GEAmerican Governments In previous years, people used to really get worried about car crashes, plane crashes, gun violence, and HIV. Nowadays, more people are killed by drug overdoses. According to the national institute on drug abuse, every day, about 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids. The addiction to opioids is a very dangerous and serious national crisis that touch public health as well as social and the quality of living standards in an economy. The question that get asked all the time is “what exactly is the opioid epidemic? Is it about prescription drugs or heroin?” The answer would be that it’s a combination of both problems. Opioids were being recommended to treat chronic pain, but people didn’t realize the problems associated with the usage of opioids in the long term which the most important point would be getting addicted to the medication. When people get hooked up on these medications and can’t get them from their providers anymore, people substitute it with extremely strong and toxic drugs like heroin.
When these companies launched years ago, they announced that these medications won't be addicting to the consumer. This false announcement made doctors prescribe these medications crazily. People start misusing them by not following the prescription instructions which lead to many death cases due to addiction. Opioids overdose rate began to increase. Because prescription opioids are similar to, and act on the same brain systems affected by, heroin and morphine, they present a permanent abuse and an addiction, particularly if they are used for non-medical purposes. The most dangerous part is that people start getting creative by crushing the pills and inhaling them, or taking them via snorting or injecting the powder, or combining the pills with alcohol or other drugs. Also, some people didn’t take them exactly as prescribed (e.g., taking more pills at once, or taking them more frequently or combining them with medications for which they are not being properly controlled); and it is possible for a small number of people to become addicted even when they take them as prescribed. It is estimated that more than 100 million people suffer from chronic pain in this country, and for some of them, opioid therapy may be necessary for their case. So now we have two arguments. Some people believe that these control medications are necessary and should have less regulations on them. The others believe that opioids shouldn’t be prescribed to begin with and can be substituted by non-addicting pain killers. President Trump stated in his first State of the Union speech in 2018 that his administration “is committed to fighting the drug epidemic and helping get treatment for those in need.” Unfortunately, the President hasn’t delivered on his promise to seriously confront the opioid epidemic. Now opioids are the deadliest drug overdose crisis in the US history. A $3 billion dollars was given by the President toward the crisis. This money is primarily for addiction treatment, which remains in short supply in the US. According to the 2016 Surgeon General’s addiction report, only about 10 percent of people with a substance use disorder get specialty treatment — in large part due to a lack of access to care. People argue that the US needed to invest in more money for the crisis so we can narrow that gap and eventually try to get rid of it. President Trump and Congress also passed the Support for Patients and Communities Act, which takes some positive steps to increase access to addiction treatment, scale back the over prescription of opioid painkillers. This act is very important because it helps many people that don’t have access to the addiction treatment center or can’t afford to be in one. Looking at a study that was done in 2017, the east coast seems to have higher rates of death from opioid overdoses; West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma. The opioid prescribing rates in 2012 shows that the east coast have higher rates compared to the rest of the US. Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and more states. Recently, we are seeing a lot of states suing big companies that manufacture the control substances. On March 26, 2019 Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin agreed to pay $270 million to avoid state court trial. On top of that they are funding a national center for opioid addiction and research in Oklahoma City. A total of 1600 law suits were made against that company because of the way they advertised for the medication which was very wrong and misleading. Most presidential candidates aren’t talking much about the opioid epidemic. Elizabeth Warren want to fight the opioid epidemic and put serious resources toward ending the crisis. Some of her ideas are more research toward alternative painkillers. I believe that this crisis needs more attention and work put into it so it can be reduced/ eliminated. With the help of our new presidential candidates, I hope they will shine the light on this epidemic so we can have healthier, happier population.
0 Comments
JBAmerican Government California State University: Sacramento sent out a survey in 2017 to look at theirstudents’ experiences and to assess student knowledge of the campus’ health and counselingservices. The survey revealed that about 60% of their students had experienced overwhelming anxiety or depression within the previous 12 months. The CSUS survey also showed that students were either not aware of the services available to them or not utilizing them if they were aware of the services. To help bridge the gap between their students and available services, CSUS has put in time to bulk up their services and focus on outreach and student engagement. Being aware and an active part of CSUS’ Student Health and Counseling Services, viewing these results caused me to wonder what other California universities are doing to ensure their students have access to adequate mental and physical health services, food assistance, and substance use education. Upon looking into this, I found that the national prevalence of college students’anxiety is 41.6% and prevalence is 36.4% for depression (American Psychological Association, 2013). I began to wonder how many universities offered a specified amount of student services and what the quality of those services looks and feels like to those who access them. When beginning my research, I found that public universities are required to provide a specified amount of services to their students living with disabilities, but there is little expectation and almost nothing written as a concrete requirement for the kind of services I feel are vital to student success. I have had the unique opportunity to service the California Youth Crisis Line and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Through this work, I have heard from many students who are experiencing extreme stress and anxiety over their grades and overall school life and the expectations that follow. Here in California, we have a housing crisis, and this is something I hear about from many of the students with whom I speak. I began to wonder, is this too being addressed by our schools?
