# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/28/18 - Justice Kennedy's Retirement

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/28/18 - Justice Kennedy's Retirement

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 28, 2018

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement

The Justice Anthony Kennedy has mentioned his want to retire and this will certainly bring a lot of uncertainty and misconfusion in how things and conflicts will run. Conflicts such as the rights of women, LGBT community, and racial and religious minorities are the ones that are being thought about. Justice Kennedy is supposed to be replaced by Trump’s nominee, yet there is still a lot to be talked about with this nominee. This is really concerning, since Justice Kennedy was really the swing vote, it’s concerning how someone new is the one that will have this pressure and importance. Another concern that the people have is how even though he didn’t support the abortion right he still voted to affirm Roe v. Wade. He knew and did whatever he felt was necessary and better for the community. While Trump mentioned how he would only nominate someone who would overturn that decision. The replacement, is believed and expected to not support plenty of the big new modern things going on, this is what is causing chaos among the citizens, as to how the nation will become with this action.

This happening at this point in our society is really stressful, especially because of who is suspected to replace him. Trump said that he would only nominate someone who he believed to go with his mindset and for sure someone who would help him overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. This meaning that a lot of probable differences are coming for women and the LGBT community especially. This meaning, there is someone who is going to come and replace a swing voter, and with that mindset. It makes sense that some people don’t support this, just like plenty don’t support Trump, and well obviously now also his nominee. I find this very interesting because how is it that life made it for Justice Kennedy to retire exactly when Trump is in rule, and with his type of mindset that he has and everything. Yet, I also find it confusing how all of this will work out, like can the already appointed justices decide to not accept this nominee or something like that? I find this pretty harsh to have to deal with at this point in society’s evolvement. All that’s left to do is to hope that they keep doing for Americans and for the good of them.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-anthony-kennedy-donald-trump_us_5b3551eee4b08c3a8f68d35f
Blumenthal, Paul, and Nick Wing. "Justice Anthony Kennedy’S Retirement Puts Key Issues On The Line". Huffpost UK, 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-anthony-kennedy-donald-trump_us_5b3551eee4b08c3a8f68d35f. Accessed 2 July 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Marbury v. Madison (1803)

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/27/18 - Travel Ban

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/27/18 - Travel Ban

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio
Us Government
Rivera
June 27, 2018

Travel Ban Upheld by The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court approved and supported Trump’s decision to pass the Travel Ban. Trump's travel ban barres nearly all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries as well as North Korea and Venezuela from coming in to the United States of America. Trump commented on how this is a great victory for American citizens. Also, as to how this supports the idea that the president should always do what’s needed to protect the security of the nation. He mentions how in this time of harshness and violence there should be extremities taken when necessary. This gave Trump a great advantage in the eyes of the American citizens because this makes him be seen as the one who truly is protecting the country and its people. Travel ban 3.0 was a watered down version of the actual travel ban. The 3.0 was passed in order to have something in effect while the travel ban was ligitiated and then that one would be discussed, like it did. The article even mentions how Trump’s comments on Muslims should be thought of and taken into consideration. Meaning how they are unnecessary and how all that should be mentioned is how those countries wouldn’t serve the interest of the united states any longer.
I think that this truly affects people, both the ones that already are living here and the ones who are in their country but would have liked to come over here. In my opinion I think that yeah well this might actually serve to protect the nation’s safety, yet, we are judging those people just because they come from there. Back to my initial sentence, this affects the people living here who are from those countries because they are too feeling the judgement and how excluded they are trying to get them to be. To the ones living over there, they might be trying to come over here escaping from danger and whatsoever so they are limiting that opportunity. I find this pretty interesting, because it mentions how even the watered down version of the travel ban seemed to have convinced the Supreme Court from the beginning. Keeping in mind all the comments that the president has made in regards to the people from those countries.

Totenberg, Nina, and Domenico Montanaro. "NPR Choice Page". Npr.Org, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606481548/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban. Accessed 27 June 2018.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606481548/supreme-court-upholds-trump-travel-ban

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/26/18 - Colorado Baker and Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/26/18 - Colorado Baker and Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 26, 2018

Masterpiece Cakeshop

This article talks about the case of the Christian baker who refused to make a customized cake for a same-sex couple. At the time of the incident I believe that this type of marriages were still illegal, yet that wasn’t his argument to deny them that cake, if not that making so would go against his religion. This case went from the Commission of Colorado to higher an higher court such as the Supreme Court. After hearing and analyzing the case and hearing the arguments from both sides, the supreme court gave the right to the baker. The baker’s lawyers were more focused on how that was limiting his right of speech, yet the judges saw this more as a religious issue. Basically the Supreme Court saw a wrong on the civil rights commision when dealing with the baker and this is where they opted to not take the baker to jail or anything like that. As we might have suspected this had a lot of reactions either pro and against, some praised the decision while others saw this as a failure. Even with that, the lawyers mentioned how the Supreme Court still left out how the states should react when things similar to this happen. So there was a problem resolved yet not fully, due to the forgetfulness of mentioning such thing.

