H.R.727 - To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2019

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has been the back bone of public media in our country for 50 years. Their goals and objectives page, updated in 2016, states:

The purpose of public media is to provide programs and services that inform, educate, enlighten, and enrich the public and help inform civil discourse essential to American society.

This page also outlines 3 areas of impact:

1) Content and services:
GOAL: Promote an educated and informed civil society by supporting high-quality engaging content and services delivered across multiple platforms.

2) Innovation:
GOAL: Strengthen the quality of public media's content and services, and deepen the engagement with audiences and users, by supporting innovative projects.

3) Support for Public Media:
GOAL: Strengthen the quality of public media’s content and services by supporting strong public media entities that are vital to and reflective of the people they serve.

This gives a great glimpse into their focus but what exactly is CPB? Well, Congress, in a bipartisan move, passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which created CPB. The Federal government wished to invest in public broadcasting and CPB was created to act as a steward for these Federal funds. It is a private, nonprofit organization and is the "single largest source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services".

What is important about CPB is their funding model. CPB receives their funding allocation from the Federal government 2 years in advance. What this means is that their Federal allocation for 2016 was decided upon and approved by Congress in 2014. This is important as it reduces the amount of political interference in CPB's operations for any given year. The government can't suddenly remove funding from the organization if they make a move that the current administration disapproves of. Having their funding allocated in advance means that CPB doesn't have to bend to the whims of those in power, an independence that is fundamental to free media.

How much does the government put into CPB? In 2014 CPB had an operating budget of $445.5 million with all but $500 thousand of that in direct allocation. This should be compared to the Federal budget of $3.5 trillion in 2014. This means that CPB was approximately 0.012% of our Federal government's spending for 2014. The average cost per American was just $1.35 for the entire year of 2014.

And where does CPB's funding go?  "CPB does not produce programming and does not own, operate or control any public broadcasting stations" it does, however, provide substantial grants to local stations and content developers. Nearly 70% of their budget goes to support local radio and television stations. If you would like to see how this funding benefits your state see here. Conversely, less than 5% of their budget is used for CPB operations. In raw numbers that means about $22 million dollars a year for national operating costs with the remaining $423.5 million going to local stations and content development. It should also be noted that CPB is a separate entity from PBS and NPR though many of the local stations who receive money from CPB partner with these organizations to take advantage of their proprietary content.

Finally, where does this all lead us? To HR727 and it's desire to cut all funding from CPB after 2019. Since CPB receives almost all of their funding through Federal allocation this would mean a dissolution of CPB entirely and immediately as of 2019. The 1,123 radio stations and 366 television stations that rely on CPB for funding would either have to find new revenue sources or close down.

Will this reduce out Federal deficit? At .012% of the overall budget hardly at all.

Does CPB cause a financial burden for Americans? Only if $1.35 a year is a financial hardship.

Does this reduce the size of government? Technically yes, but only by the amount of time it takes Congress to approve CPB's funding each year and for the Congressional Budget Office to disburse said funds.

This bill is Congress "doing something" that's really doing nothing. This bill will reduce the accessibility of free, quality media in our country and should not be allowed to pass.

Who's responsible:
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Sponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Francis [R-FL]- Cosponsor

Abortion Round 2

My post yesterday was long but I still don't feel like I have adequately covered the subject so here we go again. While yesterday I wrote a lot about reasons leading up to the choice of having an abortion I haven't treated the subject of what happens, or may happen, after the choice is made about how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. There are really 3 choices on how to deal with any pregnancy and those are abortion, adoption, and parenthood. I will deal with each of these separately below starting from when the decision is made to pursue a certain route.

Abortion
Once the decision is made the first thing to do is find out where to go for the procedure and what limitations/requirements might be needed in your state. In the best case you can make an appointment at a local clinic/hospital and have the procedure taken care of in a timely manner. In the worst case you may have to travel hours away or even cross state lines to reach the nearest site that provides abortions. You may also need to make this trip more than once if the state requires counseling 24 hours in advance. In either scenario this will most likely require some loss of work and other inconveniences to your daily life.

When you arrive at the clinic the best case will see you walking in unmolested and being cared for by a supportive staff from start to finish. In the worst case you will have to fight your way through protesters and/or be scorned and poorly treated by staff for the decision you have made.

Once the procedure is complete and you return home you may have physical discomfort for a few days to weeks. You may also experience fluctuations in mood as your hormones return to their normal levels. In some case, depending on what prompted your decision to abort, you may feel extended anxiety or grief over the situation. Some individuals may even require counseling to help them cope with the experience and regrets that arise after the fact. Fortunately, in most cases, the only people you will have to deal with asking questions about your experience are those you choose to tell about the experience in the first place. This at least gives you some control over who knows and how often you need to be reminded of the event.

Carrying the pregnancy to term

I'm going to start by covering the general toll of carrying a pregnancy to term before I get into the specific subcategories of adoption vs. parenthood.

Once this route has been decided on prenatal care should be sought but for many women the prenatal regimen can be difficult. In the modern world there are monthly exam visits that need to be scheduled, tests that are both required and those that are optional, vitamin regimens, and a long list of dietary dos and don'ts. This entire process can be expensive, especially for those with no or inadequate insurance.

Next there are physical and lifestyle changes to consider. In addition to the commonly known restrictions on smoking and drinking there are environmental factors to consider. For women who work in certain manufacturing and industrial fields a pregnancy could leave them unable to complete their job duties. As a pregnancy progresses even normal day to day tasks can become difficult. Things like weak hand strength, an inability to stand for long periods of time, or needing frequent trips to the bathroom are only a partial list. Getting the proper amount of sleep will become more and more difficult as the pregnancy progresses while early in pregnancy morning sickness can cause almost constant nausea. All of the above is taking into consideration that both you and the child are completely healthy. There are many complications, particularly as the due date approaches, that can require bed rest or an inability to work altogether. Since we don't live in a country that guarantees paid sick leave or maternity leave any time missed from work is likely to go unpaid which can put you in significant financial hardship.

Then comes the birth. Ominous words like contractions, epidural, c-section, inducement, etc. Whether you experience some or all of these items the birth process is messy, painful, and physically as well as emotionally draining. This is a major medical event and should be equated to major surgery including the recovery time for such which lasts for weeks, not days. This recovery is both physical and emotional as hormone levels continue to fluctuate in coming weeks. In some cases a woman's body will be significantly and permanently different after this experience. Postpartum depression is also a very real issue which may be exacerbated by any preexisting mental illness.

Adoption
"Have you considered adoption?" Proponents of this avenue might want to more closely consider what they are recommending.

In addition to the full pregnancy, birth, and recovery scenario above you must jump through additional hoops to complete the adoption process. When the decision is made to pursue adoption this opens up a whole list of additional options to consider. Do you want an open or closed adoption? Do you want to try to find a family or leave the choosing in the hands of others? What organizations/agencies are available to assist in the process and which will you choose for your journey?

In some cases there is support, both financial and otherwise, available to pregnant women looking to give up their child but this is not always the case. This may be a very lonely journey for some and, as most pregnancies will become very apparent at some point, you will need to find a way to cope with people asking questions about a child that you do not intend to keep. You will also need to be prepared to deal with people judging, asking questions, or being critical or your adoption choice if you choose to reveal that fact.

