I really enjoyed reading Anna’s blog 7 as it discusses current time issues that we are being faced with. In blog 7, Anna discusses Donald Trump and his Planned parenthood budget policies. I agree with Anna who believes that President Trump has failed to be representative of the entire country as he focuses on implementing policies based on his beliefs. I believe that women should be responsible for determining what decisions they should make regarding their body and planned parenthood should be left to the individuals involved to make decisions and not be determined by a policy.    

    I also agree with Anna that cutting down on services such as birth control is problematic. Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy and this is definitely important in order to reduce the rates of unwanted pregnancies especially amongst younger people. Additionally, there may be various reasons why women may be seeking an abortion. For instance, rape victims who may end up being pregnant may not want to keep the child and will seek to abortion as a solution. Obviously in this case, a policy should not be used to determine what should be done as it is as a result of a personal choice based off an experience that holds certain sentiments.

 Overall, Anna’s blogpost was definitely a good read. I was impressed with the concerns that were highlighted especially regarding safety if abortion is performed anywhere else other than through planned parenthood. These were all valid points and they were highlighted clear and concisely. Good job Anna!

The United States government prides itself in national security and this can be seen with newly elected President Donald J. Trump with his executive orders that have been passed concerning immigration which directly affects national security. Immigration and national security have somewhat had a correlation as can be seen that most terrorist attacks against the United States which are not committed by homegrown terrorists are attributed to immigrants. Prior to 9/11, the United States has always opened her arms to immigrants from all over the world as it is the only country in the world with the highest immigration rate.

    In November 19 2001, the Transport Security Admission agency popularly know as TSA was created. This agency was created in response to the attacks of 9/11. The role of TSA is very integral to national security and immigration as they are in charge of screening passengers upon entry to the US. President Trump passed an executive order that barred immigration from specific countries as he believes that the immigrants from this countries pose a threat to national security. Consequently, with the locations of these countries, it is safe to say that the method of migration to the United States will most likely occur through the use of airplanes. TSA focuses their screening protocols in the aviation industry and are responsible for protecting the nation on that level.

   Similarly, with the presence of the immigration and customs enforcement agency, popularly known as ICE, which was created in March 1 2003, the focus has been to promote national security and protect public safety. These immigration agencies that have been created are targeted at reforming the United States immigration and promoting national security. It is also safe to say that immigration to the United States is no longer as flexible as it used to be due to the concerns of public safety and national security.

    

The United states, a country with the most annual immigration growth rate in the world  is currently facing an immigration controversy. The United states has always prided itself as an immigration based nation as it provides legal immigrants a naturalization privilege.

    Founded under the constitution in 1789, the United States Government is made up of three branches. These branches include; the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. All of these branches are connected to each other and are in charge of implementing policies. Newly elected president Donald J. Trump started his administration with certain new controversial policies, one of which includes the executive order of an immigration ban.

   President Trump who believes in securing his country created an executive order barring all refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Islamic countries access to the United States. The countries included in the ban are Iran, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Sudan. According to President Trump, these countries were selected in order to reduce the chances of terrorist acts in the United States. I believe prohibiting countries from entry into the US based on religion is unconstitutional. The United States is a free country which supports freedom of speech and free religious practices and this executive order is inconsistent with the standard upon which the United States was founded.

    Executive orders are passed by the head of the executive branch who in this case is the president of the United States and they cannot be overturned by the legislative branch however, the legislative branch can refuse to instate an executive order. The Judicial branch on the other hand is responsible for overturning and ruling an order as unconstitutional. In the case of the immigration ban, the appeals court of the United States is upholding the suspension of the immigration ban. This example explains how the national government is set up in order to prevent one branch from abusing power. The presence of the branches of the government is therefore important and necessary for the efficiency of democracy.

Interracial Marriage

Interracial marriages have become very popular in our society today however, there was a time in America where the color of your skin determined so many things including the people you could date or marry. Loving vs Virginia, the case that invalidated the prohibition of interracial marriages; one question comes to mind when I read about this. Should this case have ever even been a thing? Should the issue of race have ever been used to validate anything? This is the question Brent Staples explores in his editorial.

Brent claims that if race was declared a false Idea, perhaps it would have altered the national discourse on race decades ago.The logic behind Brent’s reasoning is that race should have solely been validated as a biological category and that the freedom to choose a partner should have been self evident. I believe that a court ruling was unnecessary to affirm the right to marriage. People should be allowed to choose their own marriage partners and the issue of marriage should never have been decided by the state or federal government. Brent evidently proves his point by referencing how this may have laid the foundation for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. In Brent’s editorial, he validates his argument by highlighting the notion of one of the lawyers who explained how the definition of blackness had shifted throughout the years and this showed the irrationalism behind making race a determining factor for issues as it clearly is a social construct with evidence of it being defined by people and the changes in its meaning throughout the years.

I agree with Brent perhaps this must have laid a foundation for marriage equality as we see it today but one must not ignore the fact that even in the present times, we have still tried to interfere in the issues of marriage regardless of whether or not it is racially based, we have almost failed to realize that marriage is a personal decision and should not require a court ruling for validation. This editorial speaks to the entire society, I believe that people from different walks of life should be able to find this relatable as it addresses two important things which are racism and discrimination which is still evident in the America we live in today.  

Greetings

Hello class