I chose to look at three Northern California public universities to compare services. Looking at Sacramento State, San Jose State, and UC Davis, I found that all three of these health centers are accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, the highest accreditation available for health care centers. I found that all three universities offer wellness education, immunizations, STI screening, CalFresh on campus, pharmacy services, some kind of emergency funding, physical therapy, career counseling, individual counseling, group sessions, alcohol and substance use education and resource referral, case management, safe rides, and some sort of food pantry. Each of these campuses also have instated a smoke or tobacco free policy. However, when looking further into these services, I found that the amount of assistance provided within each of these sections of care varied greatly at each university. For instance, CSUS offers 14 groups and SJSU offers 13, but UCD only offers three. In another instance, all three universities provide emergency funding, but UCD’s is an emergency loan that must be paid back within 30 days, SJSU’s is $500 and cannot be used for housing--a disheartening fact considering that San Jose is now the most expensive city to live in in the United States, and CSUS’ emergency fund amounts to $1500, can be used on housing, and does not have to be paid back. I also found that CSUS is the only campus of the three that offers emergency housing on site and UCD is the only campus that offers laboratory work in their primary care. In the coming weeks, I plan to connect with students about their experiences at UC and CSU campuses and complete the compilation of the remaining research to be done on the rest of these campus’services. I am happy to see that many of these services are offered and these all look great on paper, but am curious to learn the actual experiences of these students. What are the waiting times, how were they treated once obtaining services, what would they change if given the opportunity? From there, it is my goal to advocate for student services to have a minimum standard, frequent feedback from their students, and to take the voices of their students to heart and make the necessary changes. Throughout many of the recent elections and in our political conversations, universities and higher education have been a topic of interest. However, most of these conversations surround the cost of higher education without discussing the quality of the universities or student experiences once they have entered these universities. I agree that something needs to be doneabout the astronomical cost of being a student in today’s world and the crippling debt thatfollows these students once they move their tassel from the right to the left, but I am concerned with the helpfulness of change agents currently on these campuses. Again, going back to the cost of attendance, student health fees are included at these universities and it is time to ensure students are getting what they are paying for and receiving the necessary help along the way. MAAmerican Governments Were you ever taught as a little kid to look away from a homeless person to save you some empathy? I was. The question is why? Why would we be taught to look away from such a serious issue. We should be attacking this cruel problem head on. California’s homelessness population has grown a significant amount as housing prices continue to rise. This issue involves unsheltered and homeless individuals and has impacted many families all over the world. The homelessness issue includes not only people who can’t seem to afford to make ends meet, but also people with minimum wage jobs, parents, kids, the LGBTQ+ community, domestic partners, and more. There are many causes to the homelessness problem in the United States. Some involve domestic violence issues, lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, low wages, substance abuse, un-supporting relatives, natural disasters, physical disabilities, mental illnesses and more. There are so many reasons as to why and how people end up living on the streets it’s hard to simply list them all. You never know where life is going to take you and it's crazy to even think how one person can go from having a home one day, to living on the streets the next.
