Inviting Foreign Nationals = Colossal Mistake

As we all know, president Trump is passionately vocal about his opposition to immigration. And although immigration policy affects everyone of us, some of us feel his wrath more than others. His homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, is one of those individuals. Why might he be so upset at her? Well let's just say his frustration with the lack of immigration reform has much to do with it. Not to mention Nielsen's "invitation" to immigrants seeking asylum. In a testimony to a congressional  committee, Nielsen asked immigrants seeking asylum to report themselves to United States port of entry. Some might think this was her way of combating illegal entry into the country however, conservatives judged her lack of vigor against any immigration at all. Supporters of the president's view against immigration cite the lack of action on his 2016 campaign promise as his source of frustration. "I will build a wall" he said, but we have yet to see any sign of building. Many Americans are relived that congress has not yet provided funding for such a ridiculous proposal. As a child of immigrants I have to add my two cents into this discussion. I come from the border town of Laredo Texas and needless to say I have lived with the effects of illegal immigration all throughout my life. There was nobody more affected by the lack of immigration reform than the illegal immigrants themselves. White house chief of staff John F. Kelly stated in an interview on NPR , "the policy of separating families is an appropriate deterrence to illegal border-crossers, most of whom are not people that would easily assimilate into the United States into our modern society. They’re overwhelmingly rural people in the countries they come from.” With that being said he reaffirmed his support for president Trump's worst method of immigration deterrence yet, separating families across nations. We all know president Trump can be a bully but his disdain toward immigrants lacks the etiquette befitting of a president. If Trump and his supporters would just take a moment and look at America they would realize it was built by immigrants. Until then immigrants, legal or not, have no choice but to live with the one-sided views conservative groups have of them.

Response to Collegue's Blog post #7

Hi Illyana,

When I first read you post I was very interested in reading more about this particular situation. I read the Huffington Post article and it reported that the official in question is actually a justice of the peace. I could not believe that a justice of the peace walked away with a slap on the wrist compared to two minority women who unknowingly committed a crime. You would think that someone who pleaded guilty to fraud on an election campaign would be severely scrutinized in serious contempt of the law, after all we are talking about a justice of the peace. This man knows the law unlike the women who mistakenly violated it.

It is difficult to disagree with your argument; racism does in fact seem to be alive and well. In addition, the punishment incurred by this justice of the peace does not fit the crime committed. How can he not be sentenced to a punishment befitting fraud? You can certainly argue that of these three cases this justice of the peace would certainly have more to gain from falsifying voting information. Apparently in Tarrant County, Texas all you need to do to get away with a crime is  admit to it.

Despite the stark differences in sentencing, we will never be able to prove what the real reasons for differences in punishment are. Although I agree, it looks a lot like racism, the truth is nobody will ever admit to it. Unfortunately, with president Trump in office we are bound to see a lot of racial tension spur in a country still divided by skin color.

Commentary on Colleague's Work

Hello Krista,

It’s so refreshing to see a fellow student interested in the issue of legalizing marijuana.
Why has it taken so long? Your article brought up some great points about the
misclassification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, right next to heroin and LSD.
I found it interesting that because of this considerable misclassification, scientist
are limited in their research. I went ahead and did some research about the history
of its classification and I found that advocates have been fighting this classification
right from the beginning.

The classification of marijuana dates back to 1970, when Congress passed the
Controlled Substance Act. When this act was signed, it intended to list marijuana
as a Schedule I drug temporarily until more research could be done on the substance.
The act even went as far as forming a commision with the sole purpose of researching
the substance. While the commision acknowledged that marijuana was not so much a
hazard to public health as a threat to society, they advised changes to federal law that
would allow citizens to possess small amounts at a time, while still agreeing the substance
should not be legal. In other words, they made no strides whatsoever.

I think the most harmful effect of this misclassification is the punishment incurred from
possessing marijuana. In Texas, anyone found in possession of marijuana is subject to
serious jail time and legal charges. The minimum sentence for possession of marijuana,
two ounces or less, is 180 days, some people can even get up to a life sentence.
It’s unfortunate how many people end up in jail or with felonies on their record for the
possession of a drug that has been grossly misclassified. I would like to see the day
that this misclassification is revised by Congress.

