New budget costs, same stalemate: GOP sees the long term, Democrats see today

For the past three years, representatives from the Democratic and Republican party, also known as the GOP, have been working alongside many White House officials on Capital Hill to determine the budget for the upcoming sequester in October of 2013. During this sequester, many budget cuts will be needed to ensure a thriving economy, more than in the past decade or so. But, the Democratic party and the Republican party have approached this issue in very different ways, which has cause an ongoing battle. The Republican party believes in planning for the next three decades because it will offer "a clearer view of the challenges ahead." But, to look forward at the next thirty years, the Republican party looked at the last thirty, and focused primarily on the "Baby Boom" during the 1950's. They believed that due to the large population growth during that era, these upcoming years will be affected. With a larger elderly population, more federal funding and resources will need to be given for their benefit. Therefore, many other programs will suffer, and many more budget cuts will need to be made. On the other hand, the Democratic party is looking to approach the upcoming sequester by looking at the next decade alone. They strongly oppose the Republican plan, and believe that they are simply looking for another "stall tactic" in dealing with the immediate budget issues. The Democratic party believes that the government needs to focus on the upcoming future, instead of decades ahead, when multiple factors could change. Although these meetings have been taking place for years, neither party has come to a compromise.

Based on the evidence from both the article and in class, "What to do you  believe would be the most effective way to approach the upcoming sequester? Please explain your opinion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-budget-talks-same-stalemate-gop-sees-the-long-term-democrats-see-today/2013/06/12/01af6846-d370-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

Dan Kallin Current Event 2

The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan B. Krueger has decided to leave the council to teach at Princeton University, so President Barack Obama has to replace him. Obama decided to appoint Jason Furman to chair the Council of Economic Advisers. Furman has a doctorate in economics from Harvard University, along with two other degrees. It is unconventional for a president to appoint someone to chair the Council who has never actually served on it. Some people might say that this appointment is nepotism, which is when a president appoints under qualified people to important positions because he is friends or somehow related to those people. However, Obama justified his choice saying that Furman is "one of the most brilliant economic minds of his generation." Furman has the reputation to prove it, for he was an aide to the Joseph E Stiglitz, who the the chairman of the Council when Bill Clinton was president. He also was the economic policy director in Obama's 2008 campaign. Furman has respect from both Republicans and Democrats because even though he is a Democrat, he has made many compromises with Republicans. Each member of the Council has a different role and Furman is expected to work closely with Obama, as he has done in the past.
Do you think having a Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers who is so close to Obama will be hurt or be beneficial to the United States' economy. Please explain your answer.

Article: Obama Names Longtime Aide as His Chief Economic Adviser
 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/business/jason-furman-is-named-obamas-chief-economic-adviser.html?_r=0
Source: New York Times

U.S. has not seen expected "Great Recovery", as economy continues to fall short

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/new-report-says-us-hasnt-seen-expected-great-recovery-as-economy-continues-to-fall-short/2013/06/05/9c3ffa2e-cde4-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

The world has been in an economic downfall since 2009, but withing the last two years America, along with the world has slowly began to recover. Currently America is recovering from this downfall, but the economy is not recovering as fast as people had hoped. Currently the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is at 1.9%. By 2015 this is only expected to grow to 3%. Most economic specialists hoped this number to be closer to 4% or higher by this year to early next year. The percentage can increase or decrease depending on how well the housing market does. On top of the slowed GDP rate, the unemployment rate in America is also not decreasing as much as they had hoped. The national unemployment rate is at 6.9%, and this number is expected to drop to 6.6% by the end of this year. Currently many companies are not hiring because they are not sure how stable the current economy is, and they are able to get all the products they make or sell with the current amount of workers they have, so they have no need to hire anyone.

Edward Leamer, a researcher at UCLA, says that "It is not a recovery. It's not even normal growth, its bad." Do you agree with this statement based on what you have heard or read? How do you think America is doing compared to the worlds economy?

Surpluses Help, but Fiscal Woes for States Go On

This week my current event was about how a lot of states are expecting to get surpluses (extra money) at the end of their fiscal year. This is the first time this has happened since the economic downturn in 2008. Although many states are very happy and being very public about this great success it is very misleading to the U.S. population. Even though the economy is starting to look up again many states, even the one with surpluses, are in large amounts of debt due to backlogged bills from medicare, pension funds, and delayed road work. Most of the surpluses in fact, are already spoken for. With the economy recovering many officials are looking to restore services, rehire workers, and others are pushing new tax cuts. A lot of governors are concerned with this and urge these officials to hold off on making any changes that could be damaging to this economic progress. Many are advising states to begin trying to identify money that is resulting from a one-time-only activity, such as selling investments which many people did at the end of last year, and money that is not.

