Immigration policy during this quarter
Give me an overview of the progress between the Congress and the President concerning immigration policy during this quarter. Explain how Democrats and Republicans reached their policies based on the philosophies of the two parties (what are the main positions within each party and do these positions match the traditional philosophy of that party)? Explain how the party positions were impacted by interest groups in support of each policy (name and describe one interest group on each side of the issue) and voters in support of each policy (in other words, do both parties think they can gain middle class support from their policies?). Do you see any sign of media bias toward one policy or the other or has the media been neutral (give me a specific example from the NYT)? Do you think the President has violated the constitution (give me something specific about his executive order)? Do you support the Republican or Democratic view on this issue (be sure to reference the potential impact on the economy/US federal budget)? Why?
The immigration policy for this quarter has been able to reach its final stages in order to be implemented. The name of this policy is called the DREAM Act (Shear). In the new policy it will be very advantageous for the immigrants who have lived in the United States of America to be able to become American citizens. The new policy will state that any immigrant who has lived in the United States for a long period will be able to become American citizens. This will come as a major relief to the millions of the immigrants who are living in America.
The reason why this was formed was mainly because of the fact that many immigrants in America have been living in the United States for a long time and yet have never been able to become American citizens. This act was to give citizenship to the minors who had come to America and have gone to their schools. They have had children or other family members who are American citizens but now with the new policy this will be good for them to never be deported out of America.
When it comes to the decisions that were made by the democratic president Obama, it is quite obvious the decision has been based by the long history of the Democratic Party when it comes to issues of immigration. The democrats views on the issue of immigration they have shown how important the issue is to them (Winerip). They have always had the firm believe that the illegal immigrants that arrived in the United States of America as infants or children should be given the right to be citizens. This is because it is not their fault that they came to the United States of American and lived there believing that it was their home.
The democrats do not believe that all the illegal immigrants should be given citizenship simply stated that the upstanding hard working people should be given the citizenship. The republican stand on the issue of immigrants is that they do not want any of the illegal immigrants to be given amnesty and citizenship no matter what the circumstance (Shear). The Republican Party is very conservative in that they believe that when the immigrants are granted citizenship in the country then this will encourage all the other immigrants in the world. They also believe that more laws should be implemented in order to cause people to fear to enter United States of America illegally. They also want the immigrants to be sent back to their homes.
One of the interest group who was in favor of the DREAM Act was the Harrisonburg Dream Act Chapter. This group was formulated by the immigrants who came to America and have been living upstanding lives and have studied in the United States of America. One of the members of the group is Isabel Castillo. The group has been known to hold small rallies and sometimes they have assembled and gone to the Harrisonburg City Council.
The crusaders are one of the people or groups of interest that have caused the democrats to push for the implementation of the act. The crusaders who do not want the act to be passed have also influenced some of the decisions that the republicans had towards the policy (DePARLE). Another thing that has caused the decision for the Republican Party is their philosophical ideology that goes against the policy (Preston). These two factors have had a major impact and influence in some of the decisions that they have made throughout the whole process.
The media have shown biasness of the issue. In that they seem to agree that the act will be good for the millions of people who will be able to become American citizens. They however state how dangerous the law will be for the nation especially when it comes to the government spending or the budget. According to some of the articles it claims that the white populations in the country fear for the formation of the act because it will lead to cultural decline and cost the jobs of the white people (Hajnal). This is because there is a firm belief that the immigrants usually take jobs of lower pay compared to the white Americans. This article also shows the disadvantages of the immigration policy for the nation as a whole instead of looking at also the positive side of the policy.
As an American citizen the disadvantages of the immigration policy definitely out weighs that of the advantages. The act should therefore not be passed. The act is good for the immigrants but it will also be costly for the American citizens. The budget will increase and the taxes will also increase because the population of America is high. The president’s actions towards the act is claimed to be unconstitutional especially be the republicans (Parker). The reason for stating this is because when the act passes it will definitely encourage more illegal immigrants to enter the United States of America. This will cause a decline in the economy and will increase chances of insecurity in the nation.
Analyze the foreign policy of the Obama administration in Syria. Would you describe Obama's goals as internationalist or isolationist? Did you see media bias on Obama's policy concerning Syria? Give me a specific example from the NYT to support your observation. Does Pres. Obama have the backing of his political party or of the Republicans? How would you rate Pres. Obama's foreign policy to Syria/Ukraine on a scale of one to ten (one is low/ten is high)? Why (be very specific and compare it to foreign policy toward another country to back up your conclusion)?
The foreign policy of the Obama administration towards Syria has made his goals to be that of the isolationist. The reason for stating this because he has gone ahead and made plans to attack another country without the good consultations from the congress (BOARD). The consultations of the congress would have made the public to agree on the military action on the Islamic state. The people of America have shown how tired they were on the wars against the Islamic states. The strikes in Syria have been received with negative responses among the Americans.
Obama has become more of an isolationist more than anything because he is doing things on his own. There is a biasness of the actions the president took over the actions on Syria as written in the New York Times by the editorial board. According to that article it states how the decision made by president Obama was a mistake and that he took the actions without consulting the people. The article goes further to state how the congressional people were too busy with the elections that they have left the president to take certain actions on his own.
The article also claims how the people of America were tired of the fights between the nation and the Islamic states. The president was stated to have said that the military actions that took place in Syria were because of the Islamic extremist group had caused an immediate danger to United States. The ISIS group however according to article states that they had no intent of attacking America. The article goes further to state that the president of the United States who is Obama should definitely consult the congress before going further with the airstrikes in Syria (BOARD).
The rate for president Obamas foreign policy on Syria would be rates as 1. The reason for stating this is because the president has not given clear reasons as to why the operation has been taking place. In looking at the military operations that has been taking place in Syria it seems to be a little bit hidden. The meaning for stating this is because the operations taking place is not fully documented if compared to the foreign policy that took place in 2001 by the Bush government. The policy has also not gotten the congressional approval for it take place. In the Bush foreign policy that was formulated after the September 11 attacks in New York. President Bush consulted the congress before he took any action against Afghanistan in 2001.
In 2002 the law also enables the president to be able to be able to attack Iraq (BOARD). In the Iraq operations the public and the congress were fully informed of all the events that were taking place. This enabled the public to be fully aware of what was happening to the military people in Iraq. This continued until the time of president Obama especially on the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, there is no reason why the presidents will not want to inform the people on what was happening and the operations taking place in Syria.
Work cited
Board, The Editorial. Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan. New York Times, 2014. Print
DePARLE, Jason. The Anti-Immigration Crusader. Ne York Times, April 17, 2011 . Print
Hajnal, Zoltan. The Democrats’ Immigration Problem. New York Times, November 20, 2014. Print
Parker, Ashley. Boehner Says Obama's Immigration Action Damages Presidency. New York Times, November 21, 2014 . Print
Preston, Julia. The Big Money Behind the Push for an Immigration Overhaul. New York Times, November 14, 2014. Print
Shear, Peter Baker and Michael d. Braced for a Shift in Congress, Obama Is Setting a New Agenda . New York Times, November 1, 2014. Print
WINERIP, MICHAEL. Dream Act Advocate Turns Failure Into Hope. New York Times, February 20, 2011. Print