Finally the day comes for delivery. After months of carrying this child inside you, feeling them move and grow, you see their face for the first time. For some this will change everything and adoption is no longer an option but you are faced with the reality of taking home a child for whom you have not prepared for. You have no clothes, no car seat, no bed, no plans for juggling work, etc. For others they will feel the surge of maternal power enhanced by the flood of hormones coursing through their veins and will be absolutely heartbroken when that child is handed over and whisked away. Still others will see this as a moment of relief, when at last their long journey has come to an end (well, except for all that recovery time and the possible side effects of pregnancy).

If the adoption is followed through you will then be faced with "where's the baby" questions from anyone who didn't previously know that you were adopting. This can go on for an extended time as word spreads about the adoption. Then there's always the possibility of regretting your decision after the fact but, except in rare instances, all adoptions are final and once complete there is no turning back time.

But what about the child? This new little life with so much potential has been set loose in a very big world. If a family adopts the child immediately there is a good chance of them living a full and healthy life. There is a chance that they could have issues stemming from knowledge of their adoption, but that is on a strictly case by case basis. On the other hand, if they are not immediately adopted they will wind up in the hands of Child Protective Services (a.k.a. foster care). Statistics for kids in foster care are grim, and the longer a child remains in the system the less likely they are to be adopted and the worse their chances become of having a happy and successful life.

Parenthood

In this last segment I will be looking at those cases where having a child wouldn't just be an inconvenience to be overcome with some lifestyle modification but where having a child would cause significant, and in some cases dire, consequences to a woman's life or that of a child. To do so I will examine a few subcategories:

Teen pregnancy
Statistics show that teen mothers are significantly less likely to graduate high school, much less earn a college degree. They are at a much higher risk of living in poverty and on public assistance. For children of teen parents the future is tough. Children of teen moms are less likely to graduate high school, boys are more likely to wind up in jail and girls are more likely to repeat the cycle of becoming teen moms themselves.

Abusive relationships
While in some cases the addition of a child is enough for someone to leave an abusive relationship this is not the most likely outcome. The first challenge for children born into this situation is the actual act of being born without injury. From there choosing to raise a child while in an abusive relationship not only opens the child up to being abused but also increases the likelihood of that child growing up to be abused or the abuser in their own relationships. Should the child wind up in foster care the statistics are still not great and they will still have to deal with the memories of past abuse.

Drug/Alcohol abuse
Mothers who abuse drugs and alcohol have a significant risk of having children with physical and mental disabilities due to their addiction. Should their child be born healthy if such a parent fails to get and stay clean and sober their child is then at risk for a lifetime of neglect, abuse, and maltreatment. These can then turn into behavioral and emotional problems in the child that may affect them for the rest of their life. Children raised in such an environment are also at an increased risk for becoming addicts or winding up in jail. The child has a high probability of winding up in foster care which, as previously mentioned, is not a great deal better.

Homelessness/severe financial hardship
Most people would probably say that they don't have as much flexibility in their budget as they would like, but with sacrifice and the help of either the government or family and friends some can make the unexpected addition of a child work. However, there is only so much sacrifice a person can make before their whole financial situation comes undone. For those who are homeless or nearly so the addition of a child would only serve to put them further from financial security. The loss of even a few days at work can sometimes lead to eviction and with a child there is always days where work will need to be missed to care for their needs unless a person has an extensive support network. It would be nearly impossible for such a person to keep up with proper prenatal care let alone provide a child with even the basic necessities of life. Childhood hunger is already a very real problem in this country but it is only one of many hardships that are faced by children born into severe economic hardship.

Chronic illness (physical or mental)
Just because someone is chronically ill does not mean that they are incapable of conceiving and carrying a child to term. There are also plenty of cases where chronically ill is not terminally ill and therefore would not qualify as a medical exception to abortion. For those dealing with MS, lupus, schizophrenia, and a host of other diseases pregnancy would be difficult in itself but successfully raising a child would be even more so without significant help which is not available to all people.

In all of these scenarios there may be good outcomes just as there may be bad outcomes. Children born to difficult beginnings may go on to do great things just as children who are given the best start in life may wind up wasting all the careful attentions of their parents. The mettle of each person to deal with the obstacles put in their path are not for society to judge. The things that seem insurmountable to some are a mere hiccup to others. At the end of the day it comes down to the individual choices we make. If having an abortion keeps a woman safe from a lifetime of hardship then I say let her have her choice.

Abortion vs. Women's Rights

Abortion should be legal.

There I said it and I'm not ashamed. I will admit that, while it's a hot topic in the current agenda, I have been avoiding covering this topic. I am a woman with a religious background and, in my life, have found myself on both sides of this issue. It is an extremely emotional topic with lots on complicating factors and often blurs the lines between religion and science, personal and societal boundaries, and health concerns vs. legislative issue. Already in the current Congressional session a multitude of bills have been put forth making various arguments on this subject. Just a partial list includes the following:

HR 7, 36, 217, 354, 490, 524, 586, 644, 656, 681, 718, 853, 1192, 1201, and 1203
S 184, 231, 241

These bills in the House and Senate cover everything from Federal funding of abortions and insurance that provides abortions to a finding that life begins at conception. Most provide exceptions for rape, incest, and for medical emergencies to save the life of the mother but some don't. One House bill in particular attempts a more scientific approach in attempting to show that pain can be felt at 20 weeks of gestation and therefore abortion should not be allowed beyond that point though there is no conclusive science on this fact.

By current US law abortion is legal in the general sense however individual states have put limitations on when an abortion can be done which range from 6 weeks gestation up to no documented restrictions. (See here- Note* article is out of date from 2013 but provides excellent visuals on various laws). Many of the laws enacted at the state level have been overturned Federally such that it is generally legal to have an abortion up to 20 weeks of gestation after which a fetus may be considered viable and abortion will only be permitted in extreme cases. However, even in states where abortion is legal it can sometimes be extremely difficult to procure one due to availability of clinics, waiting periods, pre-abortion counseling requirements, etc.

If you're curious about the laws in your state see here.

Anyone who imagines the ideal circumstances under which they would have children probably imagine a time when they are married or in a committed, loving relationship. The ideal environment probably includes neither parent in the process of schooling and the couple settled into their career(s) and in a stable financial situation. The plan also includes perfect health, physical and mental, for the woman as she carries the child and that there will be no major medical concerns for the growing fetus.

Now for the reality check.

The above image is almost never the case and when it is there is almost always access to contraceptives which ensure (as much as possible) that the couple is able to wait until they are ready before beginning on the path to parenthood. On the contrary, misfortune, misadventure, and too commonly misinformation can lead a woman(girl) to need to make that decision on whether to have an abortion or carry a pregnancy she's not ready for to term. This is not an easy decision, nor should it be, but the making of that decision should be left in the hands of the one person who can appropriately calculate how this pregnancy will go on to affect the rest of their life, and that person is the woman who is pregnant. How/why she got pregnant and sought an abortion is a personal matter that can stem from a whole host of reasons. Just a few of which I've listed below.