It’s easy to blame a homeless person for their actions that led them to the streets, but the truth is, even people working minimum wage jobs at over 40 hours a week with no sick days or vacations, fall under what is considered to be the standard housing income. Homelessness needs to be addressed head on by ensuring jobs that pay a living wage, adequate support for those who cannot work, access to health care, and by ensuring affordable housing because there are way too many Californians who go to sleep homeless every night. A man went down to Los Angeles in Skid Row and asked homeless individuals about their concerns for the then upcoming 2016 presidential elections. A homeless woman named Katherine who is a registered nurse, was asked about what she thinks politicians should be focusing on in the election. She answers this question by stating that politicians should be focusing on programs that are helping students proceed their education so that they wouldn’t end up like her, at a homeless shelter. Another homeless woman states her concerns about politicians not emphasizing on low income housing. Several more homeless individuals talk about how they are too living in shelters even with a job, and emphasize employment concerns in the election. Homelessness comes with many horrific effects on those certain individuals. According to the article, "Causes and Effects of Homelessness" (July, 2007), homeless individuals encounter much more health problems than the average person. For example, they are more likely to suffer from Cold Injury, Cardio-Respiratory diseases, Tuberculosis, Skin diseases, Nutritional deficiencies, Sleep deprivation, Mental Illness, Physical, sexual assault, Drug dependency, Mortality and HIV/AIDS. Homeless individuals not only suffer from health issues but they also suffer from loss of self-esteem, becoming institutionalized, increase in substance misuse, loss of ability and will to care for oneself, increased danger of abuse and violence, increased chance of entering the criminal justice system and development of behavioral problems. This is something that should not be ignored any longer. We as a nation need to find a way to help decrease the homelessness population in the country. The election was not really talked about by either presidential candidate in the 2016 election and here is why. According to Joel John Robert’s article “Reasons Why Homelessness Is Not Discussed in the 2016 Presidential Election”, he states reasons as to why homelessness is not talked about by the presidential candidates. Robert states one of the reasons is because blame is mostly always directed toward the homeless individuals. It is so easy for a person to say that homeless individuals are at fault for their “actions” that led them to where they are. Presidential candidates in this case do not want to lose those voters who will initially get upset at the fact that a president would find empathy in these individuals. Another reason as to why presidential candidates don’t talk about the homelessness issue is because the delegate math doesn’t add up. Although this serious issue was not talked about by any presidential candidate, the problem of homelessness in the United States was definitely talked about in the 2018 midterm elections. The House and the Senate both suggested that tax legislation was presenting an opportunity to advance provisions from The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. One third of the House signed on to support the act. The bipartisan legislation addressed the nations severe shortage of affordable and rental housing by strengthening the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. They presented us with Proposition 1 and 2 which were long term investments to increase housing for those who need it the most. Proposition 1 would authorize $4 Billion in bonds to build affordable housing for veterans. Proposition 2 would allow use for existing mental health funding to build supportive housing for homeless people suffering from mental illnesses. Luckily, both of these props were voted yes to Californians. Check out some original visuals from our student projects at our class instagram. @the_civic_experience on instagram. Student artwork, infographics, maps, graphs, and "how-to-guides" are all posted there-the work is awesome!
ALOAmerican Governments Throughout politics, there is a constant and never-ending issue in the United States education system. One of the most substantial issues surrounding education is the annual salary or teacher pay that educators receive. Teachers are not substantially paid well enough for their job. There is a huge gap and imbalance when it comes to teacher pay across the United States. A clear example of this would be New York being the highest paid average at 78,576 and Oklahoma being the lowest paid at 39,306 a year (Frohlich, 2018). This low pay has forced teachers to have to look for other options. Many face great financial difficulties and have to resort to getting a second job or even a third job. Others move to different states with higher salaries on average or leave their profession to pursue careers elsewhere (Campbell, 2018). Numerous amounts of teachers have also turned to do walkouts and go out to protest for better salaries and conditions. Although many teachers say that they did not initially go into teaching for the money, it is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to make ends meet with their salaries. The site VOX talked to various teachers who don’t get paid enough and have second jobs. One teacher said “I don’t feel like I’m on the mark,” said Johnson, who has a master’s degree and 24 years of teaching experience, and earns $52,000 a year. “ I always wonder if I am giving 110 percent.” (Campbell, 2018). As can be seen, this issue of teacher pay has steadily increased.
