In the article, Senate to Vote on ‘Common Sense’ Group’s Immigration Bill, Trump’s 4 Pillars’ Proposal, Gabrielle Levy informed its readers that there are a series of proposals, or pillars, which include a new compromise- which the administration has already denounced; thus amplifying the uncertainty for the future of the immigrants in the United States. A group by the name “Common Sense Caucus” has detailed a one of the four amendments that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been pushing. The agreement ultimately wants to provide protection via legal status and even citizenship for almost 2 million Dreamers- 1.8 to be exact- as well as $25 billion in border security over a decade. The $25 billion for border security  common ground in order to get President Trump’s support, as well as restricting the parents of the Dreamers from using their children as a leeway to apply for citizenship.  Also, the logic is that by strengthening border security, it will help stop mainly the flow of illegal immigrants,but also drugs such as heroin. However, President Trump did not want any negotiations, thus not wanting to support the Grassley’s bill. There is also a proposal to even punish cities that pass sanctuary city laws inhibiting the local law enforcement from cooperating with any federal immigration officials in that city. Thus far, it is unclear if any of the proposals will go through, concerning countless immigrants and Americans. 

Reflection:

This article heavily affects immigrants that reside in the United States. This is important to me because this is a grey area and I become self-conflicted. I understand the concerns of both sides: as a country we need to protect our people’s interests, and being undocumented is illegal, and I also see that as a country, it is our duty to help others in need. The Dreamers are an example of people we want to have in our country, for the most part. The government’s ultimate decision will affect them first, and may I say the most. I say, that a solution would be to stop the act temporarily throughout the years, however give a time limit so that people will apply each cycle. Meaning that all the children who apply and are accepting before the time limit will be accepted and be considered a Dreamer, but after that there will be no Dreamers. And every other 6 years to renew this in a cycle. This will reduce the influx of immigrants.

Citation:

Levy, Gabrielle. “Senate to Vote on 'Common Sense' Group's Immigration Bill, Trump's '4 Pillars' Proposal.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-02-15/senate-to-vote-on-common-sense-groups-immigration-bill-trumps-4-pillars-proposal.

Summary: 

In the article, Trump Signals Support for States Deciding if Pot is Legal, written by Associated Press, Wire Service Content, it mainly discusses how President Donald Trump support on the legislation that legalizing marijuana to states, and how there are still opposing sides such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The reason why the legalization of  marijuana is controversial is due to the current federal ban that puts it same level as more serious drugs, such as LSD and heroin, thus creating conflict with nearly 30 states. If marijuana is legalized, the legislation would ensure that each of the states have the right to handle marijuana how they see fit, but there are still going to be U.S. restrictions, including but not limited to the sales of non-medical pot to minors below the age of 21. Surprisingly, this proposal has support from members of Congress from both parties, meaning that it is very unclear what will be the result, as there are strong opposing sides. Although President Trump supports this piece of legislation, his own Justice Department and Attorney General Jeff Sessions strongly disagrees, seeing as he lifted an Obama administration policy, thus encouraging a more aggressive pursue cases in the states that have legalized marijuana within their borders. At the same time, Gardner, head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, has always opposed legalization of marijuana, but has called hemp and marijuana “two entirely separate plants.” Meaning that his views has become more unclear, as the bill will exclude industrial hemp. Despite Trump’s support, he has also been unclear due to pledging to respect states that legalized marijuana, but also has criticized legalization and implied it should stop. Therefor, as Kevin A. Sebet, and others would agree, you cannot trust the long-term validity of someone who would probably support something. 

Reflection: 

This article not only affects those to are marijuana consumers and sellers, it also affects the states, as the decision will ultimately change the federal  prosecution on the states who have legalized marijuana. I know that the legalization of marijuana will mean more money for the government, and that more money should be a good thing. Personally, I do not smoke marijuana- and not because it is illegal, so if it was legalized I know that it would not affect me as much. However on the other hand, the people that would be affected would be those who do smoke weed for whether for pleasure or medical benefits. The effects would be that they will no longer be scared to smoke marijuana or fear imprisonment, but on the other hand, marijuana would cost more than buying it from a “regular” dealer. 