Second Amendment Comes First

Americans revere their homeland as the center of the world; the #1 economy, champion of human rights, gun-toting conservatives,  and the list goes on. For centuries Americans have alluded to their traditions as "inalienable rights" but every so often a major tragedy occurs which will alter the opinion of the public.  Today we are at a turning point and perhaps the beginning of a period of punctuated equilibrium; gun violence and domestic terrorism are slowly creeping up on us. As a result, our "inalienable rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have taken the back seat to the "right to bear arms".  Tragically, gun violence has become as normal as a black man getting pulled over for ambiguous reasons. We have become desensitized to unethical practices all throughout America and we cannot expect change unless we actively stand up against the status quo.

The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  For centuries this has been interpreted as the right to bear arms for men and was later expanded to signify any and all citizens of the United States. The ambiguity of the statement, however, leaves ample room for different interpretations.  A 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Colombia v. Heller, reaffirmed the second amendment as the individual's right to own guns for lawful usages, such as self-defense. So how do mass shootings fit into this equation? That is the element of division in a pro-life majority nation.

How ironic is it that a nation that highly values an individual's right to life often places the right to own guns in higher regard? Since the beginning of 2018 and up until now, there have been ninety-two gun violence incidents where two or more victims were involved; the major incidents, what the media terms mass shootings, are only the tip of the iceberg.  Part of the misinterpretation is due to the fact that government agencies and the media only use the term "mass shooting/murder" in instances where three or more individuals have died due to injuries. This method, however, grossly misrepresents the real number of people affected by gun violence. As of January 2018, there have been 461 victims of gun violence of which 151 died, according to massshootingtracker.org.

As a result, numerous protests across the country have reignited the debate concerning gun law reform.  The issue is especially meaningful to those who are often at the other end of the barrel, students. The most recent protest engaged more than 2,600 educational institutions and occurred on the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting, a tragic period in American history in which two gunmen shot and killed twelve students and one teacher before killing themselves. The Columbine High school shooting held a record number of deaths in a mass shooting but has recently been surpassed by the seventeen deaths of the victims at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  Since the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School, Gov. Rick Scott signed a controversial bipartisan bill into law. The new law raises the minimum age for purchasing firearms from eighteen to twenty-one, imposes a three-day waiting period for most purchases of long guns, allows certain trained school employees to carry concealed handguns on school campuses, and creates new mental health programs for schools. The bill has been highly criticized by both sides of the debate for 1) punishing law-abiding gun owners and 2) expanding the use of guns on school campuses. Many opponents of the new law have equated the law as a permissible influence of the NRA on government-funded institutions, such as public schools.

The role of America as a world leader is so ingrained into the fabric of our culture that we cannot fall behind in the defense of life in our own country. We once held "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" above all else, the question before us now is what is more valuable than life itself?  Is the right to live more valuable than the right to possess weapons that can potentially end life? The observation some students have made from the events of the past decades is that the Second Amendment is on par with their right to live. As observed by Brendan Smith, a student at Kenwood Academy," the Second Amendment has been used to undermine my First Amendment rights to speak and live long in happiness!"  

The Great Divide

The Agony of Jeff Sessions written by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, is a compelling read about the greatest endogenous factor affecting the Trump Administration. In his article, Lowry describes the often perplexing tweets the Commander in Chief publishes about his staff, in particular, Attorney General Jeff Sessions. To be frank, the article itself is as amusing as the tweets Donald Trump has posted in his short time in office. Lowry clearly wants the audience to notice the bizarre and highly unconventional style of communication Trump employs.  His prime example is the obvious disappointment president Trump feels toward Sessions. Just a few days ago, Trump tweeted, “Why is A.G. Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power,  and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!” If you are amused at the unusual manner in which the president states his discontent towards Attorney General Jeff Sessions, you probably had the right reaction. It’s inevitable, and necessary, to dissect and analyze Trump’s words. What does he mean by “Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy?” Is it possible the president believes the only worthy lawyers are Republican lawyers? Who knows? Honestly, who? As a whole, this tweet remarkably describes what Lowry is trying to interpret in his article. Sessions has had to endure numerous tweets of contempt by the president, it has gotten to the point where you cannot help but feel bad for Sessions. Lowry notes that of all the communication outlets available, the president seems to prefer tweeting about this disappointment the best. It’s ironic that the current administration’s biggest schism is perhaps caused by the leader of the administration himself. As Lowry states, “ Sessions is assiduously at work implementing the Trump agenda, [and] at the same time he is beaten about the head and shoulders for his trouble.”