Reasons unwanted pregnancies exist:
     1) Rape
     2) Inadequate education about the reproductive process
          a) Failure of parents to inform their children about sex and how to prevent pregnancy
          b) Failure of schools to provide comprehensive sex ed including use of contraceptives
          c) Failure of doctors to provide information about different forms of contraceptives, how to use them, and their rates of effectiveness
     3) Inadequate access to contraceptives
          a) No access for teens without parental approval
          b) Too expensive
          c) Not covered by insurance or only certain types are covered by insurance
     4) Contraceptive failure
     5) Diminished capacity (many but not all of these instances will also fall under the Rape category)
          a) Drug/alcohol use
          b) Mental illness
          c) Intellectual disability

Reasons an abortion may be sought:
     1) Too young
     2) Financial
     3) Relationship status/stability
     4) School/career status
     5) Medical reasons- mother or child
     6) Not the right time

To properly illustrate this point I am going to break down the fictional life of Jane Doe and cover just some of the many factors that can tip the scales for a woman deciding for or against having an abortion. For each scenario I have given and best and worst outcome but not what Jane's final decision is since, despite the facts given here, there are still many more personal factors that go into the final decision making. The best outcomes should be considered a culmination of all points below it while the worst may be some or all of the factors I have listed. Each scenario should be considered separately on it's own merits and not as cumulative.

A) Jane is 13 and her parents haven't talked to her about sex yet. Her school doesn't start sex ed until 8th grade but she has already started having unprotected sex with a boy at her school. Jane gets pregnant. What could happen:
     1) The best:
          a) Jane tells her parents who are disappointed in her poor choices but use the opportunity to make up for the lack of information she had previously on the subject
          b) The boy and his family are informed of the situation and acknowledge the boy's role in the current situation
          c) All parties have a productive dialogue about the situation and what their options are going forward
          d) Jane is presented with the choice of following through with the pregnancy knowing that it will probably affect her school work and that she may suffer from stigmatization at school because of it or having an abortion
          e) At the end of all of the discussion Jane makes the best decision she can given all of the information and options presented to her
          f) Jane receives support from her family and friends to help her deal with the mental and physical after affects of pregnancy and/or the abortion process
     2) The worst:
          a) Jane tells her parents who beat her severely for her poor choices
          b) The boy and/or his family either refuse to acknowledge the pregnancy or harass Jane in an effort to get her to make the decision they want concerning her pregnancy
          c) Jane is ostracized and bullied at school, possibly being forced to drop out, because of her condition
          d) Jane spends the next several years suffering from anxiety and low self esteem and is never able to fully catch up to her peers. She is at an increased risk of getting involved in drugs and alcohol and other risky behaviors.

B) Jane is 17 and has been with her boyfriend for 2 years. She has been through sex ed and understands the basics of contraceptive. The only birth control available to her is condoms and she and her boyfriend do not always have regular access to those. They try to be careful but Jane still winds up pregnant. What could happen:
     1) The best:
          a) Jane tells her parents who are disappointed in her poor choices but are supportive of her making the best choice she can
          b) The boy and his family are informed of the situation and acknowledge the boy's role in the current situation
          c) All parties have a productive dialogue about the situation and what their options are going forward
          d) Jane is presented with the choice of following through with the pregnancy knowing that it will prevent her from starting college in the fall with the rest of her classmates or having an abortion
          e) At the end of all of the discussion Jane makes the best decision she can given all of the information and options presented to her
     2) The worst:
          a) Jane tells her parents who disown her and kick her out of the house to fend for herself
          b) The boy and/or his family either refuse to acknowledge the pregnancy or harass Jane in an effort to get her to make the decision they want concerning her pregnancy
          c) Due to the pregnancy and lack of familial support Jane is unable to attend college
          d) Jane spends the next several years suffering from anxiety and low self esteem. She struggles to support herself financially and be a fully productive member of society.

C) Jane is 21 and in college. She gets drunk at a party and winds up having sex with a man she likes but doesn't know well. She winds up pregnant. What could happen:
     1) The best:
          a) Jane tells the man who expresses his opinion on the matter but respects her right to make the final decision concerning her body
          b) Jane weighs her options since she is close to graduation and a pregnancy will mean putting her degree and career on hold for an indeterminate period of time which will effect the status of her student loans and her future financial security
          c) At the end of all of the discussion Jane makes the best decision she can given all of the information and options presented to her
     2) The worst:
          a) Jane tells the man who becomes physically violent or emotionally abusive and insists on forcing his will on her with regards to the pregnancy
          b) Jane is unable to graduate but must still pay back her student loans putting herself in financial distress
          c) She struggles for years to support herself financially and be a fully productive member of society.

D) Jane is 24 and in an apprenticeship program that requires strict attendance. She is in a committed relationship and possibly married but, while they have talked about children, they are not yet ready to start a family. They use contraceptives consistently but she still becomes pregnant. What could happen:
     1) The best:
          a) Jane tells her partner and they engage in an open dialogue about how this may affect their lives and how they wish to proceed
          b) Jane weighs her options since continuing the pregnancy will mean ending her apprenticeship and putting her career on hold for an undetermined amount of time. She also weighs the financial affects that not only a baby but her being unable to advance her career will have on her future prospects
          c) At the end of all of the discussion and contemplation Jane makes the best decision she can given all of the information and options presented to her
     2) The worst:
          a) Jane tells her partner who becomes physically violent or emotionally abusive and insists on forcing his will on her with regards to the pregnancy
          b) Jane is unable to complete her apprenticeship and must put her career on hold or possibly lose the opportunity altogether
          c) Her financial stability is lessened and it puts additional strains of her relationship

E) Jane is 30, married, with 2 small children. She has just recently gone back to work and while they live comfortably they do not have much financial flexibility. She and her husband are devoted to their children and each other but are strained by the stresses of maintaining their family home and life. Jane uses contraceptive consistently but still becomes pregnant. What could happen:

     1) The best:
          a) Jane and her husband engage in an open dialogue about how this may affect their lives and how they wish to proceed
          b) Jane weighs her options since continuing the pregnancy will affect her ability to continue working and she does not want to jeopardize giving the 2 children she already has the best life possible. She is concerned that they will not be able to mentally or financially support 3 kids when it is already a struggle to raise 2
          c) At the end of all of the discussion and contemplation Jane makes the best decision she can given all of the information and options presented to her
     2) The worst:
          a) Jane tells her partner who refuses to discuss the situation and demands that she follow his decision about the pregnancy
          b) Jane must quit her job and can no longer afford to put her children in activities that they love
          c) The added stress causes a breakdown in the relationship and eventual divorce from her husband

F) Jane is 35 and pregnant. At her 19 week ultrasound it is discovered that the fetus has multiple genetic anomalies resulting in severe physical deformities. After several follow ups, tests,  and visits with specialists Jane is told that the best prognosis is that the baby will live outside of the womb for a few days to weeks, will need a respirator and feeding tube, and will most likely be in pain the entire time. Jane is now 28 weeks pregnant and makes the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy rather than put her baby through so much pain. She is emotionally devastated but feels that this is the best option available to her.

The scenarios can go on and on. Unwanted pregnancies don't just affect unwed women in their 20s who don't want to give up their young, fun lifestyle. They can affect ANY woman at ANY time. If your religion believes life begins at conception that's fine, but last I checked our country still had a separation between church and state and the vast majority of the medical community would disagree with you. Last I checked no one is forcing you to have an abortion so if you don't want one, don't have one. There are really only two questions about abortion that I can understand legislating:

1. Is it safe?
2. Is it humane?

The first is clearly yes when performed by a professional in a proper sterile environment. The second question may start raising some doubts again about how and when an abortion is performed until you consider this country's methods of executing prisoners which is considered by many to be a humane end. Compared to that modern abortion practices are extremely humane for the fetus although the treatment of women can still sometimes leave much to be desired.

