Author: Michelle Anasa

If you purchase something – a few campaign buttons for example – from Hillary Clinton’s website there comes a point right after you enter your credit card information but before you click “ORDER” that the following information is shown to you:

“Contributions or gifts to Hillary Victory Fund are not tax deductible. The first $2,700/$5,000 from an individual/multicandidate committee (“PAC”) will be allocated to Hillary for America, designated for the primary election. The next $2,700/$5,000 from an individual/PAC will be allocated to Hillary for America, designated for the general election. For contributions made after the primary, the full amount of the contribution, up to $2,700/$5,000, will be designated to the general election. The next $33,400/$15,000 from an individual/PAC will be allocated to the Democratic National Committee. Additional amounts from an individual/PAC will be split equally among the Democratic state parties from these states up to $10,000/$5,000 per state party: AK, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, and WY. A contributor may designate his or her contribution for a particular participant. The allocation formula above may change if following it would result in an excessive contribution. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle. Contributions will be used in connection with a Federal election, may be spent on any activities of the participants as each committee determines in its sole discretion, and will not be earmarked for any particular candidate.”

Normally, this is just the type of fine print that I wouldn’t even bother trying to decipher, but our lesson on campaign financing last week left me  with a newfound sense of [over]confidence. It felt great to actually understand [some of] what was written!

The following point from her Frequently Asked Questions page also caught my eye as it is an example of how a campaign can strategically route the funds they receive as a way of legally surpassing the donation limits.

“If I have already donated the maximum amount to Hillary for America, can I purchase products from the shop?

Yes! The store is operated by the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint committee formed by Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee and many State Democratic Parties. All store purchases count towards your legal limit for Hillary Victory Fund, and will be attributed to the other participating committees.”

 

During his campaign, Trump has put so much emphasis on the fight against undocumented immigrants, but I wonder if his specific targeting of Mexicans is based in fact or just pure convenience. Well, I’m not actually wondering, I now know that while the numbers did used to point to Mexicans as having the highest number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year, the tide has recently shifted and people coming in from Asia – mostly China and India – have started to outnumber their Mexican counterparts. It should be noted that the data regarding Asian immigrants does not distinguish between those here legally or illegally, but this trend is still one that deserves to be recognized and studied further. I highly recommend everyone take a quick glance at this Wall Street Journal article because it includes a great interactive infographic that really makes clear just how drastically the face of immigration has changed in recent years…which leaves me wondering, yet again, where exactly Trump’s basis in targeting the Mexican immigrant population lies. Or could it possibly be that *gasp* there isn’t much logic or rationale involved when it comes to his decision-making process?

-Michelle

While all the focus here in the United States is on the wall Trump is just dying to build, the UK is a few steps ahead (or behind, really, if we’re thinking rationally) when it comes to blocking out the “undesirables.”

The refugee crisis is still going strong across the Atlantic, though reports of it may have died down quite a bit here as we’ve become wrapped up in more pressing domestic issues as our Presidential election date nears (and as we play right into the internationally held opinion that we are a self-obsessed nation of narcissists…? No, that can’t be right.) Jokes aside, it could provide some valuable insight to compare our current situation to that of the UK, which is currently in the beginning stages of actually building a wall to keep out any “wandering” refugees from the neighboring French port town of Calais. Many of the comments quoted in this article from The Guardian eerily mirror the  viewpoints of many Americans. I am curious to see the true effect that this wall will have and if the results will show themselves soon enough to serve as an example of what not to do (and hopefully sway some American opinions on the topic).

-Michelle

 

America is the land of immigrants – a melting pot of cultures as many like to say – however it is no secret that this country has not always welcomed everyone with open arms. If you think about it, there never really has been a time when our nation has indiscriminately welcomed anyone and everyone to come re-plant their roots and establish themselves as new Americans. Maybe that’s why Trump is an actual contender in the upcoming Presidential election. Maybe that’s why so much of America has not only accepted but also adopted his manner of speaking about certain ethnic groups. And maybe, just maybe, that is why as a collective group, we seem to be relatively desensitized to his oppressive and insulting choice of vocabulary when addressing some of the citizens of the country he supposedly is so eager to lead.

In this article regarding Trump’s most recent speech on immigration, Tim Kaine says “You could print that speech with Irish-Americans in it, and somebody gave that speech in 1850. You could print Italian-Americans in it, and somebody gave that speech in 1860 or 1870. You could put Jewish folks from Central and Eastern Europe and somebody probably gave that speech in the late 1800s.”

So yes, America has heard this type of talk before. And yes, it was damaging and shameful even then.

The only remaining question is: why aren’t we learning from history? Why has Trump been able to get so far with such an antiquated mentality in regards to immigrants? The dehumanization of an entire population of people based solely on their religion or ethnicity or even just skin color has proven to have disastrous effects in the past…and history does have a habit of repeating itself. But this is a habit we can break. This is a habit we need to break. The glimmer of hope here is that although we will always be fighting the good fight against human stupidity borne of ignorance, we now live in this wonderfully digital age which has allowed for unprecedented levels of awareness and information sharing. We just have to make sure certain voices are loud enough to drown out the others.

Senator Kaine warns us, albeit with a seemingly lighthearted rhyme (though I must admit it is catchy), that if we leave it up to Trump, the U.S. is going to become known as “deportation nation” rather than the “innovation nation” and “inclusion nation” that this country has the potential to be.

 

-Michelle

It’s an election year and there is an overwhelming barrage of information being thrown at us from every angle. It’s difficult to know what to believe and what to dismiss as nonsense. As educated citizens we are more than capable of making that discernment – as long as we aren’t filtering out the articles we disagree with – thereby allowing ourselves to have a more holistic view of the current political environment. Immigration is one of the most talked about topics in U.S. politics at the moment, largely due to the dramatic and controversial stance Trump has taken on it. As outlandish as his statements might seem to us, there is clearly a large portion of the population with which his thoughts on the topic resonate. In order to combat his dangerous rhetoric intelligently, it is important to understand why the other side thinks the way they do, and so I’ve compiled a list of both conservative and liberal websites that have reported on not only immigration, but all the other relevant issues facing our nation today as well. Comparing and contrasting the stories that come out of these partisan news outlets, which span the entire political spectrum, will be helpful in shaping a more coherent and well-rounded view of what version of the news the various members of the public are being fed.

 

Conservative outlets:

Townhall.com

Nationalreview.com

Michellemalkin.com

 

Liberal outlets:

Dailykos.com

Liberaloasis.com

Moveon.org

Thenation.com

 

-Michelle

Trump has been wavering recently when it comes to his stance on Mexican immigration, as per this link Professor Robbins shared with us last week, and now his trip to Mexico has added yet another facet to the story. It seemed that he was softening his stance on Mexican immigrants, a move deemed unacceptable by most of his supporters…but in true Trump form, he quickly backpedaled just hours later during a speech in Phoenix and referred back to his original plan of providing no amnesty to undocumented Mexican immigrants and having Mexico pay to build a wall along our border. This article shows just how damaging Trump’s words are to our foreign relations with Mexico. Mexican President Nieto is not happy, and who can blame him?

Unfortunately, we missed a great opportunity to build the wall while Trump was in Mexico, since its purpose after all is to keep “undesirable” people from entering the U.S. Along that vein, here’s a quick satirical post from The New Yorker guaranteed to make you laugh.

-Michelle