Mayorkas has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” While republicans believe Mayorkas has truly resisted enforcing law, Democrats assert that there are no real grounds for impeachment.

Republicans have been investigating Mayorkas’ enforcement of the border since they reclaimed the House majority, recently stating that he has abused his power as DHS Secretary, and relaying their claims in two articles of impeachment. The first article of impeachment cites that Mayorkas didn't follow the detention and removal requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act, like the requirement for expedited removals. Exceptions to this requirement are given to migrants and claims of asylum, and in 2021 Biden assigned DHS to re-evaluate non citizens who were subject to expedited removal. The agency later revoked the expansion of expedited removal under the Trump administration, which is likely why Mayorkas hasn’t diligently followed the requirement for expedited removals. The first article also relays Mayorkas use of parole authority, allowing migrants short-term protections without using a visa; however the Biden administration also created temporary protections for non-Americans allowing them temporarily work and live in America. The second article of impeachment focuses on claims that Mayorkas has made many false statements in congressional testimony, which republicans also argue has breached public trust. Republicans lament many instances in which they believed Maryokas had lied, or unfulfilled Trump-era policies, like ending Migrant Protection Protocols. Florida GOP Rep. Laurel Lee says, “He’s come to this Congress and he’s given testimony before that was demonstrably false, stating that our border was secure,” Lee also said that Mayorkas was supposed to continue the remain in Mexico policy, but he in fact was not. While it is clear that Mayorkas is resistant to carry out harsh border policy, certain assertions the republicans make appear hazy.

US-Mexico Border Encounters Drop After Increased Migrant Expulsions

Democrats label the actions of Mayorkas as a simple policy difference. The highest Democrat on the DHS committee, Bennie Thompspn, remarks that the articles of impeachment are below what qualifies for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Democrats accuse Republicans of being overdramatic, and highlight that the GOP will take any chance they can to tear down a Democrat. It's evident that border control will be a largely debated issue in the 2024 Presidential election, which some Democrats say is why the Republicans are pinning attention and criticism on Mayorkas so largely. DHS officials parallel the claim that Republicans are overreacting, as they note that Mayorkas has testified before Congress 27 times, “more than any other Cabinet member,” which seems excessive; and stating the inquiry into Mayorkas is “cynical and hypocritical.” Furthermore, I’m sure the Democratic party feels threatened, as Mayorkas’ potential impeachment could highlight a lack of integrity for the Democrats and Biden Administration, dulling their reputation before the 2024 election.


The Full House could vote on the issue next week, while it appears Mayorkas is desperately engaging with Senators and the White house to complete a deal to revoke immigration laws. While it's hard to know exactly how/how not Mayorkas has carried out border policy, it's not surprising that Republicans would question his integrity. It's also not surprising that Mayorkas would use his authority to patrol the Mexican border in ways he feels most just, despite differing opinions; similar to the previous Trump administration who also patrolled the border by their liking, despite negative backlash. While I understand why Republicans would want to hold Mayorkas accountable for being lax on policy, I don’t entirely agree with harsh border control policy to begin with. Both sides of the issue seem to be fueled heavily by partisan lines, and without a critical, humanitarian, or cooperative lens. Unfortunately the political scene continues to reveal its strong divide, as bold arguments and partisanship clouds the focus on facts and reason.



Resources:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/politics/impeaching-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-committee/index.html


https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/31/u-s-house-committee-advances-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas-to-floor/


https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/mayorkas_submitted_testimony_markup_013024.pdf


Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, February 2, 2024

Border Strife: Governor Abbott's Actions and Federal Responses


    

Governor Greg Abbott
Governor Greg Abbott has been actively addressing border security issues along the Texas-Mexico border. His actions include deploying the Texas National Guard, advocating for physical barriers, and implementing state-level measures. Abbott's recent razor wire deployment has sparked controversy and legal clashes with federal authorities. 

    Federal courts have taken steps to address Governor Abbott’s actions. The Supreme Court has ruled in agreement with the Biden administration, allowing Border Patrol Agents to cut Abbott’s wiring. Meanwhile, the administration is using lower federal courts to challenge Abbott’s installation of floating barriers in the Rio Grande. This method of appealing to federal courts relates to our lessons in class as the Supreme Court has set a precedent but it is up to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce this ruling.

    Governor Abbott uses the invasion clause, the right of states to defend against an invasion given by the Constitution, to justify his action, however, Professor Stephen Vladick questions his argument: “There's no support in our history, there's no support in founding or other materials for the idea that states can decide for themselves that they're under invasion, and, even if the federal government disagrees, that somehow it's the state's determination that would control.” Others, however, agree with Abbott’s actions such as South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem who enthusiastically exclaimed she’ll “drive in more razor wire from South Dakota if [she has] to, for [Abbott] to do his job."

    Governor Abbott’s work is not only a nuisance to the federal government but is causing harm as well. Due to his floating borders, a woman and her two children drowned in the Rio Grande. Environmental experts are concerned about flooding due to the buoys and Mexico claims they and the razor wire violate treaties made between Mexico and the US.