"But think of the men" (read fathers) some might claim, but until medical technology has advanced to such a point that a fetus can be transplanted into a man's body to complete gestation such that the woman does not need to go through months of extreme physical and emotional discomfort and in many cases have their body permanently altered by the process men have a much smaller stake in pregnancy. So many people are quick to judge saying "think of the consequences before you have sex." Well, pregnancy is a consequence but by extension abortion is one of those consequences as well so maybe men should think more on that before they go spreading their seed around. As they say, "it takes 2 to tango" but only one of these partners is in imminent risk of having their entire life altered by pregnancy.

At the end of the day this is not a legislative issue it is a medical one. Every woman has the right to make their own choices about their body both in choosing to have sex and then choosing to abort if that is what they feel is the appropriate course of action. 

Top 10 Hit List

Now that I've finally caught up on bills that have been submitted to the House of Representatives I've decided to create a top 10 list of bills to watch. None of these bills are subtle in their intent and many, I'm sure, will fail spectacularly. Nevertheless, knowledge is power and these are real bills that have been submitted by our elected officials. I will also be including here a list of those congressmen who submitted and co-sponsored these terrible acts of legislation so we can see just which Representatives are fighting against our nation's best interests.

H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2017
This bill calls for a Federal sales tax (starting at 23%) be implemented to replace the current tax system. It also calls to defund the IRS by 2021. The summary for this bill also states that "family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines" however this will do little to relieve the burden such a sales tax will put on low income families. This bill is very extensive so I will just touch on a few of the scarier points. For example, it calls for an "annual registration" of your family each year including proof of citizenship and residence in order to receive the monthly rebate. Next, said sales tax will be in addition to any import duties. It claims that this will be mostly implemented by the States however it will still require a sizable amount of Federal oversight for collection and disbursement to Federal programs. Furthermore, instead of a yearly reckoning of taxes as we have now the government will have to issue checks monthly to a substantial portion of the population. There is also no guarantee that assistance will be provided to help families navigate the rebate program and insure they are getting their proper benefits. Overall this bill clear disadvantages the poor while substantially benefiting the wealthy and putting a burden on economic freedom.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX]- Cosponsor

H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
At the founding of our nation it was established that, quite simply, being born on US soil qualified you to be a US citizen. This act "clarifies" that statement by putting limits upon said citizenship. The intent of this bill seems to be to get rid of the so called "anchor babies" i.e. children born on US soil to parents who are not legal residents. This bill absolutely fulfills that intent (and then some) but what it also does is fundamentally shift a value that has been held by Americans since our nation's founding that anyone can come here, work hard, and build a good life for themselves and their posterity. Being an American should not be determined by where our parents came from but rather the values we hold in our heart.

Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor

H.R.193 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This calls for the US to exit the United Nations. I've already had my say on why this is a bad idea in a more extensive previous post and will not go into my reasoning again here.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL]- Sponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Cosponsor

H.R.352 - State Health Flexibility Act of 2017
This bill repeals not only the Affordable Care Act but also the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the place of, essentially, our entire Federal health care system, it calls for block grants to the states to provide health care to their residents. The only provisions provided to direct the states as far as what to cover is that the funds may not be used for illegal aliens or abortions except in certain emergency circumstances. In certain states where programs already exist to protect the poor this implementation will probably improve services. However, in states that already take little effort to care for the poor this will be disastrous.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Sponsor
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Trott, David A. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor

H.R.586 - Sanctity of Human Life Act & H.R.681 - Life at Conception Act
Since these bills cover essentially the same material I will be lumping them together for my synopsis. Both bills take the stance that life begins at fertilization/conception, a statement that has no scientific evidence to back it up. Both are clearly anti-abortion bills though neither bill has the word abortion anywhere in the text. What both of these bills do say is that from fertilization an embryo is given full status as a human being with rights and protections under the law as such. No qualifiers are made for the safety of the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest which are common mitigating factors even by anti-abortion lobbyists. H.R. 681 is only marginally better by adding the line: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" which does nothing to say that the priority will be given to the life of the mother in the case of medical emergency.

Those Responsible:
H.R. 586:
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ferguson, A. Drew, IV [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor

H.R. 681:
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Sponsor
Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA]- Cosponsor

H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
The text on this bill is almost comically short. As the title says it calls for the termination of the EPA. It gives a termination date of 12/31/18. That is it. Say goodbye to air quality, clean water, and protections from harmful substances if this passes. And that is without giving any concern for global climate change.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Sponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor

H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education
Another comically short bill. This one calls for the termination of the Department of Education by 12/31/18 with no provisions for what, if anything, will replace it. I've posted previously about the importance of the DOE so I'll just leave it at that.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Sponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor

H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution
The title on this bill is a bit of a mouthful but will probably be given a catchy name in the coming weeks. No text or summary are yet available for this bill but the title makes the intent fairly clear. While there is a common misconception that English is the official language of the US the reality is that no official language is listed in our constitution. English is the language of common use but various states encourage/support the use of other languages based on their constituency. The push to make English the official language has been around for years and has yet to pass, in fact I have little fear of it passing now, but as a nation founded by immigrants it is important to recognize our heritage which includes languages as varied as our origins.

Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]- Cosponsor

H.R.1021 - To amend section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of United States nationality, and for other purposes
This bill does not yet have a text available for reference so I will be working off of the title. To state the obvious, terrorism is bad. However, the actions of individuals should not make them magically no longer part of the US. I would like to point out the very pointed use of the word "nationality" and not "citizenship". What exactly does "United States nationality" mean as far as the actions that can/will be taken under this bill? My fear, which will not be justified until a full text is posted, is that this bill will revoke certain rights and protections from individuals and will allow the government to take action against citizens that they would not otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.

Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor

H.R.1031 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
The title seems self explanatory and, once again, a text has yet to be posted with full details. Since this post has gone on long enough already I'll just say "Wall Street take over" and be done with it.

Those Responsible:
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Sponsor
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor

Our "New" Reality

Every day the Trump administrations policies seem to be hitting closer and closer to home. Reading the news feels like a daily torment wondering "what's next" as the pendulum of fascist rule and the destruction of our democracy swings ever lower. For my reading today I had these nasty tidbits to chew over:

http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/2017/02/11/tennessee-passes-bill-allowing-people-hit-protesters-blocking-roads/

http://www.kgw.com/news/ice-agents-arrest-undocumented-woodburn-man/407765696

http://markmaynard.com/2017/02/5th-grade-charter-school-teacher-mika-yamamoto-fired-from-michigans-renaissance-public-school-academy-where-she-was-the-only-teacher-of-color-claims-she-was-told-by-her-principal-the-community/

With information like this out in the general public I don't know how anyone can not be afraid of not just the possible threats to our way of life but the actual actions that have been taken that are disrupting and in some cases destroying people's lives. Tonight I will not be fact checking, presenting statistics, or otherwise refuting legislation currently in motion. Instead I will be indulging in a bit of fiction, which unfortunately may contain more truth than I'd care for, of what we may see in the coming months and years.