Surpluses Help, but Fiscal Woes for States Go On

Do you think that lawmakers should begin to restore services, rehire workers, and create new tax cuts? Why or why not? Also, what do you believe is the best thing for states to do with these surpluses?

Michele Foland Economy

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/is-the-economy-saving-obamas-approval-ratings/

In the article "Is the Economy Saving Obama's Approval Rates?" it talks about how the overall and economic approval rates of Obama have had almost no change during his presidency, even with all of the controversies going on in the country right now. In the Washington Post polls for economic approval the ratings have been a bit lower based on how the voters rate Obama on the economy. Also the overall approval ratings for Obama have also gone down a little bit, possibly because of all the talk around Benghazi, the I.R.S. and the Justice Department, which had a negative impact.


Based on what you heard/read, what do you believe is the actual reason why Obama's ratings are becoming lower? Explain your opinion.

Mariana Ferreira -Economy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/business/economy/us-adds-165000-jobs-in-april.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Today in class, an article named "Jobs Data Eases Fears of Economic Slowdown in US". According to the text, nearly 200,000 jobs have been created monthly since the beginning of the year making the country's unemployment rate go the lowest it has been since 2008. This good news left the stock market with a 1 percent. Currently,although, unemployment rates are about 7.5% which although is a good number still could be a lot better. Some people such as Alan Krueger have been very optimistic about the new status of the country stating that :“While more work remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression". Other people although such as Mr.Daco believe the country would have been better off and further in its economy if it wasn't for the government, meaning the nearly 200,000 jobs are not making a great difference in the economy.

Based on what you have heard today do you believe adding more jobs to the country will ease the economy? Explain.

Danielle Calandra 2nd Current Event

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/27/need-for-networking-puts-black-job-seekers-at-disadvantage/?KEYWORDS=racial+inequality

This article Need for Networking Puts Black Job Seekers at Disadvantage is an opinion article by Neil Shah. Shah talks about how African American job seekers are at a disadvantage when applying for a job due to the increasingly important "social capital" seen as needed in order to get the better, higher paying jobs. Social capital is the network of people you know and who are able to help you get a job and then work for the higher paying promotions. This Shah says, is putting minorities at a disadvantage because these people don't have the well established contacts through family and friends who've been involved in a business for many years. Shah also talks about how the jobless rate has been and continues to be higher for African Americans in the United States than whites and that in-group favoritism is helping this rate stay this way. This favoritism Shah talks about isn't illegal but helps to reproduce the racism and job inequalities.

Do you agree with Neil Shah in that African Americans don't have as much of a "social capital" as whites? Also, do you see "social capital" or having contacts within a company as important in order to get a job, and then exceed at it?

Zach Chartrand Current Event #2

The teen clothing company, Wet Seal, has settled a class action law suit with their employees for $7.5 million. This comes after the large scale firing of African American workers and managers throughout the company. The company states that they were just changing their image, however, it seems as though there is much more to this issue than what they are saying.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-wet-seal-naacp-lawsuit-20130509,0,4733633.story

If the company was truly “changing their image” how should they have gone about doing this as to not seem racist?

Dan Borella Current Event #2

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298485-chc-chairman-rips-heritage-immigration-report-as-racism-and-xenophobia

 My current event today was about a law suit that took place somewhere on the southern half of the country that was about a comment that the Heritage Foundation made in regards to an immigration study.  The comment was about immigrants and Hispanics in particular having a lower intelligence capability.  Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called the group’s study “ugly racism and xenophobia dressed up in economic hyperbole” upon hearing about the incident. This whole incident started a bunch of people to begin discussing statistics and People saying that Hispanics are not even capable of reaching as high of an IQ of whites.  Many other things had been discussed but, long story short, it was just a bunch of racist things toward Hispanics being tossed around.  

My question to you is: What do you think about news like this? Though it was based on data collected in some study, is it right to release it to the public? And do you think that the study was corrupt in any way?

Maxine Baker Current Event #2

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-21/world/38718054_1_human-rights-violations-political-donations-u-s-policy

The article I found on the Washington Post is talking about how China "turned their tables” and is now criticizing the United States and its record on human rights. China is basically saying that the United States has a serious problem when it comes to sex, racial and religious discrimination. This discrimination plays a major role in the right to vote for American citizens. Also, China reported that we give out to many human rights to all the races in our country. We have many different races integrated into our small country and some of our human rights, like the right to bear arms, is a danger to everyone around us. These reports came out through the media after the United States stated it was wrong for the Chinese government to strengthen their voter’s requirements. China did this in hope to try and keep people how may rebel against the government out of the voters booths.

