How Trump is Responding to the Migrant Caravan Situation

Background: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/world/americas/what-is-migrant-caravan-facts-history.html
Trumphttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/25/donald-trump-migrant-caravan-asylum-restrictions-mexico-border/1769320002/


As of today, there are estimated 7,000 people traveling with the caravan (2300 of those are estimated to be children). This number is changing as people are dropping off due to illness or exhaustion, while others are joining as well. The caravan's big number attracts the attention of the Trump administration. The caravan consists of mostly Hondurans hoping to escape violence and poverty in their country, but other Central Americans have joined in smaller numbers as well. The people in the caravan are hoping to seek asylum. Initially, locals did not react positively to the caravan. As the migrants entered Mexico they were pushed back and tear gas was thrown. But now, as the migrants have advanced, they have been receiving more support, with residents preparing food and offering free rides. However, Trump does not have the same reaction. The Trump administration is looking for ways to "restrict or block outright [the caravan's] ability to enter the country" (Jackson). Options include sealing the border and "denying asylum applications based on the so called 'travel ban' of 2017" (Jackson). Trump has threatened to seal the border over Twitter. There is controversy over whether the travel ban is a legitimate exercise of executive power. Additionally, Trump is trying to use the caravan situation to his advantage in the midterm elections, hoping to energize the voters. It is said that if migrants do not have a legitimate reason to stay they will definitely be removed. These threats do not seem to deter migrants from leaving their country and journeying to the United States.

Do you think the Trump administration should seal the border? Why or why not?

There are arguments that the migrants could take refuge in Mexico, but they are still heading for the United States. This raises the question: What are there true motives? Are they just looking for refuge from the violence in their countries or is there another motive?

What do you think should be done to address this situation?

San Mateo County, California, Measure W, Roads and Transit Sales Tax (November 2018)

FOR: https://savesfbay.org/yes-on-san-mateo-county-measure-w-transit-and-transportation-improvement-sales-tax

AGAINST: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-no-on-measure-w/article_5219f670-d720-11e8-a84f-1b7809d5a2e7.html

IMPARTIAL: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Mateo_County,_California,_Measure_W,_Roads_and_Transit_Sales_Tax_(November_2018)

Measure W is a measure on the local ballot this November. This measure has raised questions about the allocations of funding to fix the issues of traffic congestion, road repair, and transit systems in San Mateo County. A yes vote on this measure would mean a vote in favor of implementing a 0.5% sales tax on all qualified retail transactions for 30 years beginning on July 1, 2019. This tax money would be used to fund road improvements on highways throughout the county, including 101 and 280, fund transit services (SamTrans, Caltrain, etc.), and to implement the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan. A no vote on this measure would mean voting against the sales tax. The measure on the ballot states that the implemented sales tax will provide “approximately $80 million annual that the State cannot take away”, meaning it will be regulated at the local level and therefore, theoretically, ensure that the money will reach our local level issues. However, citizens in San Mateo County are already paying state and federal level gas taxes, as well as recently increased bridge tolls, both of which are funds meant to be allocated to similar transit improvements. This measure proves to be controversial for San Mateo County voters: should there be a tax at the local level to fix local roads and programs, or should we rely on the already implemented state taxes. This issue stems from the overlapping responsibilities of the different levels of federalism.

1. Are California's roads and transit systems more likely to be repaired by the local, state, or federal government? Why?
2. Should the tax be implemented on all retail transactions, despite the fact that not everyone in the county uses the roads or services they’d be paying to fix?
3. Do you think the measure will pass? Why?

Texas Early Voter Turnout Extremely High

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/early-voting-in-texas-begins-with-lines-strong-turnout/2018/10/22/47b2a256-d64c-11e8-8384-bcc5492fef49_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f8233826113

Texas currently has one of the most watched races,

Republican incumbent Ted Cruz running against Beto O’Rourke.
When early voting opened on Monday the 22nd thousands of people came out to vote.
Harris County, includes Houston, had a record opening day with more than 36,000 votes cast.
Dallas county also has had almost record breaking voting. Counties all across the state reported
large amounts of votes that were double or triple the turnout for 2014, the last midterm elections.
Some counties are reported numbers that almost beat the first day early voting for the 2016 election.
One man even said that he voted for the first time after living in Texas for thirty years.
As we have learned in class and seen in many graphs the Presidential election always has higher
voter turnout than the midterm elections, so the fact that the first day numbers are almost higher
than the presidential elections is very unusual. Along with the high voter turnout there has been some
complaints about the technology and poll workers.

1. Who will win Cruz or O’Rourke?
2. Why are more people turning out for this election than the last midterm in 2014?
3. What is the importance of more people turning out?

Georgia’s new voting law may determine Georgia's close governor's race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/22/how-georgia-governors-race-could-reshape-voting-rights-debate/?utm_term=.1c6cf44bc8aa

Georgia’s governor’s race appears to be virtually tied with Republican Brian Kemp’s 2 percent lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams. There is a 4.8 percent error so the vote can sway either way.

Stacey Abrams, former state House Minority Leader, is trying to become the first African American female governor in United States history. She is also hoping to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. For her win, Abrams relies significantly on black voters and young voters. Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State, is executing a strict voting law, requiring the names on the voter application to match the ID card exactly. Even a hyphen or space mistake in a name can put an application on hold. A day before the voter registration deadline, 53,000 voter applications were put on hold due to this tightened voter access in Georgia. 70 percent of those whose applications were on hold were African American. If someone’s voter application is on hold, they can still vote with a valid photo ID or can cast a provisional ballot and confirm their identity a couple of days later. Unfortunately, these voters were not notified if their application was on hold.