Historically, the United States has not been very favorable when it comes to teacher pay in education. According to a study released by the Economic Policy Institute in, it showed that “teacher pay has fallen relative to other professionals. Many saw the report as evidence that policymakers aren’t doing enough to attract and keep teachers in the classroom.” They also found that by, 2015 teachers nationally earned 11 percent less. These studies clearly demonstrate that generally, all teachers are suffering from an economic defeat. This issue of teacher pay not only expands to teachers, but to all other educators and staff in the education system/ school districts. If teachers aren’t getting paid enough, it's most likely that the majority of other school staff are not receiving adequate pay as well. With so many staff being underpaid in the U.S there is bound to be a failure and burden on students as well. This issue may seem just to affect teachers and their income, it also, in turn, affects thousands of students across the country. Without the proper amount of qualified educators, students have a decreased chance in attaining academic achievement. The growing financial stress for educators not only expands towards them but to other areas as well. The outcome of the latest election had a fair amount of impact on the issue of teacher pay in education. Although the national election did not have anything to do with education, the state, and local elections had a bigger influence. This is mostly due to the fact that the majority of the money set aside for public schools comes from state and local coffers. Some short term impacts or immediate actions can be governors, candidates, and officials addressing the issue of funding in education and teacher pay. These talks and speeches were greatly needed surrounding the topic of funding and teacher pay. The received attention did not bring about any immediate change but did allow for discussion to open up for future decisions. The long term impacts from the election have brought up positive effects for the education system. Education was a greatly discussed topic among governmental candidates among both parties and was the second most mentioned topic in advertisements. This great coverage led to ballot initiatives and proposals for raising money for education funding. An example of this would be Senate Bill 451 in West Virginia which intended to raise pay for teachers and to establish public charter schools for the school year 2019-2020 (Wdtv, 2019). Someone in particular that emphasized on the issue was Senate President Mitch Carmichael. Carmichael stated both before the 2018 midterm elections and during his legislative session that he is committed to providing an average of 5 percent increase pay for teacher and other staff. He also has stated that the most important element in the education process is the classroom teacher. He adds in by saying that teachers must be competitively compensated and that teachers are the key components in effective education (Carmichael, 2019). Despite having candidates who talk about education at the state level, the upcoming 2020 election will most likely not bring up this issue. The topic of education and school funding is crucially important for the United States as a nation. However, with other more important issues beforehand, Education lies at the back of the line when it comes to national elections. "Ken Anderson"American Governments Gun control has been a very topical political issue discussed in the recent elections both at the presidential and midterm elections. Donald Trump who was the Republican nominee was a very pro-gun rights advocate who thoroughly believes in the citizens rights to bear arms according to the second amendment of the constitution. Hillary Clinton who was the Democratic party nominee was a very pro-gun control advocate who believed that much more regulation and banning of weapons was need here in the United States. There have been seven mass shootings since 2016 that had more than 10 unfortunate victims’ lives taken from them. Some of these reach numbers upward of fifty-eight people killed. Some of these shootings include the Las Vegas shooting at the Jason Aldean concert as well as the Sandy Hook school shooting and the Orlando night club shooting. There have also been smaller attacks on other schools and churches across the United states. The difficult question that many argue is whether heavy regulation of legal U.S guns as well as banning of certain legal U.S guns will solve the problem or increase the amount of violence committed on innocent victims? Gun control and the second amendment were believed to be some of the major deciding factors in the Presidential election of President Donald Trump. There is no database that accurately depicts the amount of people who own guns in America but from surveys done around the country it is predicted that about 42-46% of citizens in America live in a household where there are guns. That is almost half of the United States citizens who own guns. Many of those who are very protective of their rights to own guns and defend their property, family and property from those who try to steal or harm.