Citation:
“Trump Signals Support for States Deciding If Pot Is Legal.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-06-08/trump-signals-support-for-legislation-easing-us-ban-on-pot. 

Summary:

In the article, “Florida Judge Lifts Stay on Smokable Medical Marijuana,” by Joe Reedy, Associated Press, introduces the topic that Floridians are one step closer to being able to smoke medical marijuana with the help of the constitution. Leon County circuit court Judge Karen Gievers lifted a stay on her ruling that it is unconstitutional for the Floridians Legislature’s provision to ban smokable medical marijuana. This on which angered the state’s Department of Health and they filed an appeal, but were automatically placed on hold. However, the stay was lifted on June 11, as Gievers believed that by delaying her ruling, it would create “irreparable harm to patients.” This ultimately means that the stay will return to its previous state, especially after voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2016, which allows the use of medical marijuana. The Legislature passed the law to enact the amendment in 2017, including a section regarding health risks of smoking marijuana, therefore the law signed by Gov. Rick Scott, states that patients are allowed to use cannabis via vaping, foods, oils, and other “non-smokable” means. Opposition of this amendment is clear, as Mogan whom was accompanied by Cathy Jordan and Diana Dodson, filed a lawsuit challenging the ban after Scott signed the bill. Even with the stay being lifted, smokable medical marijuana is not immediately available for patients, as the Department of Health must set up standards regarding the distribute and sell- which can take several months. As of  June 08, 2018, there are 117,522 patients and 2,644 doctors in the states medical marijuana registry, and the Department of Health also states that 94,023 patients received their ID cards. Not only that, but Florida Department of Health spokesman Galetta states that the department officials are reviewing the ruling, and that they are involved in six other cases dealing with several aspects of the use and sale of medical marijuana. Thus, Floridians who support the use of smokable medical marijuana are closer to being able to do so legally. 

Reflection:

This article is important to me because I know the benefits of marijuana, especially as it helps to ease patients’ chronic pain. This article is significant to Floridiansas they will be able directly affected by the progression towards smokable medical marijuana, and this will also affect the United States, as more states will begin to “follow.” This is a long battle for change, as many are opposed to smoking marijuana- in general, but as we see with this article, there are significant change and resistance. In the future, I believe that the United States could possibly have all/ majority of its states giving the right to smokable medical marijuana. I know that this benefits the federal government, as well as the patients. There are too many diseases and TREATMENT that cause pain to not have legal medical marijuana available in all options.   

Citation:
Press, Associated. “Florida Judge Lifts Stay on Smokable Medical Marijuana.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2018-06-05/florida-judge-lifts-stay-on-smokable-medical-marijuana

Summary:

In the article, “Can Hawaii Become Carbon Neutral in 27 Years,” Contributor Zoe Chevalier, it main idea surrounds the topic that due to the rise of sea level, there are new bills in the Aloha State wishing to set an emission reduction goal by 2045. Even though President Trump did not participate at the G-7 summit, a formal gathering to discuss global warming, and the U.S detached from the Paris climate agreement, Hawaii Gov. David Ige is committed to support and protect the climate. The ways that Gov. Ige has increased climate protections is when he signed a bill a 2017 that adopted goals of the Paris agreement for his state, as well as the three other bills he signed this early June to make Hawaii carbon neutral by 2045. Not to mention, Hawaii is already produces the lowest levels of carbon emissions in the country. In January, Governor Ige stated in his state address his concerns of Hawaii’s future as Hawaii first-hand experiences the effects of global warming.  One of the bills titled, “HB 2182,” shows the anxiety, as according to Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report- which was released in December- Hawaii may suffer a mass total in $19,000,000,000 in damages due to the sea level rise. The bill aims to reduce carbon emission until Hawaii becomes carbon neutral by 2045, thus encouraging companies to reduce their carbon output by investing environmentally friendly procedures such as reforestation and renewable energies. Not only that but the bill also creates a greenhouse gas sequestration task force so that they can find opportunities to exploit trees and vegetation that are carbon sequestering, so that they can then reduce urban temperatures and protect public health. The bill also wishes to increase the use of compost to improve the soil. In order for Hawaii to reach their goals, the state will provide loans, tax credits, and grants to push companies to become more environmentally friendly as well to increase new agricultural and aquacultural activities to improve carbon sequestration and enhance crop yields. The state is also planning to support research and provide technical assistance to find different alternatives to carbon-emitting processes. According to the National Climate Assessment, who studies the effects of climate change in the U.S., the increase of the ocean temperature will ultimately lead to destruction of marine life in Hawaii.  