GERSTEIN, JOSH, and Jack Shafer. "Supreme Court Rules On Narrow Grounds For Colorado Baker In Same-Sex Wedding Case". POLITICO, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661. Accessed 26 June 2018.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/25/18 - Minnesota Law and Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events - Judicial Branch - 6/25/18 - Minnesota Law and Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 25, 2018

Supreme Court - Minnesota Law

This article talks about a law that the state of Minnesota proposed in regard to a limitation of freedom of speech in polling places. The Minnesota law consists of banning political apparel at a polling place, holding that it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Other states have limits in speech as well, yet this one will be one of the broadest for banning any "political badge, political button or other political insignia" at polling places. The purpose of such is to give other voters the right to feel calm and not pressured to vote for another candidate. Yet, this rule still seems pretty vague and pretty confusing since there is a lot still open for discussion in regards to it. There was an incidence back then in 2010, where a voter wearing a shirt with the Tea Party got stopped and asked to leave his address and name with the election voters. Cliek, the voter, was the one that brought this case up, arguing and saying that this law leaves it up to the discretion of the election workers and to what they find as political or not. With all that mentioned, the Supreme Court decided to strike down or not approve such law.

Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez, CNN. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Minnesota Law That Banned Political Apparel At Polling Place". CNN, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/supreme-court-political-apparel/index.html. Accessed 26 June 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/supreme-court-political-apparel/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
Department of Justice
https://www.justice.gov/ag
United States Department of Labor
https://www.dol.gov/

1 policy of the Department of Justice
"Restoring the rule of law and protecting civil rights, ensuring that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the Constitutional order is upheld"
https://www.justice.gov/olp/policy-initiatives
1 policy of the United States Department of Labor
Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act
https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws#migrant

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 18,2018

Trump- Immigration & Border Security

This article talks about how Trump got together with The House GOP in order to be able to discuss topics such as both immigration and border security. It mentions a speech of Trump where he stated “I'm looking at both of them. I certainly won't sign the more moderate one. I need a bill that gives this country tremendous border security. I have to have that," said the president. "We have to have the wall. If we don't have the wall. There's no bill." This was then further explained into thinking of what two of them he was referring to, and which was the most moderate one and what it consists of. There is an immigration debate going on primarily in the House, democrats and republicans can’t get a hold of a solution that satisfies them both. It also mentions how Trump’s indecisiveness or unclarity makes things more conflicted or harder to deal with. I believe that the purpose of this article is to let us know that Trump may say or think something but at times do the opposite, since now it’s a probability that he’ll vote for a bill that he had previously opposed. Yet, some of the confusion will get thrown off the table whenever Trump meets with the House Republicans.

I believe this to actually be somewhat damaging, since this is just proving how our president isn’t either taking things that seriously, how he can’t interpret something clearly or how indecisive he is. This bill will determine the lives of plenty of people and Trump is just simply going along with the flow. While the House also needs to have Trump’s statements clearly noted in order to see how much of it they could support or not, and this is where them getting together is believed to release some tension going on atm.

Pergram, Chad. “Trump to Huddle with House GOP on Immigration, Border Security.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 17 June 2018, www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/17/trump-to-huddle-with-house-gop-on-immigration-border-security.html.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/17/trump-to-huddle-with-house-gop-on-immigration-border-security.html

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 19, 2018

GOP Lawmakers Push Trump to Stop the Separation of Immigrant Families

President Donald Trump’s administration has a  policy of separating children from parents at U.S. borders. The White House's "zero tolerance" policy aims to deter illegal immigration into the U.S. Trump is putting all the weight on congress to stop this, knowing well enough that he himself could do it. He is only using this as a tactic to push legislative changes on immigration laws. Trump has said that The US won’t be a refugee holding facility nor will it be a migrant camp, this would be what we know of as the “Zero Tolerance” policy. Trump has also even said that only congress can change that, this being a false statement. What is happening right now with all the immigrant families getting separated could be summarized as if you cross the border and you get caught, you will be prosecuted and taken your child away. The Trump Administration is hoping that this could deter illegal immigration. Plenty of senators have mentioned how such act is unacceptable and how at no case will that stop immigrants from illegally crossing the border. Others have also called Trump out on separating the parents from their children when that is inconsistent with the American values unless there was evidence of abuse, and for not stopping that madness right now, he’s the only one that can do it so quickly. Trump’s administration has been put into a lot of pressure and being criticized due to all the recent evidence that has been exposed on how this children are living.