In the past, Congress required federal judges to regulate strict voting laws, but the

Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary in 2013.

1. Does Kemp’s new voting law discriminate against minority voters? How?

2. Is there anything one of the three branches can do to change Kemp’s law?

3. How likely do you think those 53,000 potential voters, whose applications were put on hold, are still going to try to vote?

California's Net Neutrality Challenge

California, led by Governor Jerry Brown, has recently passed a law that essentially repeals the recent legislation against net neutrality. With seemingly only large telecom corporations happy with the current situation, Governor Jerry Brown wanted to pass California legislation that challenges the decision made in December of 2017 from FCC chairman Ajit Pai. Ajit Pai argues that the net neutrality laws created under the Obama administration in 2015 that protected consumer internet were unnecessary due to the lack of examples of harm to justify regulations on broadband providers. The federal government has recently filed suit against the California law. Jeff Sessions, who is very vocally against the California law, has claimed that Congress granted the federal government the ability to regulate broadband providers through the creation of the FCC. The California law has "frustrated" federal policy by disregarding interstate commerce. On the other hand, California “will not allow a handful of power brokers to dictate sources for information or the speed at which websites load.” Although it may seem clear that California is in direct violation of the FCC's decision, this may be an important case in finally determining whether internet regulation truly is an implied federal government power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/technology/net-neutrality-california.html

1. Should internet regulation be an implied power or a reserved power and why?

2. If it were to be a reserved power, how would states with vastly different demographics differ in their regulation of the internet?

3. Pretend you are the FCC and create an argument against Governor Jerry Brown's law.

Kavanaugh Sworn in as Supreme Court Justice

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-calls-kavanaugh-allegations-hoax-n91780

After Brett Kavanaugh was recently appointed Supreme Court Justice despite allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, president Trump defended Kavanaugh, saying that the allegations were “a hoax” and “brought up by people that are evil”, and that he thinks Democrats will now try to get Kavanaugh impeached. In order for this to happen, his actions would need to be classified as a “high crime or misdemeanor”. The accusation would need to be brought up in the House and ratified by two thirds of the senate, meaning, even if Democrats were to gain more control of Congress after the midterm elections, this would not be likely, at least without more evidence. Republicans say that the Kavanaugh controversy has strengthened their voter base, whereas Democrats believe that Republicans’ treatment of the Kavanaugh allegations will hurt their results in the midterm. Trump also claims that many Democrats will vote Republican in the upcoming elections because the party has swung too far left.

1. How do you think Kavanaugh’s appointment to the supreme court will affect the upcoming midterm elections?
2. What will the Republican party be able to achieve now that it has control of all three of the main branches of government?
3. What is your opinion on whether Ford’s accusations were truthful? Is it possible Trump was right and it was really just a plot to prevent Republicans from gaining control of the Supreme Court?

Senate Votes to 50-48 to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh

https://www.apnews.com/8234f0b8a6194d8b89ff79f9b0c94f35/Kavanaugh-sworn-to-high-court-after-rancorous-confirmation                                                          

Today, at 4:00 PM Eastern Time, the Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Senators Flake(R), Colllins(R), and Manchin(D), crucial swing votes, voted in favor of Kavanaugh while Sen. Muirklowski(R), another swing vote, voted no.  Kavanaugh may likely go onto the court next week, replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy who has been know for being the swing vote in the court. This has been by far the most divisive nomination of any Supreme Court justice in our lifetimes as the typical stability of each president nominating only two justices has broken down. Bush Sr. appointed one justice while both Clinton, Buh Jr., and Obama each got two. This pattern of one justice per presidential term has been completely broken with the series of events following the death of Justice Scalia the Supreme Court has become yet another part of the increased political polarization in the nation. Within two years President Trump has nominated two judges to the court likely swinging the court to the right for decades to come. However, the long term implications of this have been overshadowed by the complete breakdown in respect for the process. In late September Kavanaugh was accused by Dr. Ford of sexual assault and what followed may scar the Senate for years to come. Republican leadership rushed the process following a tense public hearing. The questions concerning sexual assault in this nation has become an even deeper wound due to Republican attacks on Dr. Ford and protesters. The President publicly questioned the credibility of Dr. Ford while Sen. McConnell said that the "mob" of protesters against Kavanaugh granted them a huge political victory. In total the nation, just six weeks before the midterm elections, has experienced deeper division as partisan politics has seeped into the Supreme Court. Both the Republican and Democratic bases will be energized by this, especially the former as more have tolerated the personal deficiencies of President Trump simply because he can deliver the justices (something that even Flake admits to being a key reason why he voted for Kavanaugh after delaying the vote by a week). In many ways it is simply political theatre which this viewer has no doubt been left on the edge of his seat.

1. How will the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh affect the November Midterms? (explain how each base will be energized)    

2. Can we expect Judge Kavanaugh to be an impartial judge given his behavior during his testimony? How will he change not only the rulings of the court, but the position of it in society?
3. What do these recent partisan events tell us about the MeToo movement. Is it losing potency or does it simply not transcend the partisan divide in this country? Can either the political polarization and sexual assault be resolved in the near future?
4. Are these questions really answerable or am I intentionally asking questions that will take decades to answer in order to incite a political firestorm in the comments?