Reflection:

This article is important to me, because I personally hate the destruction that humans have on the environment. As a country we are too advance to be too careless with our trash and production. Especially when it comes to marine life, I know that we have the capability to improve and protect our own ocean. So, by knowing that Hawaii has taken the step to become carbon neutral, and setting the example, makes me extremely happy. They are protecting not only there future and their community, but also the future of the world and ocean. 

Chevalier, Z. (n.d.). Hawaii's Not Just Going Carbon Neutral On Its Own. It's the Law. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-06-12/can-hawaii-become-carbon-neutral-in-27-years

Summary:

In the article titled, “House members try to force immigration debate: What happens if discharge petition secures 218 signatures, by Chad Pergram in Fox News, they reflect the ongoing tension between both Republicans and Democrats to due attempting to go against House GOP leaders, and to then force a debate on several immigration bills. The way that they plan on going around is by using a rarely successful method by the name of  “discharge petition,” which requires a total of 218 signatures of House members; with a total of 428 members, that would be over half of the members. One thing to note is that the number of signatures is always the same, disregarding the number of members that are in the house. Another thing to note is that the House works by a strict schedule, or calendar; therefore a discharge petition may be signed on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. The supporters of the current petition on immigration and DACA need to secure 281 signatures by June 11. If they successful, they will continue on onto the fourth month., which will be June 25. The house is out on the second Monday next month on July 9, as the calendar comes in play. Currently, the House is not scheduled to be in session on any second and fourth Mondays for the rest on the year, except December 10, thus no discharge petition could be introduced that late in a Congressional session. The way it works is first backers of the discharge petition marshal the necessary 218 signatures by the end of the week, then any signatory of the petition could ask to call it up on the House floor after the Pledge of Allegiance on June 25, or the House could also secure an agreement to consider the petition later that same day. Either way, the merits and demerits of the discharge will receive a total of 20 minutes of the debate on the floor. For this particular discharge, there are introducing a framework for the House for them to consider four immigration/ DACA bills. Therefore, once the debate finishes, the House will vote “up or down” on the petition as a whole. If the House votes “up,” members begin an hour of debate for the four bills, and if the House votes “down,” then it halts the process of the bills. This also coincides with the way the House will vote on the structure of the bills- if accepted.  If so, the House allocates 40 minutes for each bill. The “motion to recommit” is the final method used by opponents to ultimately dissolve of the bill and return it to the committee. It is a difficult process that several aspects. There is so much tension due to the uncertainty of whether they will receive the 218 signatures, therefore, they have been scrambling to work out an agreement before petition advocates. 

Reflection:

This article affects America as a whole, due to the fact that there are countless immigrants in our nation. It is a heavy debate as there are moral, and logical stances on both sides, which has been going on for years now. Even though I do not have a super clear stance of where I stand, I do know that the more the House waits and or stalls on a final decision they are causing even more stress and tension within the community. I feel that by understanding the components and the way the system works, I have a clearer understanding on how hard it is to change or introduce bills via the method of discharge petition. 