Learning Outcome Assessments

The Misguided Drive to Measure ‘Learning Outcomes’ “No intellectual characteristic is too ineffable for assessment,” states Molly Worthen writer and  assistant professor of history for the University of North Carolina. As an educator, Worthen feels highly critical of the abrupt invasion the capitalist market has embedded on institutes of higher learning in the form of learning outcome assessments. In other words, why have college students seen a spike in assessments comparable to that of standardized testing in grade school? The answer is simple according to Worthen, because state legislatures all over the country decided that education better serves as a skills training business rather than an intellectual institution. The decision to reduce spending on public universities first occurred in the 1980s, coinciding with the assessment boom, placing a major financial responsibility on parents and students alike. The unfortunate collusion between the Department of Education and the capitalist market has left students and educators alike scrambling to meet standards placed by the very government who diminished their funding. In 2006 when Margaret Spelling, the secretary of education, criticized institutes of higher education for their lack of efficiency in preparing students for the workforce; institutes of higher learning all over the country replied with an increase in assessment staff, despite the major cost increase in public education. In her opinion piece, Worthen notes that assessments not only devalue education but they also oversimplify the intellectual advantages gained through a college education. Equally, many educators feel the need to sell their “product” in order to help students identify with the job-ready skills they can later transfer to the workforce. They point out that assessments only help politicians further ignore the roots of the problem and point fingers at faculty rather than address the real issues. Erik Gilbert, professor of history at Arkansas State University, describes how assessments fail to capture the real lessons taught in classrooms and the real reasons students struggle with higher education. He mentions how most of his students need full time jobs in order to obtain their education. A secondary problem of learning outcome assessments in public education would be the major disadvantage it places on students. Most public colleges are required to assess students who come from financially disadvantaged districts and are therefore unprepared for the rigours of a higher education both financially and mentally. Author Worthen asks us to consider the real value of higher education as institutions of intellectual exploration. If colleges and universities cannot make themselves immune to capitalism and politics, how will future students change and carry out systematic and protracted inquiry on a government that so desperately calls for frequent change. Worthen concludes her opinion by stating that education is not a cheap product that can be quantified by assessments that do not account for external forces affecting students and educators, but rather it is an institution that gives society a space for invaluable intellectual endeavors.

Unfortunately, Worthen makes some very valid points in her argument against learning outcome assessments. By using higher education institutions as a skills training centers, we diminish the value of education. In effect, students become customers and teachers become desperate sellers in search of meeting quotas set by assessments that try to quantify learning. All the while, state legislators have not even scratched the surface of the problem but rather added to it by reducing public education funding. Molly Worthen makes an impassioned effort to reason with the educated public that learning outcome assessments do not help but rather hurt education. By catering to the capitalist market, institutions of higher education lose their real value as notable institutions of intellectual exploration and become another specific skills-based training program.

Treason, Tyrant, Trump

In the recent New York Times article titled, " Trumps Latest Surprise: Shutdown Might Be A Good Idea "
author Mark Lander gives us vital insight concerning the latest inflammatory comments made by our president and the actions of those in charge of clarifying his words. Only a week ago, President Trump implored the nation to unite and set aside party differences recently, however, he was quick to call Democrats treasonous for not applauding his State of the Union speech adding that he would "love" a government shutdown if his demands were not met. Chief of staff, John F. Kelly, added fuel to the fire by stating that Dreamers are too lazy to register for protected status. In effect, he doubted Trump would extend the March 5 deadline that shields them from deportation. With all this being said, the White House staff was quick to curtail the damage done by the president himself crediting accusations of treason to "tongue-in-cheek" remarks and reassuring the public that the president did not, in fact, hope for a second government shutdown. The president's outbursts, however, have left those on capital hill numb to his transgressions. It is, unfortunately, rather novel that our country would accept a president who labels his opponents as traitors, as pointed out by Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. The alternative seems much worse. Should we ignore the presidents attempted transgressions on our liberties or should we take him as anything less than serious? To make matters worse, the president boldly attempted to smear the Democratic parties' rebuttal to the Republican memo questioning the conduct of the FBI in the investigation concerning collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. In other words, he once again accused his opponents of being UNAMERICAN. In short, this article serves as an update to some of the extraordinary comments made by our president in the span of a week and the political issues they refer to.