I believe that this truly could cause some sort of trauma on all this children. First, they’re being forcibly separated from their parents and then taken to cage like facilities. They aren’t being treated like their parents would treat them, they’re sleeping on concrete floor and probably all tight in there as well. Also, they’re there with other kids that they don’t know and having to depend on one another at times as well, even if they don’t know each other. This is only showing us how our government, specially Trump Administration isn’t really taking things seriously, they’re only using things for their benefit.

Pramuk, Jacob. "Several GOP Lawmakers Push Trump To Stop Widely Condemned Separation Of Immigrant Families". CNBC, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html. Accessed 19 June 2018.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events - Executive - 6/20/18 - Foreign Issues

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events - Executive - 6/20/18 - Foreign Issues

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

US Government

Rivera

June 20, 2018

U.S. Withdrawing from U.N. Human Rights Council

My article is about when Trump’s administration declared that they would withdraw from the U.N. Human Rights Council. The reason for this that was said was because “For too long the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias,” as said by Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. What this is trying to say is that they have decided to leave the U.N. Human Rights Council because the Trump Administration thinks that the human rights isn’t really doing their job because they are covering up for abusers. Yet, it has been said that this withdrawal could also be a cause of the U.N.’s human rights chief criticized Trump’s immigration policy. It is also believed that the Trump administration decided to leave because they felt offended or without support on that topic from the human rights council, since they left a day after such criticisms. The United States has long alleged that the council is biased against Israel and spends a disproportionate amount of time focusing on the tiny Middle Eastern state. The U.S. has also criticized the council for allowing in its membership governments that frequently abuse their citizens’ human rights, including China and Saudi Arabia. This could also reference back to Trump’s Administration speech and confirm that in reality that is the only reason that they decided to withdraw so that they won’t get caught up in another rumor. It also mentions how they disagree with the countries filled with poverty joining in and how much they disagree for it, it mentions that if the U.N. was to change things then they would gladly join again. Also, by the U.S. doing that they basically got a way off from dealing with other international issues or reforms that are going on.

In my opinion I believe that in some way if it true that the council is biased then it should work that the US decided to drop from it. It’s calling attention to it so I’m sure that a lot of interested people in the topic will decided to investigate it, which could reveal the truth. Yet if they decided to withdraw due to the comments made about Trump’s immigration policy than that means that Trump simply doesn’t want to hear about it, and that if it was for him all of that would be taken care by congress, but they still need a little help from the president. Also, if it was because of that then that seems pretty childish from the government, and to then later on using other things as a back u for their actions. I find it confusing though, as to how a country can just simply leave out of it. I would also like to get more insight into why the U.S. doesn’t agree with having poor countries join in.

Pramuk, Jacob. "Several GOP Lawmakers Push Trump To Stop Widely Condemned Separation Of Immigrant Families". CNBC, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html. Accessed 19 June 2018.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/19/us-withdraw-un-humans-rights-council-653988

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio
Us Gov Summer
Rivera
June 14, 2018

House Approves Bill to Cancel $15B in Spending at Trump's Request

This article talks about how The House approved or joined in on Trump’s request to cut off $!5 Billion dollars in previously allocated government money. Meaning, Trump had proposed this idea since last month and recently The House decided that they were agreeing with him, that indeed this should take place. The House says that this will also help let the people know that there is fiscal discipline in Washington. What this bill will do is that it will cut off funds that were normally given to things such as a defunct loan program designed to boost fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles, rescissions of various agriculture grant programs, and cuts to conservation programs at the Department of Agriculture, among others. "By voting to rescind these billions in unspent funds, the House supports President Trump's efforts to eliminate wasteful spending and get our fiscal house back in order," White House budget director 🤬 Mulvaney said in a statement. What is meant by that statement is that they are supporting Trump’s decision because they see this as a way of concentrating more on what’s necessary than on other things that aren't as such, like that the President Trump if focusing on doing nly what is better for America. On the other hand, democrats weren’t having this, they didn’t like the idea that money would get taken away from the CHIP program, and that it couldn’t be able to use that money later on because the bill would just take it off the table.