Pergram, C. (2018, June 05). House members try to force immigration debate: What happens if discharge petition secures 218 signatures. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/05/house-members-try-to-force-immigration-debate-what-happens-if-discharge-petition-secures-218-signatures.html

Summary:

In Politico, a article titled House GOP wants to take back power from executive branch,by John Bresnahan on June 16, 2018, it talks about how GOP lawmakers want to address the imbalance between the executive and legislative branches. Speaker Paul Ryan created the fourth and six task forces, and according to them, the executive branch and the judiciary branch, have more power. This imbalance of power ultimately impacts the country of the United States as a whole. The task force report states that both he executive and judicial branches have increased their power, but sometimes with and sometimes without Congress’s consent in the matter. Also the task force informed that the regulatory state has grown into a fourth branch, where executive has all three powers- to make, enforce, and to interpret the law. There are four main recommendations to solve the issue of imbalance of power. The first is re-establishing and also enforcing limits on the agency’s authority. The second recommendation is to reform the rule-making process. The third is to exercise the power of the purse, and finally the fourth recommendation is to conduct better oversight of the executive branch to make sure that they are not implementing more power than they have. However an issue is that no president wants to give up leverage, and especially not to the congress. The authorizing committees has failed to pass authorization bills,which also hinders the power of federal agencies. More recommendations include: updating the Federal Records Act, make it more difficult for agencies to issue regulations, granting Congress more power to block regulations; ect; and most importantly, force the executive branch to comply better with congressional subpoenas. However,  many of the task force's recommendations talk about congressional action, and enacting or targeting  specific programs with appropriations bills could ultimately provoke both legal and political problems within the White House.

Reflection:

This article is important to the 3 separate branches of the United States’ government, as this could start to change their power. This will ultimately affect our community as there will be increasing tension within the government. I personally think that there is definitely more power within the executive branch, but I also think that some of that power is rightfully there. One thing that they/we should focus on is the corruption within the government, and this is the first step. This is a step forward towards cleansing the government, so that one side does not have all of the power- meaning that one group of people in our society does not have an unfair advantage due to under the table money.

Citation:

Bresnahan, J., Sherman, J., Becker, B., Fisher, T., Lin, J. C., Glorioso, A., . . . Greenfield, J. (2016, June 16). House GOP wants to take back power from executive branch. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/house-gop-wants-to-take-back-power-from-executive-branch-224405

Summary:

 In the article titled, Trump Threatens China With Fresh Tariffs On $200 Billion Of Imports, by Dominique Mosbergen, she explains the escalation in conflict about trade in two biggest economies- China and the United states. President Trump threatens China with a tariff on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports to the United States. On the other hand China has announced that they would take strong countermeasures against the United States if indeed the tariff is placed. The Commerce Ministry said that the United States started a trade war that not only violates market laws, but also does not follow accordance with “global development trends.” Trump also asked U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to make a list of $200 billion in just Chinese imports that the U.S. could then potentially  impose a 10 percent tariff. This would be a response to the response of China’s decision to raise tariffs on $50 billion of American goods. As stated, China’s tariffs was the first reaction to Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would place 25 percent tariff $50 billion of Chinese imports. President Trump claims that the tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports is a result to the effort to prevent unfair “trades” of American technology and even intellectual property to China, in hope to ultimately then protect American jobs. One counterargument is that instead of the President changing the unfair practices, in a more friendlier way, he is imposing more tension which is ultimately backfiring. China will also threaten United States companies, workers, and farmers- the innocent bystanders, who had no part in President Trump’s decision. Nonetheless, he will place the tariff if china does not back off. Although it is currently unclear when the list of of imports will be made public, Lighthizer commented that they are making the list. At the end, the list will have a public comment period and also a public hearing. 