Why do you think that China thinks that the amount of human rights the United States allows its citizens is wrong, too much and dangerous? Do you agree or disagree with China's idea that United States citizens are allowed too many human rights of equality?

Sasha Barry Current Event #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/racial-wealth-gap-widened-during-recession.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

The article that I found from the New York Times was about how race is still affecting the lives of people in everyday life in America today. The ways that segregation has led to the overall harder life for people of a non-white race, is continuing to affect them in society today. Studies done in 2010 are revealing that then and now, the rate at which the recession affected black and Hispanic families, is not getting any better. These families are losing houses more often, finding themselves with a later retirement, and not having as much wealth as the average white family has in America. Researches are looking for ways to help these families, and make the wealth gap between races smaller, but are finding this very difficult.

Why do you think the recession hit the Black and Hispanic families the hardest? Do you think there is any real way to help this issue and make the wealth gap between races throughout the country smaller?

Ali Tobin Current Event

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/world/americas/writer-of-times-op-ed-on-racism-in-cuba-loses-job.html?_r=0
In this article, a Cuban writer published an opinion about the racism that still exists today in Cuban society and discriminatory acts that occur against Afro-Cubans. In his article, there included acts of racism such as African Cubans not being able to purchase cell phones, stay in hotels, or sell houses and cars just for some examples. When this article was translated to English for the Times, the title was stated as "For Blacks in Cuba, the Revolution hasn't Began" and the author, Roberto Zurbano claims the article title was changed when he wanted the title to say "For Blacks in Cuba, the Revolutions Hasn't Ended". He claims this totally alters and gave a negative gist to his article that transformed his entire theme. It is also said that he was fired because of this translation since the system in Cuba is different. Cubans do not have the freedom of press like Americans do, so when the threat or disagreement with the way the Cuban government is expressed through a influential force like the press, it is not acceptable. The American translators and editors for the Times stand by their translation and say it is accurate.

After the translation confusion that occurred with Zurbano's article, do you think that the translated version that appeared in the New York Times was so different and problematic that he should've gotten fired, knowing that Cuba doesn't have the same freedom laws of the US? Explain

Ryan Seymour Current event

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/21/americans-who-distrust-muslims-are-likelier-to-back-the-war-on-terror/

A recent study was held to see how Americans feel about different racial groups. The groups were Muslims, Muslim-Americans, blacks, whites, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. They were given a survey and people filled it out on a scale of 1-7, 3.5 being neutral. The four categories assessed were the following: Peaceful-Violent, Trustworthy-Untrustworthy, Hardworking-Lazy, and Intelligent-Unintelligent. After collecting data, it was discovered that Americans view Muslims to be the most violent group of people, as well as being hardworking, intelligent, and untrustworthy. It was also found that Americans do not distinguish between those who are Muslim and Muslim-American. This is largely due to the stories we hear from the media, that gives us only bad stories about Muslims. The media has created a stereotype of Muslims, that being that they are all violent.
The recent Boston Marathon Bombings are an event that only reinforces Americans stereotype that Muslims are violent, because at least one of the bombers practiced Islam. Following the bombing, game show host Chuck Woolery tweeted, "One thing for sure. Muslims can't seem to live in peace with anyone. Even each other. FACT." This tweet shows the growing stereotype, and some people are even saying that these stereotypes are affecting our policies targeted at terrorism.

Why do you think that Americans do not distinguish between Muslims and Muslim-Americans? How much of an impact does the media have on this stereotype? To what extent do you think this stereotype is affecting our foreign policy regarding terrorism?

David Sacco Current Event Post

Link to my article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/soccer-players-in-europe-face-10-game-bans-for-racism-uefa-says/2013/04/10/d85ac6ca-a1e2-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html

Racism has been a big issue in the European soccer league. Fans, players, and officials have all been accused of racist activity during games. To try and put a stop to this behavior, General Secretary of the UEFA Gianni Infantino has proposed a 10-match ban for any players or officials convicted of racist behavior. Also, for a first offence of racist abuse by fans, there will be a partial closure of stadium. For a second offence, total closure and a $65,000 fine. These new sanctions are being proposed due to the fact that old methods of punishment for racist abuse have not been working. Before these sanctions, players or officials would usually be fined for racist abuse. However this type of punishment was not working as the racist activity continued throughout the league.

Do you think that there should be more done to help prevent future racist incidents? If so, explain what type of sanctions or punishments there should be for this behavior. If not, explain how you think that the sanctions proposed (10-match ban, abuse by fans resulting in closure of stadium) will help to prevent future racist incidents.

