Joe Rhee

A New Cuban Crisis: The Hypocrisy of the American Embargo and the History of Dissent

Social Protection or Management? Why Hate Crime Responses Don't Work

Homecoming Mishaps: Immigration Reconciliation Parliamentary Politics

Many activists are calling for action on immigration reform, especially amidst Biden’s mixed signals and seeming return to the Trump-era “stay in Mexico” policy. More specifically, however, policymakers are advocating for the creation of new programs under DACA and the expansion of TPS. The recently proposed 1.7 trillion dollar reconciliation bill has driven lots of infighting over several parts, one of which includes the proposals related to immigration reform. Some Democrats and activists think this is the best chance for immigration reform in decades, since it is already part of the bill. However, there still remains substantial opposition to the infrastructure legislation for several other reasons, which may make its passage difficult. The Parliamentarian of the Senate, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled against the legislation in the Senate about a month ago. Since then, some Democrats have proposed using the reconciliation method to make the reform more palatable. Still others have suggested using parole as a method. Regardless of method, debates over immigration reform are at the forefront of politics.

Line 5: Sovereignty Under Pressure

Line 5 is a part of a network of pipelines built around the Great Lakes, carrying fossil fuel across Wisconsin and Michigan into Canada. However, it has been highly contentious due to its questionable condition, lack of transparency, and effects on Indigenous lands, as well as potential leaks. Policymakers have analyzed and supported alternative pipeline routes, especially those not passing over open bodies of water like the Great Lakes to prevent disastrous spills.

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Life: the Fight over Abortion Laws

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has remained a contentious topic for citizens and policymakers alike. Texas and Mississippi have both recently passed laws placing limits on the rights of women to obtain an abortion. The constitutionality of both bills has been called into question, especially after the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the Mississippi law a few months ago, and the Texas law more recently. These Supreme Court cases have the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade and trigger dozens of highly restrictive “tigger” laws all across the country. Despite being the less restrictive of the two laws, it is also possible for the Supreme Court to overturn Mississippi’s abortion law while not impacting Texas’. Because of the personal impact these laws have for so many people, it is important to understand similarities and differences between the bills.

Voting Rights: Popularity Contests and Civil Liberties

Voting rights have been an important part of U.S. legislation ever since the American Revolution. Over the years they have been changed, through state or national legislation or through constitutional amendments. Recently, these voting rights have become a prevalent issue as states try to restrict who can vote in an effort to limit voter fraud. In response to these restrictive laws, national representatives have worked to pass policy expanding and protecting the right to vote. These bills—the John Lewis Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4) and the Freedom to Vote Act (H.R. 1)—are both hotly contested, especially by Republicans in the Senate. However, supporters argue that passing at least one of these bills is the only way to truly protect democracy.