On the other side, China’s Commerce Ministry that this action violates prior negotiations. He states that the practice of pressure and blackmail is uncalled for, and is disappointing by the United States government. As well as, China will respond to the new tariff harshly. 

Reflection: 

This article left me feeling irritated. Although Trump wants to make sure that the American economy is at its best, he is doing it in a manner which is not working. He is trying to insert his power to forcefully make sure that not only our economic trade is more advantageous, but the China’s is at a disadvantage. With the information given by the article it is clear that the United States is at fault for placing tariffs, with no negotiations. This only backfired on not only the United States economy, but also the people. Now American companies, American workers, American farmers, and American people- especially the poor- will suffer the consequences of the lack of cooperation of both sides. It was unnecessary to use such great force, although we should use force, we must plan ahead for the upcoming battles. 

Mosbergen, D. (2018, June 19). Trump Threatens China With Fresh Tariffs On $200 Billion Of Imports. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-tariffs-200-billion_us_5b288d3ce4b05d6c16c677ba

Summary:

In the article, Singapore, G-7 Summit, Anthony Bourdain: Your Monday Briefing, by Charles McDermid, he informs information regarding Singapore, & the G-7 Summit. Firstly, both President Trump and Leader Kim Jong-un are in Singapore and they have a first face-to-face meeting planned for June 11. There interaction to be make others fear that they will have a lack of communication, and even mismatched expectations. However, few optimist analyst believe that Kim Jong-un may “denuclearize” if President Trump offers economic aid. Analysts also told Bijin bureau chief that the Chinese leaders are anxious for the upcoming events. One interesting thing is that their meeting will occur after a contentious Group of 7 meeting. The meeting will be hosted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, ashe will defend Canada’s trade policies- which will ultimately abandon the G-7’s joint statement. Another thing that Prime Minister Trudeau did was call President Trump  “very dishonest and weak,” this then leads to tensions as economic advisers stated that President Trump will show no signs of weakness when he has his meeting with Kim Jong-un. According to one Democratic senator, it is not just with the Prime Minister Trudeau, but also with United States allies. Also, not to sign a statement of solidarity goes against what the United States stand for. Continuing on, Malaysia’s new leader, Mahathir Mohamad, age 92, is harshly investigating the apparent theft from Najib Razak, his predecessor as well as the person to establish and oversee the investment where the billions of the state investment fund has been “misplaced.” The U.S. Department of Justice estimates $4.5 billion was “misplaced” from the fund titled 1MDB, as well as $731 million dollars that was deposited into Mr. Najib’s bank accounts. Mr. Najib denies the accusations as Mr. Mahathir top priority is recovering the money. On another note, in New Delhi’s trash is getting out of control. Almost 80 billion pounds of garbage has pilled up within the capital. Thus causing polluted air and water that could become lethal. Mumbai and Kolkata are in the worst conditions, so the government has vowed to rid single-use plastic by 2022.  And finally 

 

Reflection:

This article made feel anxious for the future. The impact that the G-7 summit is literally world wide. I feel that Trump is playing with fire, with intentions of it becoming water. First of all, Kim Jong-un has broken promises before, so why should we trust him now? This could be a big step toward better relationships, but it is unclear on Kim Jong-un’s part or ideology as to why is he going to the meeting and what does he want in return. He even has a different definition as to what denuclearization looks like- I feel that knowing how President Trump presents himself to the world, that there are definitely going to be misunderstandings. Nonetheless, if Jong-un keeps his word, it will be world changing and a big moment in history.   

Citation:

Mcdermid, C. (2018, June 10). Singapore, G-7 Summit, Anthony Bourdain: Your Monday Briefing. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/briefing/singapore-g-7-summit-anthony-bourdain.html

Summary:

In the article titled, “He Sold Drugs $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover.” by Adam Liptak, he explains how Mr.Timbs is trying to acquire his Land Rover back as he bought it, and drugs, through his father’s life insurance. Liptak further explains how it will be difficult since the state of Indiana is using a law that seizes vehicles used to transport illegal drugs.

