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!"