Ford Polia Term 4 Current Event

Link to Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/arts/design/hopi-tribe-wants-to-stop-paris-auction-of-artifacts.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=indiansamerican

The Hopi Native American tribe, from northeast Arizona, made several religious items that represent their spirits that were taken over time. These items were used in various Hopi rituals including coming-of-age ceremonies and harvest rituals. Many of these items were left unattended in shrines or altars and were stolen by exploring settlers. Some were confiscated by missionaries who were trying to convert the Native Americans to Christianity. Some Hopi Native Americans were forced to sell these items.

Now, these religious artifacts are being sold at an auction in Paris. There are 70 of these items that are sacred to the Hopi being sold at this auction. The Hopi's say that these items should be returned to them because of their religious significance. The objects will likely sell for between $10,000 and $35,000 each. The Hopi say that these items should not be sold for commercial value. However, there is no way for them to claim them without actually buying them.

There is no legal procedure for the Hopi Native Americans to clam these items that were stolen from them over 100 years ago. The United States has laws and treaties which allow other countries to request that cultural artifacts being sold in the United States be returned to them. However, the United States does not have any way to request that artifacts being sold in other countries be returned to the United States because there are no treaties in the reverse direction.

The director of the auction house says that these items being sold means that people are interested in learning about Hopi culture and civilization. The Hopi tribe believes that selling these items for profit is offensive to their religion. The fact that people are paying thousands of dollars for these items shows that it has a great significance to the world and not just the Hopi Native Americans.

Do you believe the United States should have laws and treaties that prevent the sale of Native American cultural artifacts, stolen or not? Why or why not?

Nicole Mooar Current Event

Currently Native Americans and Mr. Czywczynski, owner of Wounded Knee, are debating on whether or not he should sell the land to the Obgala Sioux tribe or sell it for money. Wounded Knee is very historical land from the battle that took place there in 1890. The battle killed between 150-300 non-Indians and Indians. Mr.Czywczynski, a non-Indian, bought the land in 1968 and is now trying to sell the rest of the 40-acre land for 3.9 billion dollars but the Sioux tribe does not have enough money to buy it from him. The Sioux tribe believes that they should not have to buy land that was once theirs and it should stay as a sacred land. The Sioux tribe is in at least 6 million dollars in debt. The Sioux tribe did raise 9 million dollars, by funding, to buy 1,942 acres. The Sioux tribes cannot decide if they want to keep the land and if they will have enough money to buy it.  Also, the Sioux tribes does not want someone else to buy the land because they do want buildings to profit on the land of their ancestors. But Mr.Czywczynski wants to sell the land because the Sioux has taken 3 decades to decide whether they want to keep it or not.  Mr.Czywczynski is giving them till May 1st to make a decision on the land. 

Do you think that Mr.Czywczynski has the right to sell the land even though it was originally the Sioux land or should he give it to the Sioux Tribe? If he should sell the land, do you think the Sioux tribe and Mr.Czywczynski should make a compromise?

Hannah Meyer Current Event Term 2

Link to Article

Rape on reservations has been an increasing issue with Native Americans. Rape was being questioned whether it was "legitimate" depending on if it was by a non-Native American. One in three Native women are raped over their lifetime and some don't report their rape. If a woman on a reservation is raped or assaulted by a non-Native husband, tribal courts don't have the right to prosecute him. Non-Native predators are more attracted to these areas because they know tribal courts cannot do anything. Congress rules that tribal courts can not charge non-Native rapists. A Senate bill wants to change that but officials think it is unfair for a non-Native because he isn't part of the tribal courts' responsibility. Now, if non-Natives were part of a trial, Senate gives them the right to effective counsel and trial by an impartial jury. The Violence Against Women Act is more effective since 2005 because orders of protection were added.

Do you think that if tribal courts had the right to charge non-Native American predators that it will decrease the sexual assault rate? Do you think that since the tribal courts can't prosecute a white man that this is discrimination over their power compared to our governments? Why?

Zach Chartrand's Current Event

In the article "For Native American Women, Scourge of Rape, Rare Justice" by The New York Times the US Senate has proposed a bill to grant more powers to Tribal Courts. The bill would allow the Tribal Courts to prosecute suspected non-Indians suspected of sexually assaulting their Indian spouses or domestic partners. This would help the reservations in reducing the amount of sexual assault that has now become common place. The rate of sexual assault has been recorded as 12 times the national average in the United States which to me is a ridiculous number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-high-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

With the rate of sexual assaults being so high on the reservations, what do you feel that we should do to assist the Native Americans? Also do you feel that the Senate's Bill will really help of is just a way to quiet supporters down?