In the week prior, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the civil forfeiture laws, which allows states to take and keep private property that was used to commit a crime, is constitutional or not. When it comes to Mr.Timbs’ case, he used his Land Rover to not only get drugs, but also to sell them. According to his lawyer he only sold drugs twice using the Land Rover, nonetheless, Mr.Timbs buyers were undercover police officers. Mr. Timbs pleaded guilty to only one of the drug sales, which involved $225. He was then sentenced to a year of house arrest, plus five years of probation after. Mr.Timbs also agreed to pay $1,200 of fees and fines. At the end of the day Indiana wanted more, and by using civil forfeiture, they acquired the Land Rover. After going to meetings, counseling, and even probation appointments, Mr.Timbs has began to successfully put his life back together. One thing is that  Mr. Timbs found work as a machinist in a factory around 40 minutes from his home, where he also lives with his aunt. One thing that Mr.Timbs struggles with is transportation, he borrows his aunts car to get to work, while she has to take a bus for her dialysis appointments. It would not be an issue if he were to have his Land Rover back. Justice Clarence Thomas argued the year before that the Supreme Court should examine civil forfeiture laws, due to not wanting them to abuse the law.  He explained that the current system where police have the authority, with limited judicial oversight, to take any objects, has led to abuses throughout the United State. Mr. Hottot states that this is unfair as it limits the capacity for people who were criminals to adopt back into society. Mr.Timbs started strong against Indiana’s lawsuit by using the 8th Amendment, which states that no excessive bail, fines, nor cruel or unusual punishments should be required- especially taking to account excessive fines. However, due to how his habit started with an opioid addiction and later progressed to more addicting drug- heroin, Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr.Timbs, as he stated that the 8th Amendment does not apply to ones imposed by states. Thus, opening up more questions regarding the Bill of Rights, corruption, and justice in the system. 

Reflection:

Ultimately the Judge’s decision will affect the life of Mr.Timbs, and future criminals whose property may go to the state. Personally, I believe that Mr.Timbs just wants his Land Rover back, since that is part of the reason he went to jail. I say that when it came to his case, it was not as groundbreaking, even though some of his points are still valid. Looking more deeply at the issue, the police are taking advantage to acquire things from criminals. Especially if they are corrupt officers, imagine what else they are taking- drugs perhaps. However one other thing to take into account is that by taking things from criminals it will help them have access to more thing that could help catch even more bad guys. 

Citation:

Liptak, A. (2018, June 25). He Sold Drugs for $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-civil-asset-forfeiture.html?rref=collection/timestopic/U.S. Supreme Court&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

Summary:

On the website Fox News, the article titled Supreme Court ruling in cell phone case is a victory for our privacy rights, by Curt Levey, discusses how the advance technology may hinder our privacy and legal implications through the example of the court case Carpenter v. United States. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects civilians in regards to the cell phones came up as a vital question in the court case as Timothy Carpenter could be convicted with armed robbery via phone location data use. They began to question how freely can the law enforcement obtain data of where people are, and thus, Justice ruled 5-7 that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution also protects the information inside a cell phone. Therefore, law enforcements will need a search warrant in order to access that data. However, there are still heavy concerns over the future; the question of will our constitutional right to privacy survive will the ongoing technological advancements is in the air. In the end, law enforcements did not have enough evidence to meet the “probable cause” in order to get a warrant for the information regarding the location data which obtained under Stored Communications Act- or the SCA. Interesting enough, the SCA was enacted in 1986 when there was not many cell phones, therefore, it lacks the ability to secure our privacy rights from others. So in order to protect him own privacy, Timothy Carpenter decided to go to court. There he was met with the defense of the law enforcement that the Supreme Court’s Third-Party Doctrine applies to the cell phone data as it states that no search occurs when the government gets information that the accused have voluntarily conveyed to a third party. The Third-Party Doctrine hinders our privacy rights due to our advanced technology. The Committee for Justice stated in an amicus brief to the Court during the Carpenter v United States case that  large amount of information are “constantly collected by third-party service providers today.” Therefore, the fact that the justices acknowledge that the Fourth Amendment protects Carpenter proves that we must think of new laws that adapts to the advancement of today’s technology. Accordingly, the court also concluded that the Third-Party Doctrine does not apply to cell phone data due to no affirmative act of the user. Another thing to point out is that in 2016, AT&T received more than 700,000 demands for location data, and with that information the government may keep track of anyone as long as they have a phone- meaning no privacy at all. Nonetheless there are 6-3 majority in favor for protecting the location data from cell phones. This ultimately means that there are people who believe that the government should not need a warrant to obtain that data, and that the Third-Party Doctrine does apply on cell phones. For now, the Fourth Amendment protects us from the advantage that the law enforcers have with technology. 