For me, personally as a student and someone who doesn’t benefit from CHIP or that loan program, I think I wouldn’t be damaged much. Yet, I think that maybe this is a radical move since that is cutting away plenty of money for things that had already existed and depended on this help to keep running. People who do benefit from such events will more than likely be annoyed at the fact that this is going on. One thing that truly caught my attention from this article were the comments that were left on it. There were plenty of comments regarding the wall, on how good it was that Trump proposed this so that that money could go to the well. Or as to how there are actually people out there who also approve of this because they say that we do actually do plenty of spending and there should actually be some control put into it. As everything, it has it’s good and bad sides, but the idea grasped by this article and the comments it carries would be that this is actually a good thing to happen for the US. I think that it might be good to cut off on some spending but in another way this might actually affect a lot of people.

Chamberlain, Samuel. "House Approves Bill To Cancel $15B In Spending At Trump's Request". Fox News, 2018, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/07/house-approves-bill-to-cancel-15b-in-spending-at-trumps-request.html. Accessed 14 June 2018.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/07/house-approves-bill-to-cancel-15b-in-spending-at-trumps-request.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr485/text

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr702

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

OC1

Current Events

June 13th, 2018

Mitt Romney Wants In Again. There Is One Catch.

This article talks about how Mitt Romney wants in again on his political career, even after a defeat in the presidential elections. It mentions how more than likely he will be the senator of a state that his own ancestors helped settle. Yet, as we may remember he criticized Trump while he was running for president, the question is whether if he will run for senator by being indifferent to Trump or if he will bring back those criticisms. It talks about how there is a supposed “membership fee” which means that the senator much deal with the president, no matter how unpleasant. It mentions how his family members describe him as to how he likes to not have any regrets, so if he wants to try or do something he will. Even if he fails at it, he’ll be content with the fact of knowing that he by the least gave himself a chance at it. Also about how his wife says that there is people who run from burning buildings, but that her husband runs to the burning building. Lastly, it talks about how he attends conventions to talk to other political people out there and how it is going for him to be considered a possible future senator.

In my opinion I think that this article is relevant because it talks about the progress that those running for senators go through. As into the preparedness that they have to do and how that also relates to their life and all the citizens that live in there (the state that he wants to represent). I don’t think that this actually affects anyone else that isn’t a resident of the state and or anyone that follows Mr. Romney’s life. I just liked this article because it shows how someone can get back at it again and the progress that he is taking to do so. Also about how even his past words have an affect on him to the day and how such also affects his political ways.

Flegenheimer, Matt. "Mitt Romney Wants In Again. There Is One Catch.". Nytimes.Com, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/us/politics/mitt-romney-utah.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Congress&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection. Accessed 13 June 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/us/politics/mitt-romney-utah.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FU.S.%20Congress&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events- GOP ‘moving a lot closer’ to immigration deal

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events- GOP ‘moving a lot closer’ to immigration deal

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

OC1

Current Events

June 11th, 2018

GOP ‘moving a lot closer’ to immigration deal

In this article the main idea is that there is almost an end to the disagreement, and a welcome to a possible immigration deal. The proposal or bill should get by the minimum some 218 votes, which well it can be pretty hard to get that much people to agree on something. The House GOP leaders are eager to prevent a rebellion, they want to be able to peacefully agree on something and be able to pass it with the majority’s approval. There is obviously a lot of opinions and diversity in them out there regarding immigration, since it’s such a big conflict that the nation has brought their eyes upon.

In my opinion I think that there being such a diversity and disagreement could either be good or bad. Bad because it’s making people anxious and whatsoever. Yet, good because it might also mean that they’re analyzing the subject a lot more in detail which in a way it could be good. I personally wouldn’t get affected but most of my family would so it does kind of affect me I’d say. Whatever they decide will define their life.

MCCASKILL, NOLAN et al. "Scalise: GOP ‘Moving A Lot Closer’ To Immigration Deal". POLITICO, 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/house-daca-immigration-steve-scalise-637804. Accessed 11 June 2018.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/house-daca-immigration-steve-scalise-637804

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events- Judge Lifts Stay on Smokable Medical Cannabis

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events- Judge Lifts Stay on Smokable Medical Cannabis

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

OC1

Current Events

June 12th, 2018

Florida Judge Lifts Stay on Smokable Medical Cannabis

The article is mainly about how a Judge from Florida decided to lift a stay in one of her rulings saying that the Florida Legislature’s provision banning smokable medical Cannabis is unconstitutional. It also points out other’s opinions on the say and plenty more of facts. It talks about what is already accepted, such as the use of cannabis through vaping and in food, oils, sprays and tinctures. Yet, even with that being able to smoke it doesn’t come along. Some of the arguments being argued and used as evidence to be able to challenge the past lawsuit would be Cathy Jordan and Diana Dodson’s personal stance, since they say that smoking medical Cannabis has prolonged their lives. Other arguments could be such as that patients can’t even legally access what they’re being recommended as a treatment and how they face potential criminal prosecution for such. Even is the stay was lifted, smokable Cannabis would not immediately be available since the Department of Health has to come up with some rules for it firstly, lasting maybe plenty of months. At the time, there are other six cases in Florida dealing with medical Cannabis, so there is a lot going on regarding the use and legal parts of Cannabis.