Danielle Calandra

The article "Crow Indians' Lawsuit Against F.B.I. Agent to Proceed", was an article published in the New York Times February 1, 2013. This article was about a family that is a part of the Crow Indians who were allowed by the Supreme Court to proceed in a lawsuit against a F.B.I. agent who investigated a case involving a family member. Back in 2004 and 2005, F.B.I. agent Matthew Oravec investigated two deaths on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. The families are now able to continue their lawsuit against Mr. Oravec for not thoroughly investigating the deaths and for discriminating against Native Americans. This case is bringing the attention of discrimination in federal law enforcement against Native Americans into the public eye, and agents are being more closely watched.

Do you see discrimination against Native Americans as a problem in law enforcement? In what ways do you think that Native Americans are affected by discrimination in the legal system? Are there any ways we can move forward to avoid this?

Graham ?Bateman Current Event

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-19/politics/37838454_1_assault-weapons-ban-assault-weapons-gun-bill



My current even was on the recent changes to the gun restriction bill being pushed by Obama. The bill wanted to ban assault weapons and clips that can hold more than ten rounds. The senate dropped the ban from the bill, which has caused a large amount of controversy. Supporters of the bill believe that this ban should go through, and consider this a huge setback for Obama's gun control campaign. Many people oppose the bill (such as the National Rifle Association) because they believe that limiting people's access to guns is against their First Amendment right.

Do you think that the ban on assault weapons and large clips is restricting our freedom as Americans? Do you think that by dropping this ban, people will be at more of a threat?

Sasha Barry Current Event

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/more-us-children-of-immigrants-are-leaving-us.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

This article is about the immigrants who formed our country, and their children in today's society. These young people are deciding to emigrate back to their ancestral countries. The parents of these children feel that because of how hard they worked to get to America that it's a bad idea for them to move back to those countries. However, many of these children are highly talented college graduates looking for jobs that suit their degrees rather than small jobs in America at local stores and food franchises. These people are being encouraged to bring their American talent and ideas abroad, and are finding it easier to get better jobs and start businesses in other countries. Our government also is not keeping track of the emigration of former immigrants' children.

Why do you think these people are finding it easier to make a better living in other countries? Do you think this emigration from talented young people in America will affect our country? Why or why not?

Dan Borella Current Event

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/19/rand-paul-and-why-the-pathway-to-citizenship-question-is-so-delicate-for-the-gop/

          This article was about Rand Paul and how he thought of the "pathway to citizenship." He had many different points that lead to a better outcome for the Republicans in the next election.  For the most part, these are the people that the republicans missed during their previous campaign.  Paul said that he was not looking for a new "pathway to citizenship" but he was looking for more of a protection of what already exists.  He would not want to send illegal immigrants back home, but he would raise border control and keep more out.  Another man, Bush, mentioned that he believes that there had to be some difference between people that are legally here and that are illegally here.

Do you agree with Paul and Bush in that the "pathway to citizenship" should remain, but there needs to be a difference between illegal and legal citizens? Why or why not?

Maxine Baker Current Event

Nearing the end February, President Obama signed the revised renewal of the Violence Against Women first drafted by Joe Biden and his office in 1994. This act was to allow funding for the help of victims, women or men, to get justice and support after a violent and or sexual crime. The act was shut down by the Supreme Court because it "was an intrusion of states rights". The act was finally passed through Congress and was approved by President Obama who has only optimistic feelings for the act. “It didn't just change the rules, it changed our culture. It empowered people to start speaking out,” Obama said. This new law allows $659 million in funds for the investigation and prosecution against those that commit violent crimes. Also it allows funds for transitional housing, legal assistance, law enforcement training and hotlines. The renewal of this act will allow funding for the next 5 years. Another aspect of this act is the new law against prosecution on reservations. In the past, tribal courts were not allowed to try non-natives because of the fear of prejudice and false prosecution. This loophole allowed non-natives living on and off the reservation to attack women sexually and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it because there was nothing that the tribal court system could do about it. With the new act in place, tribal courts will now be able to try non-natives. If the accused does not think that they were given a fair trial because of the jury and judge all being native citizens, then the accused can take their case to federal courts. 

Do you think that the law against tribal courts not being able to try non-native citizens was the right thing or the wrong thing to have in place? Is the law that tribal courts can now try non-natives revised in renewal of the act a step forward or a step back in the equality of all American citizens? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-sign-anti-violence-act-renewal-that-extends-protection-to-gays-native-americans/2013/03/07/549feecc-8703-11e2-a80b-3edc779b676f_story.html

Ali Tobin Current Event

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-hurdles-20130311,0,4603683.story