Reflection:

This article affects the United States people as as whole  due to the fact that almost everyone has a cell phone. One thing that bothered me is that companies have poor security, and poor regulation as only law enforcement need a warrant, while private companies may buy that same information. In regards to our right to privacy, I know that there are cases where there is a lack of. We hear about smart TVs that record you without knowing, or laptops and phones- we also have GPS and cameras. However when reading about the case, I feel that the Supreme Court made the right decision, but at the same time if Carpenter did the armed robbery then and his phone could have proved that- then that is one more person who commited a crime that he did not pay for in the streets. And that may result to more damage in our society. 

Citation: 

Levey, C. (2018, June 22). Supreme Court ruling in cell phone case is a victory for our privacy rights. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/22/supreme-court-ruling-in-cell-phone-case-is-victory-for-our-privacy-rights.html

Summary: 

In the article, Supreme Court rules that Trump’s travel ban is constitutional, it explains how President Trump’s September order of travel ban from majority Muslim countries is constitutional. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 5-4 opinion, the court decided that President Trump’s travel ban was within his president’s authority, as well as rejecting the claims that the ban was motivated by religious hatred- since religion was not stated directly. The order’s purpose is to lower the risk of having nationals in the United States that cannot be vetted properly, thus setting the example for other countries to improve their security. The case Trump v. Hawaii is a key aspect to Trump’s administration, as it highlights the strength of his campaign promise to restrict immigration by securing America’s border. In April, Chad released the list of the people who are predominantly affected whom were those from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. On the other hand, people such as Neal Katyal, the attorney for the challengers, are disappointed  by the decision of the court. He considers the ban to be unwise, however President Trump promises that on his watch, this country will always be secured. The ruling was broken down on partisan line, the dissenting justices where mainly appointed by democrats, while the concurring justices were republicans. One thing that Stephen Yale-Loehr, the co-author of a book on immigration laws and the person who also signed onto an amicus brief on behalf of Hawaii, notes is that immigration involves the national sovereignty and foreign relations, and that the courts have often looked to the president on immigration issues. With the court case, Hawaii alleges that the restrictions are based on religious discrimination- especially when looking at Trump’s tweets. However, the court decided that the tweets are not the issue. The case began when Hawaii blocked the ban, thus causing Trump’s solicitor general to ask the Supreme Court to stay a ruling fthe federal judge who blocked the travel ban. Hawaii’s defense is that the travel ban would only separate families and harm the public and the University of Hawaii. Others, such as Robert, states that because the ban applies to 5 muslim countries does not alone prove that the travel ban is discriminatory, plus those 5 countries is only 8% of the world’s Muslim population. On the other hand, others such as Katyal still believe that the ban was based on religious discrimination as she cited Trump’s tweets before election as the ban was ultimately a “Muslim Ban.” She also cited videos which illustrated muslims in a negative light. According to Roberts, he says that the ban is against what our country was founded on: religious freedom and tolerance. Therefore, even with the court’s decision, we still see people protesting around our country. 