    T
    T
    T
    T
    This situation is extremely controversial, causing many disputes around federalism and border control as well as human rights. The federal government is attempting to take action through lawsuits and the bureaucracy but their task of controlling Abbott requires more work. This relates to our current curriculum about the Supreme Court and Bureaucracy. The federal government sued Abbott and the Supreme Court decided to pick up this civil law case after four justices voted for them to. Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor General represented the federal government in this case and the justices voted in favor of her argument. The Bureaucracy was permitted with their ruling to enforce the law which they did by removing the barriers Abbott placed.


Sources Used:
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Social Media CEOs Testify at Senate Hearing on Child Safety

"Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don't mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands," said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. During a heated Senate hearing this week, lawmakers confronted top social media executives on their platforms' purported failure to shield minors from sexual exploitation. These executives included Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta; Shou Zi Chew, CEO of TikTok; Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X; Evan Spiegel, CEO of Snap Inc. and Jason Citron; CEO of Discord. The Senate Judiciary Committee chaired the session, which contained passionate allegations, moving parent testimonies, and requests for further regulation.

There is a rising demand for regulatory measures, as child safety activists are hoping that increased awareness of the planned Stop Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act (CSAM) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would spur legislative action. The Kids Online Safety Act is focused on improving safety measures for young users in the digital domain, whilst the Stop CSAM Act attempts to stop the spread of explicit content involving minors. Supporters contend that if these legislation are passed, they will help close the current gaps in child safety on social networking sites and provide a safer online environment for kids and teenagers. But past difficulties in enacting tech-related laws—like those pertaining to competition and data privacy—raise concerns about how successful new regulations will be.

Connecting to what we have learned in class about the rising polarization of the U.S, this is a rare issue of bipartisan agreement. Lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum are united in their belief that social media corporations are not living up to their civic duty in the United States, especially when it comes to the protection of young users. Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn accused Meta of fostering an atmosphere similar to a major sex trafficking website. Other lawmakers brought up similar worries regarding the platforms' capacity for self-policing, bringing up topics like drug trafficking, bullying, child exploitation, and blackmail. Meta, in particular, came under close examination throughout the hearing, due to its large user base, well-publicized privacy lapses, and recent legal actions, including one brought by the attorney general of New Mexico.

Among the well-known efforts gaining support are Senator Hawley's proposal for an age-based social media ban and the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act. Both proposals suggest age restrictions for social media accounts as a proactive effort to reduce potential risks connected with underage activity, and aim to improve safety measures for younger users.

The ongoing discussion about the potential repeal of Section 230 complicates matters further, as this section now exempts social media businesses from government liability for content placed on their sites. The repeal discussion raises questions about these platforms' accountability and responsibility for the content they host, as it signifies a significant shift in the legal system.

The Senate hearing underscored the deep concerns surrounding child safety on social media platforms. While calls for regulation intensified, the path forward remains uncertain. The balance between safeguarding users, especially children, and avoiding overregulation that could harm businesses remains a complex challenge as the landscape of social media continues to evolve. The question now is how lawmakers will negotiate this complex landscape, resolving the issues brought up and creating an atmosphere that promotes ethical innovation and economic expansion. Can a balance be achieved to secure the safety of young users while preserving the vitality of the social media landscape?

Sources:



Posted by at 6 comments:

Elon Musk’s Neuralink Startup Implants AI Chip in First Human Brain

On Sunday, January 28th, Neuralink, Elon Musk’s neurotechnology brain chip company, successfully inserted a brain implant into its first human skull.


Launched in 2016, Neuralink was founded to take advantage of the rapidly growing AI industry by creating Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) that interpret a person’s neural activity and translates it into decipherable actions. The chip, about the size of a quarter, is surgically implanted into the head by a microscopically precise robot (resembling a sewing machine) that drills through the skull and connects it to the brain with threads that transport the data between the chip and brain. It is designed to help people with paralysis, effectively allowing patients to control devices, such as a smartphone or computer, using just their minds. It’s quite literally the Force. Musk wrote on X, “Imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than a speed typist or auctioneer. That’s the goal” (X).



Of course, with this new, exciting technology on the rise comes immense risks. Though Neuralink’s chip was recently approved by the FDA, it received major backlash for “unnecessarily invasive, potentially dangerous approach to the implants that can damage the brain” (Vox), and apparently it has in animal test subjects, all to supposedly further Musk's vision for the project of merging human and AI. Furthermore, Musk’s invention also calls into question the ethics of such a project. Who should have access to brain-computer interfaces? How should they be regulated? Should there be applications restricted for certain people? If what Musk says is true, that Neuralink will “get humans on a path to symbiosis with artificial intelligence” (Washington Post), it is almost unquestionable that the government must step in to create limits and regulations for these types of never-before-seen circumstances.