Today, 11 million illegal immigrants reside in America, making illegal immigration a well debated topic for the past few decades. Recently, eight senators (including four Republicans and four Democrats) have gotten together to try and create a bill to address illegal immigration, with the goal in mind to craft a bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws agreeing to a create a path to legal status. This proposal being created by the senators is considered a "broader immigration reform package" that goes hand in hand with President Obama's call to set a pathway to earned citizenship. Requirements the senators have formed include the illegal immigrant registering with Homeland Security Department authorities, to pay taxes that they owe from the time they migrated to America, and to pay a "undetermined" fine. This would grant probationary legal status, and still immigrants would be barred from receiving public benefits.
However, there are many uncertainties with this bill currently under construction. Aides predict the delay for a green card would be ten years or longer, and question how many visas to issue to high-tech specialists, how to keep track of those leaving he country, and how to pay for more Border Patrol officers. In a effort to resolve these issues, Negotiators from the AFL-CIO and the US Chamber of Commerce have worked with Senate to set a number for visas of both high-tech and low-skilled workers so that they fluctuate.
Bills like these have been created in the past, but destroyed in the process due to the conflict between labor and business leaders. Today, it has been reported that both organized labor and businesses now want a compromised immigration bill to pass, which represents 2 million workers. Laborer unions desire less visas because they believe too many immigrants would undercut qualified Americans seeking high-tech jobs, but business groups pushed for more visas for high skilled employees. Senators are working on this bill with hope that it will close a lot of holes in the illegal immigration debate.

From what is already drafted in this bill outline, how much of an impact, if any, do you think this bill will have on America if it is passed into law? Explain

Ryan Seymour Current Event

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/colo-lawmakers-approve-lower-tuition-rates-for-immigrant-students-governor-expected-to-sign/2013/03/08/fe7c6f08-8814-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.html


For the past 10 years immigrants in Colorado have been working to get a bill passed that would allow illegal immigrants to receive the in state tuition rates that legal citizens have been able to take advantage of. They will be the 13^th state to pass a bill like this. Previously illegal immigrants had to pay the out of state tuition at state schools. Finally after years of work the bill has been passed and is expected to be signed by the governor of Colorado later this week. After this is signed, many illegal immigrants that could not afford college will be able to. Some people, like Rep. Kevin Priola, pushed to have this signed because for illegal immigrants “…there is no country to go back to.” This move will provide those who have the ability to attend college the chance to. Other people, like Rep. Polly Lawrence, say that this move does not provide a brighter future and actually encourages illegal immigration.

Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to pay the in state tuition fees for colleges? Please explain why or why not. 

David Sacco Current Event

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/03/should-we-give-visas-to-immigrants-who-create-startups/

Sen. Jerry Moran proposed a solution that will help create jobs for all Americans. Two weeks ago he proposed the idea of giving special visas to immigrants who launch businesses that create jobs. The proposal, known as Startup Act 3.0, would only give these visas to immigrants in the US on a student visa or and H1-B visa (An H1-B visa is given to immigrants with specialized skilled workers). Once the visa is given, the immigrant entrepreneur would have to hire at least two full time non family member workers within the first year of receiving the visa. If they do that then they are granted three more years in the US during which they have to hire five more full time employees. Then they may apply for permanent residency (Green Card). This proposal does not allow immigrants a path to citizenship. Rather it allows them to live in this country for as long as they like so that they may continue to grow their business. The Kauffman Foundation estimates that in 10 years, 500,000 to 1.6 million new jobs will be created.

Critics of this program say that the idea that so many jobs will be created. Critics also say that there are easier methods for immigrants to acquire a green card and start a business. Ross Eisenbray, vice-president of the Economic Policy Institute, has concern about the enforcement of the program's requirements.

Do you think that this program can be enforced so that immigrants follow the requirements rather than acquiring a green card by some other method? If yes, explain what could be done to enforce this program. If no, explain how it can't be enforced.

Ford Polia Current Event

Link to Article

An illegal immigrant from Nepal, crossing the border between Mexico and Texas was found to have XDR-TB (Extremely Drug Resistant Tuberculosis). Today, border crossings screen for diseases. Illegal immigrants don't go through this screening process so they can bring deadly diseases into the country.  This man traveled through 13 countries to get to the United States and came in contact with many people along the way. He carried a case of TB that is resistant to 8 of the 15 commonly used medications to cure Tuberculosis, including the two most commonly used. The strain of Tuberculosis that he was infected with has only been found in one other person in the United States. He is currently in "medical isolation" in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility

Drug Resistant Tuberculosis is a large issue in third world countries where healthcare is poor.If a Tuberculosis treatment is not carried out fully the disease can mutate and become more drug resistant and deadly. It is difficult for infected illegal immigrants that have been deported to continue their treatment in their home country. This is the case especially if the country they are deported to does not have good healthcare. Plus, Extremely Drug resistant diseases are difficult to treat and often cannot be treated effectively  in these countries. If the disease is not entirely treated, it can mutate and become even more drug resistant.