Reflection:

I know that this ban has an affect on people internationally as not only are citizens from the United States that are from the countries that are ban going to suffer, but also the people from those other countries that wish to come to the United States. I personally believe that yes we should protect our people from possible foreign terrorism, but banning whole countries will only fuel fire. Many people view this a discrimination, especially as President Trump portrays himself, and their thoughts are valid. I believe that the religious discrimination  may be rooted in the ban and even other policies. As a country, the government should vett the foreigners more thoroughly, as well as focus on American terrorist! 

Citation:

Higgins, Tucker. “Supreme Court Rules That Trump's Travel Ban Is Constitutional.” CNBC, CNBC, 26 June 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

Summary:

In the article, This is how the travel ban is impacting families near and far, Holly Yan and Hollie Silverman of CNN explain that President Trump’s travel ban is negatively impacting families from both the United States and the families from the banned countries. 

The first out of countless examples was Mohamed Aden Nur. He became a US citizen 13 years ago, and ever since he has faced hardship to bringing his family over. However, a new struggle has risen; the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban. Now Mr.Nur has no idea whether he will be able to reconnect with his family that is currently on the other side of the world in Somali. Yes, under the ban, close family relatives may receive a special waiver which allows them to enter the United States, however, just like Nur’s family, some families are denied a special waiver without an explanation as to why. Thus families will continue to be separated from one another. Mr.Nur began his journey as he was born in Somalia to and during the 1990s, civil war had broken out and massive famine was seen throughout Somalia. Nur had no choice but to leave to Yemen, where his children were born later, and after 6 years, he went to the United States alone as he could not afford to bring his family over. Now that he can afford to bring his family after 20 years of hard work and paying both to support his family and getting a visa, his family has been denied entry- with no explanation. Nur states that he pays federal taxes and works hard to support his family- not on the welfare program. Mr. Nur wants the best education for his children, and cannot comprehend as to why they must be separated. 

The second example is Mohamad Mashta. He can to the United States from Syria on a student visa back in the year 2012- when Syria was in the midsts of civil war. Luckily for him he was granted asylum and now has a job in an auto manufacturing plant in Ohio as an engineer. Mashta has considered the United States to be his home, until the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban. To him, it seemed as if he was no longer welcomed in the United States. Mr.Mashta and his wife are expecting a baby, and now their family will not be able to meet the newborn. To them it feels that they have been ripped away their rights and part of their life. They are scared for the future. 

The last example of the article is Saleh Mujalli, a Yemeni businessman who had planned to travel to the United States, but with the travel ban it is impossible. Mr.Mujalli sees that President Trump wants to increase the safety and security of the United States with the Travel ban, and that the Supreme Court ruled for him as they states that the ban was within Trump’s authority as president. However, Mr.Mujalli believes that the real reason behind the travel ban is that since Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East, the United States has no financial interest. Another businessman, Mr. Adimi, who studied in the United States for over 20 years states that he is disappointed by the Supreme Court’s outcomes with regards of the travel ban. 

Reflection:

Yesterday for my Current Events article it was about why the Supreme Court decided to uphold President Trump’s ban. It was because it was in his authority and president, and also the Supreme Court said that the ban said nothing about religion so that means that it was not religious discrimination. This article showed much of the effects it has on people based on the decision of the Supreme Court. Families from both side are negatively impacted and they feel that the system is unfair. I feel that is is unfair to force people to find other methods of communication, and that this country should focus on methods to ensure that the people coming into the United States are the kind of people we want. I also feel that not telling the why people why they are denied a special waiver is smart as there will not be qualifications that “bad” people may copy, but at the same time it makes the other side of the people feel as if they were denied for no reason. 

Citation:

Yan, Holly, and Hollie Silverman. “This Is How the Travel Ban Is Impacting Families near and Far.” CNN, Cable News Network, 28 June 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/us/real-people-affected-by-travel-ban/index.html.