Today is February 14th, Valentines Day, 2017. In less than a month under the new President we have seen fear and anger more than any time since the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Actions already taken have caused legal residents to be denied access to their homes and no doubt cost some thousands of dollars and in some cases their livelihood as they are trapped away from their homes and jobs and are forced to make alternative plans for transportation and lodging.

Disappearances and seizures have begun as illegal immigrants, some of whom have been in our country for decades and known to the US government, suddenly find what little security they had yanked away. These people will remain in detention for who knows how long only to be deported with nothing to show for their years of hard work and having to restart their lives from scratch. These actions are celebrated by many as the start of taking America back even as their neighbors mourn their family ripped apart or fear that they will be next.

Over the coming weeks and months we do not see life settle into a routine but rather things continue to change, subtly at first but then at a more rapid pace. Construction has begun on the border wall with Mexico and construction on the Dakota Access and Keystone XL Pipelines are moving forward. Protesters come out in the thousands but law enforcement is ruthless in driving them back and make dozens of arrests each day. Media access to the protests is limited but those who do make it through are the first targeted for arrest. The growing Federal law enforcement contingent supplements local police forces in this effort. Where local law enforcement refuses to carry out the brutal treatment of protesters Federal agencies deem the jurisdiction a "sanctuary jurisdiction" under the still nebulous definition of that term in order to remove funding from local authorities and allow a swift Federal takeover.

The Supreme Court has rolled back some provisions of the President's executive order on immigration but not all. No one is surprised when the ban on Syrian refugees is made permanent. The President's review of the visa process as well as new legislation passed in Congress and increased actions by ICE and border patrol have brought US immigration to a near standstill. Strained relationships internationally mean fewer US companies gaining contracts overseas. Legislation has slowed imports due to excessive tariffs causing countries to retaliate and impose similar measures against US exports. American scientists and scholars are increasingly looking for positions outside of the US where their work sees greater appreciation and grants are more readily available while international scholars avoid the US even if they would be considered for admission at all.

By the beginning of 2018 the economy is feeling the strain of a declining workforce and limited interaction with the international economy. The stock market begins a steady decline as consumer confidence falls. Seeking someone to blame, the President insists that the poor economy is just a product of media lies and institutes his first actions aimed directly at censoring the media. This action is overridden through the Supreme Court but, like the immigration ban, is followed with actions through Congress that tie the first yoke to our system of free press. The President also doubles down on his claim that immigrants steal American jobs to take increased action against immigrants and expand that action to include those who support or protect immigrants.

Fear and anger spread as the future becomes increasingly uncertain. Families and friends are turned against each other. In the chaos crime begins to go on the rise as survivalist tendencies and opportunism take over. The landscape is increasingly polarized as communities fall apart and martial law begins to become the norm.

At midterm elections, despite increasing public unrest, the Republicans not only continue but in fact increase their majority in both the House and the Senate. People are baffled but Congress has already voted to defund the Independent Election Committee among other voter laws and back door deals have allowed voter fraud and corruption to flourish. Gerrymandering and Jim Crow laws see a resurgence that disenfranchises a large portion of the poor, students, and people of color. Though activists fight the changes and take the election results to court they make minimal impact due to the state of the new laws.

As civil unrest grows so do sanctions against the media and restrictions on the rights of protesters. With the free media slowly falling in line the President and Congress begin taking actions against social media and the internet in general. Their progress on this front is slow but unmistakable. Censorship becomes a thing of everyday life. With immigration at a standstill and civil unrest continuing to grow the President reassigns much of his already substantial ICE and border patrol force to a new task force within the Department of Homeland Security to deal with what is termed "a growing threat of domestic terrorism". Meanwhile the military is withdrawn from foreign soil but is not reduced in any way. The entire armed forces stands waiting, publicly to be ready for a foreign threat, though none appears likely.

By the general election of 2020 at least one state has secession initiatives on the ballot. Despite the lowest approval rating of any President on record Trump is reelected for another 4 years in office. At least one state votes to secede from the union. The US government does not out right deny the state's right to do so but, without any built in provisions for such a move, insists that the state pay back decades worth of Federal assistance while immediately cutting off all new funding to the state. When the state naturally refuses these terms the Federal government takes military action to deny them all access to the outside world by sea, land, and air. The swift and overwhelming military presence is a deterrent to some but causes other states to act out and the country will descend into civil war without significant external intervention.

It doesn't seem necessary to look beyond that at this point. No one wants to see such an end. There are of course alternate scenarios of a more or less dire nature but we must all hope we never get that far.

Fact Checking Executive Orders

In just a few short weeks our new President has put forth a large collection of executive orders ranging from the mundane to the inflammatory. Today I'd like to recap three of the most recent orders and do a little fact checking on our President's priorities. I've created a synopsis page for all executive orders here for those who are interested. The particular orders I plan to cover today are as follows:

1) Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety
2) Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
3) Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking

All three of these orders cover topics that should absolutely be a concern of our Federal government. They cover crime reduction, protection of law enforcement, and stopping transnational crime organizations (mafia/cartels) respectively. My dispute with respect to these executive orders is not intent but rather necessity. For some history and facts about executive orders see here. Below I will take a closer look at the three listed executive orders and the facts that may, or may not, have triggered them.

1) Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety
This short executive order establishes a "Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety" administered by the Attorney General. The goal is to reduce crime in America, but then isn't that always our goal? This particular order, however, identifies 3 areas to specifically target. They are: illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and violent crime.

Illegal Immigration:
I've already touched briefly on the fact that most illegal immigrants are not, in fact, criminals other than the sole fact of them being present in our country without authorization. But here are some statistics to back things up. I've taken my data from the Homeland Security website on Immigration Data and Statistics. A particular report of interest is the Annual Report on Immigration Enforcement Actions 2014 (published January 2016). Looking at these reports you can find statistics related to the number of people deported from the US who had previous criminal convictions. These numbers have fallen dramatically in the last few years, from 48% in 2012 to 45% in 2013 and finally to just 40% in 2014. However, on closer inspection you will find that of those deported who had previous criminal convictions roughly 31% (2014) of those convictions were for immigration issues. That means that, in 2014, the US deported a little over 100,000 people who had previous criminal convictions not related to immigration. The statistics unfortunately did not separate out violent crimes but did separate some of the most common offenses. Interestingly, dangerous drugs (27,581) had only marginally more convictions than criminal traffic offenses (23,754). To sum up all of these numbers, in 2014 only 27% of those deported had prior criminal convictions that were not related to immigration. As a comparison approximately 25% of US adult citizens have a criminal record. This means that the statistic tracks approximately evenly between citizens and non-citizens suggesting that there is no need to focus specific attention on crimes by illegal immigrants.