I think that the people actually challenging a lawsuit and or a governor’s decision and actually having good evidence has a lot to say how deeply the governors analyze and research a case. Meaning that, they might only go with the overview of a topic and then make a decision instead of being able to search and go through specific examples and how it has affected their people. Like for example, it says how there is a lot of people who are recommended to smoke Cannabis, yet to it not being legal they have a hard time doing so, since if they are caught doing so they might face some serious legal consequences. Also, a very interesting thing that I noticed is how even the general use of medical cannabis has risen, and how it has truly been effective in proving how effective it is. Back to the article, for me personally, this has no effect at all on me since I dont both live on Florida nor use cannabis for anything. Yet, I can accept the fact that this has truly affected plenty of people, that only want to be able to fight their pain or whatsoever medical condition they have with the best way that there is and that they’re told to do, without hiding it. This led to realize how there are plenty of other cases like such throughout the United States, so that actually is something big that is occurring at the time and that we have to take care of.

Sources
"Florida Judge Lifts Stay On Smokable Medical 🤬". U.S. News, 2018, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2018-06-05/florida-judge-lifts-stay-on-smokable-medical-🤬 Accessed 12 June 2018.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2018-06-05/florida-judge-lifts-stay-on-smokable-medical-🤬

# data[].attributes.body
La Soledad, Jerecuaro, Guanajuato, Mexico
:)
I was born in Mexico and lived there until I was a year and some months old. Ever since we left, we still go every winter break. I enjoy visiting this place a little too much. Most of my family goes there in winter break as well, so its like a big get together, since there's also parties going on most of the days. I'd consider it some quality family time.

https://www.history.com/topics/mexico/guanajuato

# data[].attributes.headline
Current Events- Republicans and Immigration

# data[].attributes.subject
Current Events- Republicans and Immigration

# data[].attributes.body
Jeny Palacio

OC1

Current Events

June 7th, 2018

Republicans and Immigration

Immigration has been a very tough topic touched upon recently, new laws and ideas to deal and control it have come along through congress. Republicans have been predominantly the ones debating each new proposal made, whether some agree or others don’t or if maybe they want to add or take out a part of the suggestion. At one point, republicans were given a duty of sitting down and coming up with a finalized suggestion were majority of them could agree with, yet it seemed like they were all speaking different languages. It has been debated, whether if a past bill, the Farm Bill, had been improvised it could have prevented such disagreement between them at the moment. While congress was debating a new law for immigration, Trump’s courts had been working on getting rid of DACA. Immigration brings about a lot of disagreements and frustrations while trying to find the best solution for it that could favor and please majority of congress and also one that will most effectively deal with the immigrants.

People have been on the verge of emotions the whole time, hearing about how indecisive congress is and all that is going along and how they simply can’t come up with a solution as to how hard that will also affect their lives. Having a decision being made personally can be a struggle, because you’re thinking of what would be best, the consequences and outcomes of such, now imagine a big decision being made that will rule your life by someone who doesn’t know about you or could probably care less. Whether it be a positive or negative solution to the topic of immigration it will affect plenty of people living in the US, who immigrated here with the hope of living a better life and giving those joys to their children as well. I find it interesting how, even though how Congress might not personally know anyone that this will affect they still have to make a decision over them and how they have the last word. It’s also somewhat confusing how there has been a lot of disagreements, either for good or bad, but there actually has been a lot of thought put into it. My personal reaction to the article, is how immigration truly is very hard to deal with, you’re trying to do what’s best for the country but at the same time maybe for the immigrants. I feel like it truly is hard for both sides to handle this, for Congress because they’re having to deal with a major weight on their back and for the immigrants because their stay in the country might depend on such.

Sources

Tal Kopan, C. (2018). “GOP infighting on immigration stalls agenda, baffles leadership” [online] CNN. Available at:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/gop-immigration-republican-house-leaders-daca-farm-bill/index.html  [Accessed 7 Jun. 2018]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/gop-immigration-republican-house-leaders-daca-farm-bill/index.html