In a somewhat recent study done by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh’s Graduate school of public health in 2016 found that lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all the gun crimes. Fabio teamed up with the Pittsburgh police to trace the origins of all the 893 firearms that police had seized at crime scenes in 2008. What he found out was that 79% of those guns seized at a crime scene, the perpetrator was carrying a firearm owned by someone else. Meaning that they were stolen and illegally sold on either the black market or on the streets. An article by The New York Times talks about the amount of people who died at the hand of a gun in 2018. The number was 40,000 which was up 1,000 from the previous year in 2017. These numbers included the mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas and all the other ones across the United states, this number also includes single fatality shootings as well. As you read in depth of the article however you will read that more than two-thirds of those deaths were suicides by gun. So, while the numbers seem to have increased a little bit, it seems as though guns weren’t the major issue in shootings of innocent people. The big problem seems to be people’s mental health state. Republicans have been stressing this as being the source of the violence that has taken place in the United states in the past couple years and seems to be their focus. Democrats, however, feel that the main issue is that states aren’t doing enough background checks and that guns are the issue not the people who are behind them necessarily. They want to regulate the sales of guns and ammunition. Regulating means that there would be background checks on the sale of ammunition, which has happened in California at all retails shops that sell ammo and guns, as well as stiffer restrictions on certain parts that are made for certain weapons. The parts include the magazines being able to drop out with just pushing the magazine release button, certain types of pistol grips aren’t allowed on certain weapons. These are just some of the proposed regulations that the Democratic party is proposing nationwide. As previously mentioned, some states have already put in to action some of these regulations. Some states however, such as Missouri have changed their laws to make any attempt to change their second amendment right with regulation from the federal level to be illegal in its state. They have essentially banned any federal regulation in their state and its citizens follow exactly what the constitution says. We are beginning to see other states slowly follow in their footsteps as well. As mentioned, some states have already put in to action some of these regulations. Democrats have also been in a long fight with the NRA and views about guns and what they believe to constitutionally correct. Democrats haven’t seemed to be very successful with their proposed gun regulation and control agenda nation wide especially with the election of Donald Trump as well as the Republican election of Senate and House of Representative leaders. President Trump said in a statement his feelings about gun control as being that he doesn’t want to limit citizens right to bear arms but to fix defection gun legislation and spend more time and money on our mental health treatments. DGAmerican Governments America as a country knows that there is strength in numbers which is true in most cases. It is a country that prides itself on the idea that it is a place of freedom and many believe it still holds true to this idea. In most cases that may be the case but the line seems to be drawn on the case of sexuality. The issue I look too, and hope that others outside of the LGBT community, is part of the long battle for the right to be who one wants to be. In July 2017, President Trump had announced over Twitter the administration’s new policy that would ban most transgender people from serving in the military. Not only was this new proposed policy endorsed by President Trump, but it was also released officially by Secretary of Defense James Mattis in 2018 and was passed by the Supreme Court January 2019. The fight for those in the LGBT community has been a long a difficult battle with acceptance of one another under the flag of freedom not being an easy goal to obtain.
This ban however did not start with the Trump Administration. The first ban on transgender military service began on May 17, 1963 with the application of Executive Order 10450 which allowed businesses to terminate employment of those who were or were suspected of being homosexual. This included federal employees as well as military service members. Legal battles were fought against this action but it was ruled by the courts that it was valid while using an Air Force member, Leyland as an example. The person had undergone a gender reassignment surgery and was discharged shortly after. The courts had determined that genital surgery was similar to amputation surgery, which by military standards, effectively makes the individual unable to meet the demands of a soldier. (Witten 2007) It wouldn’t be until the presidency of Barack Obama that the ban would be ended on June 30, 2016 with some officials were mentioning that the ban was expensive as well as un-needed since there was no signs of skill impairment regardless of sexual preference or those who had undergone gender reassignment surgery. This however would as current President Trump would come into office and announce the administration’s new policy on banning those who suffer from gender dysphoria from serving in the United States Military. The LGBT community has battled long and hard to get to where they are today. Support for each other has been the staple of the community so everyone can live their lives happily and free to be who they want to be. With that said, the transgender ban does place a struggle on multiple aspects, not just for the community but for the lives of Americans as well. The ability to serve and fight for one’s country is a great honor to many families who have one of their own serving currently and for those who have had members serve in the past. It is easy to forget that the ban doesn’t hurt just a single group of people. There are those who support the ban regardless because of what they believe is right. It is thought that those who are confused about their own gender, could be a hinderance in the field. While I personally don’t believe such a thing is true, I can see why they would think that a transgender person would not be effective rather than a “normal” person. But that is something that those who support the ban should take a moment to think about. As I stated before, this ban does not affect just transgendered people. It affects Americans who wish to fight to protect their country and stops family legacies from continuing. There are many families who pride themselves on serving their country. Whether it be a father or a mother serving, the family will most likely influence their children or other families to join. To stop someone based on their gender preference would be to stop this chain of events and may discourage more from joining. If anything, one should take the point of view as a commander of an army. An army needs people and it is a good thing if a large number of people are joining. If I, as a commander, were to stop a group of people from joining, it would cause the number of people joining to reduce. A loss is a loss and there is no way to truly compensate for someone being extremely vital to the function of the army regardless of who they are as a person. With the 2020 election in sight, it is important to note that there has not been much word on the ban by the upcoming candidates. As far as it looks, I have not caught wind of any candidate aiming to help get the ban reversed but I believe it is something that may be on their mind. Military service is an important part of American life. It is a choice that any can make and that choice should be protected for everyone. I AMAmerican Governments An important issue that has not been brought up so much is the retirement of the penny. The main branch of the government that produces coins is the U.S. MINT and have been doing it for over 225 years. Since 1792 the Mint started producing copper, silver, and gold coins. The first circulation of 11,178 cents to the public was on March of 1793. In 1857, Mint stopped using copper because it was becoming more expensive and started adding nickel to the copper. And in 1864, they completely changed its composition to pure zinc. From the time of the production of the penny to around the late 1900, the penny was used to buy things. In today’s day and time, we cannot buy anything with a penny…not even an ACTUAL penny (US MINT).