Drug Trafficking:
The infamous War on Drugs has been around since the 70s and it is fair to say that this area receives plenty of attention outside of the President's executive order. The reality is that the fight against drugs has stabilized in most areas and in some areas improved dramatically in the last several years. Here are some statistics from the DEA website:

Arrests- have been approximately stable since 2002. Yearly arrests have fluctuated between 28,000 and 32,000. This is down from a high of 41,296 in 1999.
Drug Seizures-
     Cocaine- 33,770 kg in 2014 which is an increase from 2013 but still down significantly from the peak of 118,128 kg in 2005
     Heroin- has been rising sporadically since the mid 90s but has been stable at around 1,000 kg a year since 2011
     Marijuana- has dropped dramatically in the last several years. This may be due to legalization is some states as well as an increase in the acceptance of medical marijuana programs nation wide
     Methamphetamine- rose steadily to a peak in 2012 of 4,813 kg. In the last 2 years the numbers have dropped significantly with seizure of only 2,946 kg in 2014
     Hallucinogens- this area has seen the most radical drop off. From a peak of over 29 million doses in 2000 there were less than 50,000 doses seized in 2014
Drug related deaths- in 2014 there were 49,714 drug induced deaths. This includes both prescription and illegal substances. This is up from 38,329 in 2010. The rise in deaths seems to be specifically linked to Cocaine and Heroin which have also seen increases in seizures in the last few years. (Data available here and here)

Do we have a drug problem? Yes. Are we handling that problem adequately? I would say yes. Drug consumption and, unfortunately, deaths are always going to be a problem. Our government already spends substantial time and money on arrests, seizures, and rehabilitation programs. While it may not be getting better I would deem our drug trafficking situation stable and not in need of special Presidential attention.

Violent Crime:
According to the FBI website "2015 Crime in the United States" ALL crime statistics were down in 2015 compared to 2006, some of them significantly. While violent crimes were up between the 2014 and 2015 statistics they were down in both the 5 and 10 year categories with the 10 year category being down 16.5% Looking at the numbers by year you can see the number of violent crimes decreasing even as our population increases further emphasizing the falling rates of violent crime. Instances of rape are the only place this trend may be overthrown. As the government transitions from a legacy to a revised definition of rape we have seen an increase in rape rates however the statistics for the revised definition only go back to 2013 and so it is difficult to determine a true trend at this time.

2) Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day in order to protect the general public. It is inherently an unsafe job as you deal with some of the worst that society has to offer. That being said, what is the state of crime against law enforcement in our country? The FBI website has some data on this subject in particular Table 70 will be my reference for this section. This table, however, lacks two statistics that I will provide below based on the numbers available within the table. While it shows the raw number of officers assaulted and what percent of assaults resulted in injury it does not show what percent of officers overall were assaulted or what percent of officers were injured relative to the overall sampling. Here is that data:

With this data you can see that the percentage of assaults on officers seems to be decreasing slowly (from 11.9 to 9.3) while the percent of injuries by assault seems to be holding steady at about 3%. There is nothing to suggest that assaults against police officers are on the rise to make this an urgent Presidential matter.

3) Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
The FBI website has an entire section devoted to organized crime. This is such a broad category that it was difficult for me to find any relevant statistics to use in an analysis. However, as part of the executive order the President blames cartels on a resurgence of deadly drug abuse and violent crime, both of which I have provided facts for in previous sections of this post. In terms of human trafficking the executive order states that it "risks becoming a humanitarian crisis." This particular phrasing suggests that it may become but is not currently a humanitarian crisis which I would vehemently disagree with. For some statistics on human trafficking in the US see here. Although we do have laws and systems in place to deal with these sorts of crimes this is one area that I will give the President the benefit of the doubt and say that there is a chance that we need more attention in this area.



As stated before, none of these executive orders is asking for our government to take action in an objectionable way. All of these subjects are important aspects of our Federal enforcement. However, it seems to be over blowing the situation to issue an executive order over issues that are already well covered through our normal executive and legislative process. Considering the severe criticism past Presidents have come under for the use of executive orders we must consider why our current President felt it was justified/necessary to issue executive orders so soon after entering office instead of waiting to gain greater insight into the processes already in place. Is he trying to increase the power of his position? Draw attention away from other issues? Or maybe he's just enjoying the power of making proclamations to the American public.

Time to Regroup

Today we lost a major battle and the Senate has now put our entire nation's public education system at risk. However this war isn't over, in fact it's just beginning, so let's take a deep breath, regroup, and make plans for where we go from here. For those who plan to continue the fight for our education system here are a few links with ways to get involved:

http://www.upworthy.com/betsy-devos-is-our-education-secretary-heres-what-to-do-next

http://www.scarymommy.com/what-outraged-parents-can-do-to-defend-public-education-after-the-confirmation-of-betsy-devos/?utm_source=FBOnsite

Remember that no matter what is happening on the national level we can mitigate how much that affects us individually through involvement in our state and local communities and government.

In other news, upcoming Senate confirmations include the following:

Scott Pruitt: EPA administrator
Mick Mulvaney: Office of Management and Budget director
Jeff Sessions: Attorney General
Tom Price: Secretary of Health and Human Services
Steven Mnuchin: Treasury secretary
David Shulkin: Veterans Affairs secretary
Rick Perry: Energy secretary
Linda McMahon: Small Business Administration administrator
Ryan Zinke: Secretary of the Interior
Ben Carson: Secretary of housing and urban development
Wilbur Ross: Secretary of commerce
Source: http://www.amny.com/news/politics/trump-s-cabinet-senate-confirmation-hearings-for-nominees-recapped-1.12943565

Some of these should pass without much fuss but others I will be posting more on in the days to come. But, for tonight, let us all sleep soundly and hope for a better tomorrow.

H.R. 610- To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools.

As promised in my previous post on Betsy DeVos I am here now to deal with the tricky situation of vouchers. Now H.R. 610 isn't just a voucher program, there is also a small line at the bottom about repealing nutrition standards, but it also calls for a complete repeal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The bill is separated into 2 titles but I will only be dealing with the first one in this post as there is a lot in there to unpack.

Title 1- Choices in Education Act
The first item in this title calls for an unequivocal repeal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Now, just what is this act? Well, you can read the full text here or an abbreviated synopsis here. This Act has been reissued every 5 years since the 60s. That means the Act has been carried through, expanded, and modified by 9 presidents (not including our current one). These presidents include 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats all of whom continued this important legislation as a gateway to education for American children. The Act was first put forth by Lyndon Johnson in his "war on poverty" with the idea that providing children from low income backgrounds with quality education would help them towards a brighter economic future. To give a little scope I'm going to list below the Titles and major Parts of this Act (it's a long list so feel free to skip to the bottom):

     TITLE 1- IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
DISADVANTAGED
PART A— Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies
PART B— Student reading skills improvement grants
PART C— Education of migratory children
PART D— Prevention and intervention programs for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk
PART E— National assessment of Title 1
PART F— Comprehensive school reform
PART G— Advanced placement programs
PART H— School dropout prevention
PART I— General provisions
     TITLE II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH QUALITY
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
PART A— Teacher and principal training and recruiting fund
PART B— Mathematics and science partnerships
PART C— Innovation for teacher quality
PART D— Enhancing education through technology
     TITLE III—LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT
AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS
PART A— English language acquisition, language enhancement, and academic achievement act
PART B— Improving language instruction educational programs
PART C— General provisions
     TITLE IV—21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS
PART A— Safe and drug-free schools and communities
PART B— 21st century community learning centers
PART C— Environmental tobacco smoke
     TITLE V—PROMOTING INFORMED PARENTAL CHOICE AND INNOVATIVE
PROGRAMS
PART A— Innovative programs
PART B— Public charter schools
PART C— Magnet schools assistance
PART D— Fund for the improvement of education
     TITLE VI—FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
PART A— Improving academic achievement
PART B— Rural education initiative
PART C— General provisions
     TITLE VII—INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION
PART A— Indian education
PART B— Native Hawaiian education
PART C— Alaska native education
     TITLE VIII—IMPACT AID
     TITLE IX—GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART A— Definitions
PART B— Flexibility in the use of administrative and other funds
PART C— Coordination of programs; consolidated state and local plans and applications
PART D— Waivers
PART E— Uniform provisions
PART F— Evaluations

Welcome back. So, to recap, this Act works to close the education gap based on economic hardship (it should be noted that this especially effects people of color residing in economically depressed regions); it works to protect neglected, delinquent, or at risk youth; works to reduce drop out rates and establish advanced placement programs; ensures high quality teachers and continuing education for teachers; assists those for whom English is a 2nd language; promotes the use of technology in the classroom; works towards drug and tobacco free schools; and, oh yeah, has provisions for charter and magnet schools. Under H.R. 610 all of this is unnecessary however so time to throw it all on the scrap heap.