Does the United States have the responsibility to provide medical care to illegal immigrants? Why or Why not?

Nicole Mooar Current Event

Article link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/many-immigrants-in-the-us-stop-midway-along-the-path-of-citizenship/2013/03/03/91b3e844-813c-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

The article was about the view points of immigrants trying to apply for citizenship and the benefits of becoming a citizen in the United States. Citizenship rates have increased because of the Immigration Act that was enacted during the 1990's.  Based on your race or ethnicity, the citizenship rate can be different. Central Americans, citizens living in southern North America, have the lowest citizenship rate and Southeast Asians have the highest. Today, immigrants, with green cards, struggle with deciding whether or not to apply for for citizenship. Some immigrants do not want to lose the rights of their country of origin, cannot not pay for the application fee, or they can't speak or read English (the citizenship test is all in English.) Others feel the need to do it because they are afraid of getting deported back to their country. These difficulties prevent immigrants from taking the test because it's too much of a struggle. The United States offers the right vote to those who are legal citizens. You are also allowed to sponsor other immigrants of your family. Lastly, you feel fully engaged in your society and have the power to make a difference. The path to citizenship is a very important topic because it's very beneficial to the immigrants themselves but also our country. Being a citizenship will take away all the restrictions that the immigrants have to live by in the United States. 

Do you think that we should change the process to citizenship for immigrants?  If yes, what are some changes we should have to make the process harder or easier?  If no, explain your reasoning. 

Hannah Meyer Current Event

Link to article

Mitt Romney is blaming his loss of the 2012 campaign on the fact that he did not connect to Hispanics or Latinos. These group of voters did not agree with his opinion opposing any illegal immigrant to becoming a citizen or to even live in the U.S. permanently. Romney does not agree with the reform package that Obama has now, which is that it will take a long time to become a citizen but still gives people the opportunity. Overall, Romney regrets that he did not connect with this group and felt that his campaign in this area was weak. He wishes he had improved his opinion in a way that he could have gotten votes from this race.

Do you agree or disagree that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 Presidential election because of his lack of connection with the minority populations of America? Why or why not?

Dan Kallin Current Event

Article: Republican Lawmaker: Obama should back of immigration reform

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-house-chairman-obama-immigration-reform-20130227,0,7128297.story

Summary of Current Event:
    In this article the opinions of United States lawmakers are discussed regarding Barrack Obama's immigration reform proposal. One Republic representative from Virginia, Robert    Goodlatte, said that Obama should not be working on an immigration reform proposal, saying that Obama should leave the job to congress. Goodlatte said that a top-down approach has never worked in the past, meaning sending bills from the executive branch down to the legislative branch has not worked before. Goodlatte also did not approve of the content of this bill because he does not believe that Obama should make a path for eleven million illegal immigrants to become citizens. One thing that many senators and representatives agree on, including Goodlatte, is that making an immigration reform bill has to be a bipartisan effort, which means that both republicans and democrats in congress have to work together if they want to create a successful immigration reform bill. Senators such as John McCain have already been working with the president to try to create an immigration reform bill.

Question: Should the president be working on a proposal to send to congress, doing what Robert Goodlatte calls "a top-down approach" to making legislation? Please explain your opinion.

Brooke Mega Current Event

On Wednedsay, three-hundred illegal immigrants were relaesed from an Arizona State Prison. As a border state, Arizona has a large population of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and South America. Some of these immigrants have been arrested for comitting various crimes, such as driving without a license. Others were arrested due to their lack of American citizenship. The release of these prisoners lead to a heated debate between Republican officials and Human Rights Activists. Overall, the Republican officials believed that the release of these aliens was unnecessary, dangerous, and harmful to the economy. On the other hand, Human Rights Activists beleive that these immigrants should be released because they fell prey to the government of Arizona. They also think that releasing the immigrants will benefit the country, because they would not have to invest money into their incarceration any longer.
In regards to the questions mentioned in class, these immigrants were originally incarcerated for both crimes commited, and illegal citizenship. Also, once released from prison the immigrants were released into America, not the country that the emigrated from.Since the release, the country has continued to release two-thousand more illegal immigrants from prison. This month, the Department of Homeland Security plans to release three thousand more illegal immigrants. The states who have released immigrants, and are still currently doing so include: Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.