The current production cost of a penny is 1.5 cents per coin so why keep spending money on something that we are not using? The one-cent US coin is mainly made of zinc with some copper. The penny is the most circulated coin in the United States. Last year alone, the Mint produced more than 8.4 billion pennies for circulation with a total of $69 million in losses. If people would see the bigger picture, that money the and taxpayers are losing can be used for funding for other important programs. The penny has become unprofitable due to inflation and the rising cost of metals since 2006. The inefficiency of making pennies is one of many reasons why other countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden have quit producing their least important coins. An example of that is Canada. When Canada stopped its production of their penny in 2012, the penny was 1.6 cents to produce and was not adding anything positive into their economy. Today, when making purchases, Canadians either round up or down depending on the total to ignore the fact they are penniless. In most recent elections, there have not been many talks about this since most people do not see this as a priority. In 2006, Representative Jim Kolbe presented the Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation (COIN) Act that would ban the penny and rounding off all cash transactions to the nearest 5 cents. People had mixed feelings about it, so nothing was ever done. On March 29, 2017 it was introduced again as the Currency Optimization, Innovation, and National Savings Act of 2017. This bill suspends the production of one-cent coins for a ten-year period to see if banning the penny is successful. As of 2019, there have not been any news or bills passed on this issue. @AmericasVoiceAmerican Governments This issue has always been a very popular topic to discuss, the topic in question being the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA for short. The program defers deportation proceedings for two years for individuals who qualify; it also gives those who are approved work authorization to stay in the US temporarily. The program was created by then president Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. To be eligible for DACA the applicant must be between the ages of 15 and 31 as of June 15, 2012, under the age of 16 when entered the united states, lived in the US continuously sine June 15, 2007, present in the US on June 15, 2012 and at the time of applying, in school graduated or have completed high school or honorably discharged from the military, and lastly not convicted of a felony a significant misdemeanor or three or more other misdemeanors. DACA is neither an official legal status nor pathway to citizenship but it does allow them to be “lawfully present” without being threatened of deportation. According to USCIS as of September there were 689,800 DACA recipients. There are roughly 1.3 million people who meet the criteria and could have applied. A lot of the DACA accepters are heavily concentrated in California with 28 percent and Texas with 16 percent.
This topic for the most part has two sides, those who are directly affected by the program and those who are against it. Those affected by the program as stated earlier are undocumented immigrants who where not born here in the US but have spent the majority of their lives here and really the only home they know. The other side would be those against the program that disagree that those undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US for various reasons. Both sides have stated claims on why they believe their point of view is the correct one. For the DACA recipients their argument for the program would be that since they where brought into the country at such a young age they have more claim to the US being their home then the country they left and cant even remember sometimes. If the program would to be dissolved it would cause drastic changes to those who lives depend on the programs existence. The other perspective is people disagreeing and saying the DACA program is not worth keeping and would be just be better getting ride of it completing. Thus in their idea would get rid of all the undocumented immigrants more drastically deporting them back to their native country. It really just comes down to the differences’ each side has from the other. Both sides have valid reasoning for the cause to either support the program or to get rid of it entirely. Immigration has always been one of the top issues to discuss in the country especially during elections. Ever since the creation of DACA, there has been speculation on whether it is a good idea to keep it or not. Since president Trump has been in office he has been trying his hardest to get rid of DACA and keeping other immigrants from coming into the US. He has so far been able to rescind the program so they are only accepting renewals and no longer accepting new applications. The topic of immigrations was discussed often prior to the midterm elections. Some democrats have stated that Trumps actions of separating parents from children due to deportation have helped solidified more votes for a change. Since then there has been a court ruling that has directed the White house to fully reinstate DACA. The decision came from Washington based U.S District Judge John D. Bates. With the house now being mostly Democratic this is good news for DACA recipients. Just recently the house Democrats introduced a bill that will offer 2.5 million immigrants a chance at a permanent status. The bill HR6 is called the Dream and Promise Act, which will allow Dreamers to apply for legalization as well as Temporary Protected Status holders to apply for green cards. There where three representatives that introduced the bill. They were Rep. Nydia Velázquez (NY), Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), and Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY). Nydia Velázquez stated, “We are not going to allow Donald Trump to send back them back, and we are not going to ask them to live in a constant state of fear and uncertainty” from that statement and the what the bill does we can see where the democratic party stands going toward the 2020 election. Going into the 2020 president election immigration will play a strong topic for those who decide to run. I do believe that DACA recepient and other undocumented immigrants will play more a factor in political terms. Whether it may be in the form of directly helping in campaigns or indirectly by just helping getting the issues out and heard. One example would be from senator Bernie sanders who has already hired an Arizona activist who has declared herself as an immigrant without legal status. Belén Sisa has been hired to be deputy press secretary. Sanders stated, “Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.” SUSAmerican Governments America has been one of the most diverse countries out there. We are given plenty of opportunity which has made us evolve as a nation, and we continue to raise the countries standards at a higher and higher rate. Everything around us has had the opportunity to mature and grow, but has this been the case for our people’s health and well being? Look again...