The next part of H.R. 610 restricts the Secretary of Education to evaluating state applications and making payments to states. It also includes this line "The Secretary shall not impose any further requirements on States with respect to elementary and secondary education beyond the requirements of this title." What does this mean exactly? Well once a state is given approval for funding (and the qualifications for such will be noted shortly) the Secretary of Education cuts a check, hands it to the state and then washes their hands of the affair. No oversight, no assurance of quality standards, no checks to ensure the children most in need are getting the education they absolutely deserve.

This bill has a provision for funds allocation that is exactly proportional. Meaning each state will receive a portion of funds based on the number of eligible resident children (all kids ages 5-17) in their state. This may seem all fair and equal but it will only hurt poor communities more. Since state level funding most often comes from income tax AND when income tax revenue is low it is usually an indicator of high levels of unemployment or underemployment AND since this would indicate a higher level of children living in poverty THUS this would indicate the state portion of education funding would be lower compared to a wealthy state so the per student funding available at the end of the line will now be LOWER per student than in wealthy states causing a disadvantage to students living in poor states compared to their wealthy counterparts. This argument also applies to the community level since some education funding comes from county and city funds.

To be eligible to receive funding under this bill a state must do 2 things. 1) Make it lawful for a parent to enroll their child in ANY public or private school or to home school. 2) Comply with and make available an educational voucher program. This program would require funding to be issued to parents directly (as a non-taxable disbursement) for parents to use towards private or home school expenses should they choose to remove their child from the public school setting. I will not even begin to argue that choice in schooling is not important. No school can offer programs to fit every learning style or be a perfect fit for every student. That said, some restrictions are necessary to ensure fairness and equality. It is my belief that most states already provide a mechanism for some choice in schools. The choice of charter or magnet schools gives a free option within the public school framework for low income families to take advantage of when their default public school is not providing what their child needs. There are also options to switch between different public schools within a district either at will or with cause to accommodate student needs. Home schooling is also an option available to all parents though, logistically, it can be difficult to take advantage of.

On the other hand, while vouchers may benefit some students it will create a lopsided system that will greatly disadvantage the poor. The best way that I can express this is through hypotheticals so here are a few examples of where this system goes wrong based on full implementation of H.R.610:

Case 1: John is in an abusive/neglectful home. His parent(s) don't care about his education so he attends the default public school in his area. This school performs poorly and receives little funding due to students choosing other schools in the district. While his school is not overcrowded it is filled with other students like John whose parent(s) care little for their welfare. These students present with various emotional/behavioral problems due to their abuse and neglect but the school lacks the funding necessary to treat these problems and so the situation continues with John and his classmates falling victim to circumstance.

Case 2: Tina is an immigrant in a poorer neighborhood. She speaks English but still has difficulty reading and writing in her new language. Her parents work long hours and are not available to drive her to and from school. The only school in the area that provides an ESL program is 15 miles away and will require Tina to take 3 public buses to get there. The commute takes more than an hour each way. This requires Tina to get up significantly earlier than her classmates. Because of the commute she has less time to complete her homework and no time for extra curricular activities. She also gets less sleep than her classmates and has difficulty focusing during class. While her school is highly ranked she is unable to take advantage of the quality education to the same extent as her classmates.

Case 3: Matt's parents are interested in giving him the best education possible. After researching in their local area they decide on a school that is advertised as "innovative" and "cutting edge". Matt is enrolled but after just a few weeks it becomes apparent that the school is not following through with the curriculum as promised. Matt's parents choose to enroll him at a different school mid year but by now all the top ranked schools are full and will not be accepting students until the next year. Matt's parents are forced to choose between keeping him in his current school or switching him to another mediocre school and hoping to find an open spot for him in a better school the next year. Matt does not learn as much this year compared to his peers and will be forced to make up the difference next year or risk falling further behind.

Case 4: The topped ranked school in Sarah's area is a Catholic school. Much of the population in her area is Catholic and a large percentage of them attend that school giving it a large funding base. She has her federally funded voucher but is rejected from the school because she is Jewish and, in order to attend the school, she is required to sign a contract stating that she will follow and practice all tenants of the Catholic faith. Sarah attends a different school and gets a good education but wonders why the majority Catholic community of her area has access to a better education than she, a Jew, can get.

Case 5: Marcel lives in a smaller town. The north side of town is wealthy and has 6 different elementary schools. The south side is poorer and has only 1 elementary school. Marcel's mom does not have a car to take Marcel to the north side of town where the better schools are located. While she wants him to get a good education, she has to be able to get to work on time and the only way she can do that is if Marcel attends the school close to their home. By the time Marcel is ready to apply for college he is significantly behind the students who went to wealthier schools and has not had access to the same college prep material as his peers. As a result it is more difficult for him to gain admittance to or succeed at the college level.

And on, and on. These are just a few of the situations that are likely to occur under a pure voucher program like the one laid out in H.R. 610. If all children lived in loving, involved families with access to a car and the time to drive their children whatever distance was necessary to get the best education for their child then this system could almost work. The reality is much different. Even if all other factors could be equalized using federal funds for religious schools should be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Our education system is not perfect but this bill is clearly not the answer

State of Education

On Tuesday Betsy DeVos passed the the Senate HELP committee by a narrow margin of 12-11 along party lines. On Friday a vote is planned on her nomination before the entire senate. With Republicans holding a 52-48 seat lead in the Senate it would be almost unheard of for the nomination to fail. So far 2 Republicans have stated they will not support Ms. DeVos which, if all Democrats vote against, leaves at 50-50 tie to be broken by Vice President Pence. We must secure a 51 vote majority before Friday to keep DeVos from becoming our next Secretary of Education. Our education system is already in poor condition and we need to do everything in our power to secure the future of America's children.

A little background:

Betsy Devos graduated from a Christian high school and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Calvin College, a Christian institution. She has worked for PACs, chaired the Michigan Republican party multiple times, and chairs a privately held investment and management group. She has also been active in a list of community organizations including those for the arts and, yes, education. On her website the 2 main education organizations she lists are the American Federation for Children and the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

The American Federation for Children was founded in 2010 and is concerned with parental choice in education options. Their means for accomplishing this are through school vouchers, scholarship tax credit programs, Education Savings Accounts, public charter schools, virtual charter schools, and public school choice.