I believe that there will be a point in the near future where artificial intelligence (and specifically BCIs) becomes such a big problem that the government will be forced to devise new legislation surrounding the use of the technology. Connecting this to what we have been talking about in class, I would not be surprised if, in the next few decades, the US creates a new department in the Cabinet devoted to dealing with AI policy. The most recent department added to the President’s Cabinet was the Department of Homeland Security, formed relatively shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Thus, it may only take one dangerous AI breakthrough incident to give the government a reason to build a new AI department. The scary thing about AI is that the possibilities are virtually endless—scientists fear the hypothetical day where AI becomes smarter than the human brain, eventually leading to large-scale AI world domination. I think, just maybe, this might warrant a small Cabinet department.


With all this being said, it’s indisputable that Neuralink and similar technologies are making insane medical advancements. I will end this article by pushing forth the idea that BCIs are a net positive for our communities. With limits in place and methods for controlling AI, which I am sure we will come to when the time is right, there’s so much potential in this budding industry, and I’m excited to see where it will lead us in the future.



Sources:


 

Posted by at 7 comments:

Oklahoma Representative wants to send Furries “to the pound”

     

5 Ways You Can Make Money as a Furry Artist - Your Coffee Break

    It’s pretty typical for young students to go through unique phases of self-expression during childhood, however Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey believes “furries” take it too far. What is a furry? A “furry” can take a range of forms, from a person dressing in an animal suit, to wearing cat ears and a tail, or simply identifying with an animal persona. Typically furries have an interest in expressing anthropomorphic qualities, meaning exhibiting a mix of human and animalistic traits. Justin Humphrey, who serves in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives, has made it clear that he condemns any animalistic expression in school, despite it likely being harmless.

Oklahoma House of Representatives

    Humphrey’s proposed bill would prohibit Oklahoma students from participating in the “school curriculum or activities,” if they “purport to be an imaginary animal or animal species, or who engage in anthropomorphic behavior”. His bill continues, asserting that a guilty child’s parent should, “pick the student up from the school, or animal control services shall be contacted to remove the student.” After backlash from the bill, Humphrey made a video response, calling schools’ allowance of furries “ignorance”, while threatening that tolerant teachers, staff, and students should be sent to the “mental ward.” Humphrey goes further to say, “If you've got an animal coming to school, how about we get them vaccinated? How about we get them neutered? How about we send them to the pound?” Humphrey argues that furries are disruptive to other students' education, while also presenting the false claim that schools are putting litter boxes in their classrooms for students, which he calls “insanity.” While it would be insane if students really were using litter boxes instead of a toilet, his reasoning for the bill appears frivolous and unnecessary, as it doesn't concern protecting safety or truly improving our flawed school system; it concerns limiting relatively harmless self-expression.

I think Humphrey measures furries as more dangerous than they really are. While I understand how a student arriving to school in a full cat suit could raise some issues, I think schools should enforce guidelines on their own discretion. I bet the alleged “furry” students aren't as prevalent, costumed, or disruptive as have been described, and I bet they likely are without mal-intention. It's not new for young people to assume unique trends that concern older generations; for example, many parents were distasteful of teen fashion in the 80s, and in the 2000s, some were averse to the “goth” appearance. The “furry” behavior appears to be a harmless trend of expression and imagination, and without cause for concern or claims of insanity. As a child, I personally have encountered  classmates who pretended to be cats or dogs during recess, and since then they have reflected upon their behavior, and grown out of their phase. Furthermore, all students have a right to be respected and attend school, despite their appearance. Moreover, Humphrey’s bill reads like an encroachment of the first amendment, as the bill prohibits the expression of students from even voicing or identifying with animals. Such a strong reaction to children’s expression should be criticized as rash and unjust. To stifle self-expression is to stifle imagination, personal maturity, and to attempt to stifle the inevitable trend changes that will forever occur in cultural history.

Furthermore, this bill feels incredibly harsh for the declared crime of being a “furry”. While Humphrey accuses schools and teachers of insanity, in reality calling animal control on a child is truly insane. He completely devalues real governmental jobs, and mocks the function of government, by electing animal control to play a spectacle of enforcement in his “crime scenario.” His aggressive language and threat to genuinely treat students as animals, by getting them “neutered” and sending them to the “pound,” reveals his violent disregard for student well being, protection, and education; what he truly values is preserving typical American fashion and social expression. This bill shamefully distracts from real issues and flaws that public schools have, and actual dangerous student behavior, like bullying or school shooters.

It is shameful that such harsh and unreasonable voices are admitted into our democracy, voices who seem without the true interest of our citizens, and without interest in fixing true problems. Unfortunately, the existence of Humphrey’s platform reflects how there are many citizens with poor judgment, who will elect people like Humphrey into office. He makes a subjective distaste a political concern, diluting the seriousness and mocking the importance of lawmakers and our government. I hope that America will begin to support figures who actually strive to solve important issues critically.




Sources:


https://nypost.com/2024/01/17/news/lawmaker-proposes-bill-banning-furries-in-oklahoma-schools/


https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-lawmaker-proposes-school-furry-ban-stirring-global-controversy-furries-class-activities-controversial-dressing-up-animal-animals-jj-humphrey-control-violation-scissortail-fandoms-marxon-yukon-tulsa-kylie-grubbs-shrapnel-vargr-wales


https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/furries-school-bill-animal-control-1234948434/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
Posted by at 6 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)