Our dietary habits are the leading driver of death and disability, causing an estimated 700,000 deaths each year. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cancers, immune function, brain health – all are influenced by what we eat. For example, our recent research estimated that poor diet causes nearly half of all U.S. deaths due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes. There are almost 1,000 deaths from these causes alone, every day. By combining national data on demographics, eating habits and disease rates with empirical evidence on how specific foods are linked to health, we find that most problems are caused by too few healthy foods like lack of fruits and vegetables and instead gain too much salt, processed meats, red meats and sugary drinks (Mozaffarian, 2017). Point being, America has been struggling with health issues all throughout the nation. The biggest cause of these health issues include the food that we grow and eat. As a nation, we need to step up our game and change the flaws in the quality of our food. This also means the way that we raise/feed our animals, how they live, and where we get our products from. This is a harm to everyone in the nation, and we should all be given the cream of the crop by simply giving the respect that is needed. According to FoodDive, author Lillianna Byington writes about how voters decided to pass a measure regulating the amount of space farm animals have in cages and crates. The results were highly disappointing as the animals were not treated with respect. These results mean poor quality in product. Starting in 2020, animal confinement would change by banning the sale of eggs from hens which confines to less than one square foot of floor space per hen, as well as the sale of calves in areas with less than 43 square feet of space per animal. Then beginning in 2022, egg-laying hens would have to be kept cage-free and breeding pigs would need at least 24 square feet of usable floor space per animal (Byington, 2018). This could lead to a multitude of problems because of the fact that our food is being mistreated by the way it lives before it dies. If we could wrap our heads together and realize that we shouldn’t be completely opposed of what is right for our lives and the future generations to come, then we would be more willing to go forth with this project of improvement. For instance, the ballot measure in Massachusetts passed in 2010, and scheduled to take effect in 2022, mandates all pork, veal and eggs farmed and sold comes from animals not confined to small areas. But the initiative has faced backlash from critics in the farming industry who say it would force out-of-state farmers to comply and that violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between states. Currently 13 states are suing Massachusetts to stop the cage-free egg voter initiative (Byington, 2018). Unfortunately the California measure could see similar legal struggles if other states don't want to comply with these new standards to sell their products in the state. But if both the ballot measures withstand the potential legal battles ahead, more states across the country could set new standards for animal cages. And this isn’t the last of it.To put this food reform situation altogether, the food policy plate is full to overflowing. According to Sean McBride, the Farm Bill is mired in politics. New approaches to trade have created instability for farms and farmers. Federal agencies don’t quite yet know how they are going to regulate plant-based and laboratory-grown food. This is just a start. The federal government’s dietary guidance for consumers, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is stuck at the starting gate. The United States Department of Agriculture has not issued congressionally mandated labeling regulations for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. It is stated that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working on a national nutrition strategy as well as a regulatory framework for the use of gene-edited crops (McBride, 2018). We are a nation that has grown to be one of the top countries in the world. Our health should be on the top of this list as well. Without changing the ways of our food quality and “ignore” these issues, then we will continue to be have a major decline in our food industry. We need to make a change, and it’s got to happen now. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|