The mission statement for the Foundation for Excellence in Education (per their facebook page) is: To build an American education system that equips every child to achieve his or her God-given potential. This organization was founded in 2008 by then Governor Jeb Bush. The organization has been criticized by some for its close ties between corporations and government policymakers. The foundation has largely focused on forwarding the "Florida formula", the education plan enacted by Jeb Bush during his time as Governor of Florida. Some aspects of this philosophy include: issuing A-to-F report cards for schools, using taxpayer vouchers for tuition at private schools, expanding charter schools, requiring third-graders to pass a reading test, and encouraging online learning and virtual charter schools. The foundation is also a supporter of Common Core. At the time of this post the Foundation for Excellence in Education website is not working and so I have had to rely on external sources for all information regarding this foundation.

Why is she unqualified?

To start Ms. DeVos has never attended a public school, nor have any of her children. She has never taught or worked as a school teacher or administrator. As both a student and a parent in a private religious school setting it is probably fair to assume that she has never had to grapple with severe budget crisis that affect the availability of resources and programs. Her extreme wealth has most likely insulated her from many of the problems faced by low income families in the realm of education. She doesn't even have experience with student loans which is essential for most college students in this day and age and which, as the head of the Department of Education, she would be responsible for managing. She also has no apparent training in modern pedagogical theory or practice.

To all appearances Betsy DeVos cares about only one thing in education and that is the right for a parent to enroll their child in the school (public, private, charter, religious) of their choice and for that to be facilitated through grants, vouchers, or scholarships. On the surface this seems like a great idea, free choice is always seen as a plus, but there are lots of factors that have not been accounted for in this that make school choice a more complicated issue. I will not go into the pros and cons of voucher programs here as that issue alone deserves it's own post, but a Secretary of Education who's history suggests that this is her only major concern or experience in education is itself concerning.

A related concern to the above issue is DeVos' apparent lack of concern over standards. This is shown in her history of supporting particular charter schools even when the school in question is consistently and significantly under performing when compared to its public school counterparts. True, many of those schools have higher than average graduation rates but they do not have test scores reflecting any advantage over their public school counterparts showing that quality is not necessarily improved through charter endeavors. Every school supported by public funding should be required to maintain the highest of standards and those which fail to do so should be tended to immediately and not allowed to continue failing their students. DeVos has repeatedly supported charter schools as an alternative to public schools but with no accountability for charters to follow accepted educational standards.

DeVos' senate confirmation hearing was nothing short of a debacle and her ill conceived comment on people carrying guns at schools to protect against grizzlies is only a small piece of it. Though questioning was shorter than Democrats desired there was enough to show her lack of knowledge in the general field of education. Her confusion over proficiency vs. growth should be alarming. If she does not understand the difference how can she support these areas to the benefit of all American children? Children with disabilities are some of the most vulnerable in our society and it is important for our Secretary of Education to understand the policies that protect these children in our schools which Betsy DeVos clearly does not.

Let us stand together and speak up before it is too late to tell Congress NO on Betsy DeVos.

Sources:
http://www.betsydevos.com/#business

http://www.federationforchildren.org/about-us/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ExcelinEd/about/?ref=page_internal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jeb-bush-education-foundation-played-leading-role-in-mixing-politics-policy/2015/01/06/db1db176-903b-11e4-a900-9960214d4cd7_story.html?utm_term=.a79251bbd3c2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.42e48b663cc5

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmation-donald-trump.html?_r=0

H.R. 454- Finish the Fence Act of 2017

Ah, the border wall. A perennial issue in our country that can't seem to get worn out. In addition to this bill we have the executive action in support of said wall recently set forth by the President. This bill calls for the completion of the fence by December 31st, 2017. The President's order additionally calls for the construction of detention facilities on the border and an additional 5,000 border agents to patrol said wall. I will be dealing with the house bill and executive order together since they cover the same material.

Here are some general stats on our border with Mexico:
Length- 2000 miles
Current fencing- 670 miles, mostly in populate areas mostly 18 feet high but some much lower
Terrain- some mountainous, lengthy portion runs parallel to the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers
How much fencing is desired- approximately 1300 miles
What type of wall is planned- 40 feet tall and made of precast concrete panels

Let's talk first about something everyone should understand and that's cost. Trump initially cited a cost of $10 billion dollars for the job. Last Thursday senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave a range of $12 to $15 billion but no more than $15 billion. But some speculate that the price could be as much as $25 billion. These costs are just for construction, not for maintenance or manning of the wall. The current fencing cost approximately $3.9 million per mile for the highest portions but this is 18 foot tall fencing, not a 40 foot wall. If the $10 billion figure holds that will come to approximately $7.4 million per mile for Trump's vision. And, again, that is just for initial construction. It also doesn't take into account contingencies such as inhospitable terrain, land acquisitions, and accommodations for necessary border crossings. And all of the above is still just the initial cost of construction. Maintenance and manning of the wall will cost millions of dollars every year. And Trump is also calling for detention centers to be built near the wall which will add additional millions to billions for construction, staffing, and maintenance. Even if Mexico agreed to pay for the initial construction (an idea that is clearly not likely) Americans would still wind up footing the bill year after year or we would be forced to allow the wall to crumble as so much of our infrastructure is doing already.

Next is the question of effectiveness. Even if people could be convinced to foot the bill would this wall actually do what it is intended to do? The short answer is no. The reality of the situation is that illegal immigration from Mexico has stabilized since approximately 2006 and is even seeing a decline since 2009 in the number of illegal immigrants currently on US soil. More than 60 percent of illegal Mexican immigrants have in fact been in the country for more than 10 years which backs up the stabilization statistic. In the meantime the number of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico has grown. Even with our current precautions border apprehensions are on the decline and it is unlikely that this is because immigrants have found some magical secret route to make it into our country. Combined with the other statistics it suggests fewer Mexicans are making the crossing, decreasing the necessity for additional border measures. We still have over 11 million illegal immigrants in this country so where is our border security failing? The reality is that most illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visas. How is a border wall supposed to help that?

Now what about that deadline of December 2017? This would mean that there is 11 months to acquire land, get permits, draw up formal plans, and complete installation of the wall. This requirement is so unreasonable as to be laughable. Unless the federal government just bulldozes through the land and force land owners to deal with it (something highly illegal but not without precedent) then the land acquisition alone will take longer than this.

Let us also pause to consider the environmental impacts. As early as 2007, when President Bush first signed an order for a border wall, scientists have raised concerns about the environmental consequences of this build. Animals do not recognize our borders but will be equally impacted, and in some ways more so. In 2007 it was determined that 30 threatened, endangered, or candidate species lived along the Mexican border. The construction would also plow under many plants such as the delicate saguaro cactus causing a severe disruption to a delicate habitat. This sort of construction can also disrupt watersheds opening up the potential for devastating floods that can further harm wildlife and their habitats. Dividing species by a wall will effect them on a fundamental level as it will reduce the genetic diversity in breeding. For populations that are already small this will open the species to inbreeding and disease from which the species may never recover. The partial barriers already constructed have negatively impacted species and an impermeable wall will be exponentially worse.

Whatever your stance on immigration and your feelings towards those who live here illegally it seems apparent that a border wall is a costly and ineffective solution to our current immigration situation.

Sources:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/26/how-trump-plans-build-wall-along-us-mexico-border/

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/economy/trump-mexico-border-wall-cost/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/us/politics/facing-the-facts-on-illegal-immigration.html?_r=0

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/1/96/224718/The-Environmental-Impacts-of-a-Border-Fence

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37200583