While considering both sides of the argument, what opinion do you agree with more? Based on this opinion, state what you beleive the next step should be regarding the inprisonment of illegal immigrants in America? If you do not agree with either opinion, please state your reasoning as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/release-of-about-300-illegal-immigrants-from-federal-custody-in-arizona-stirs-up-debate/2013/02/27/d564d38e-8126-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html

Current Event: Brandyn Greeno

Link to article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/politics/obama-issues-call-for-immigration-overhaul.html?_r=0

For many years has been a very controversial topic in America. Congress cannot agree whether to leave the immigration policy the way it is, or to change it by setting a limit to how many people can enter America, and  coming up with a decision on what to do with people who are here illegally. President Obama decided to call on congress to take action, and come up with a plan that will solve this problem. He knows that immigration is a very emotional topic, but he feels he is making the right choice by calling on congress to change it. He approached congress and told them he wanted a bill that would allow current illegal immigrants to receive their citizenship if they can show they can be outstanding citizens by paying taxes, and not breaking the law.

President Obama wants to take immediate action towards ending illegal immigration. He wants all illegal immigrants currently in America to step forward, complete their obligations (paying taxes), and become legal citizens. Do you believe this is a good first step? Why? If not than what do you believe would be a good first step?

Sydney Fredette : Current Event

Link to article

In recent news relating to immigration entrepreneurs  investors  and business leaders are pushing to get a comprehensive bill passed including help for highly skilled and educated immigrant to come the the U.S. and work. This group is setting up a "virtual march" on Washington, this will involve educating as many people as possible about the economic benefits of allowing these immigrants in. Many of these people believe that there aren't enough highly skilled Americans for jobs like computer engineering and software development for the growing demand. Proposals for legislation from both the republican and democratic lawmakers have been brought up in the past few years. These proposals were narrow in scope intentionally with the hope that they would not be entangled with more controversial topics like boarder control. A comprehensive bill now seems very possible with many republicans having to reconsider their stance on immigration reform due to President Obama's overwhelming support from the Latino community this past election, according to the article. Recently a bipartisan group of senators, "Gang of Eight", has developed an outline for a proposal for a "far-reaching immigration plan" of which the details have not yet been revealed.

In your opinion why do you think we should, or should not, allow highly skilled and educated immigrants into the United States and should there be restrictions in place if they are allowed in? Do you think that these immigrants will benefit our economy if allowed entrance?  Why or why not?

Michele Foland Current Event

This article was basically about how Obama wants to create a fair path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and what steps he believes are key to get those immigrants on that path. While reading the article there were two sides to this issue. One political party had absolutely no desire to create this path for illegal immigrants and they thought that they should just get out of our country, but the other political party agreed with Obama and his ideas to create that path to citizenship. The reason why Obama wants to create this path for illegal immigrants is so that highly skilled immigrants can come to our country and provide new jobs for American citizens to strengthen our economy. Obama made it very clear that immigrants who are coming into our country illegally is a very important issue and he wants to act on it as soon as possible and stop this problem.

Do you think that it is fair to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already living in our country? Please explain your answer.

Source:
www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/politics/senate-panel-tackles-immigration.html?ref=politics&_r=o

Mariana Ferreira Current Event

Recently in China, a woman named Kim Lee married to founder of an English teaching program widely known in China has come to reportedly go to court against her husband for domestic violence. She first attempted getting help from family members and friends but succeeded not and even had her own sister in law tell her she should "stop provoking her husband" if she didn't want to get beat. She finally decided to take pictures of her bruises and scars and upload them onto a social network, she received great feedback from women allover China that did not experience domestic violence giving her strength to fight against the violence she was going through. She proceeded to take her husband to court and succeeded. The reason Kim Lee's story was so important is because she was the first woman, although American and not Chinese to step out against domestic violence in China; which has been a great problem for women in China for a great ammount of time but has become almost a custom or tradition.

; Do you think Kim Lee's actions could possibly cause a revolution in women's rights? Please explain why you think so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/can-an-american-woman-stop-domestic-violence-in-china/272954/

Jack Colaianni Current Events Blog Prompt

To what extent do you believe the National Rifle Association is correct in saying that strengthening background checks for assault weapons  and making them harder too purchase is not the solution to preventing tragedies such as the school shooting in Connecticut?

Principles of American Democracy

We have spent significant time analyzing six democratic principles that were established in our founding documents and examining how they are evident in a modern-day issue. To reflect on and use what you have learned, please consider other current issues or challenges that our country is facing and discuss how one of the six democratic principles (popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, equal protection, or federalism) applies to that issue.

In responding to this post, you must (in paragraph form):

1. Explain a present day issue in our country.
2. Reference a specific current event article that you have used to better understand the issue you have chosen. The article should come from one of the news sites listed to the left under "News Links." Be sure to provide a link to your article so others can read it if they want to learn more.
3. Explain how one of the democratic principles is demonstrated in the example you have chosen. (Please pick a principle that is different than the one you focused on in class.)

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS DUE BY FRIDAY AT 10:30 AM.