Conclusion of POS301W

As the semester comes to a close, so does this personal political blog. This blog was kept up through a political science writing course at Northern Arizona University, with Dr. Stephen Nuno. Through this course we looked at how Immigration in the United States has evolved over time. As we can see through this blog, the immigration debate is not over and will remain until true immigration reform is met. As of now, government has been unable to meet half way to agree on true immigration reform. This is due to the political forces that dominate our political sphere. There are a few parties in power, but there are four forces that dictate how immigration will unravel. These forces are related to how representatives view reality, whether they are market expansionists, egalitarians, cosmopolitans, or nativists. These forces are hard to overcome, however, through true compromise these forces can meet in the middle.

This class has focused on many of the factors and relationships that are built to create the status quo. We can see through history how immigration of different people's has changed over time. In the beginning, it was a concern of other cultures in Europe coming over and being unable to assimilate. This concept has continued through every race we have decided to discriminate against and will more than likely be used in the future to discriminate against other minority groups.

Without looking through history and the current social relations, it is difficult to fully understand the status quo thoroughly. We are immersed within our culture, which makes us almost blind to many of the problems that have arose in both the past and in the contemporary world.

The overlooked of Immigration Reform

photo from NYTimes

 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/overlooked-us-immigration-overhaul-19061555
 
With the immigration reform bill evolving in the Senate it is difficult to see what type of restrictions they plan to institute. There are a few alternatives, many are opposed by Democrats. This includes a 13-year track to citizenship, but there must be a 3.4 billion dollar increase in border security first. Another requirement that isn't opposed by either side, is trying to control undocumented immigrants who have criminal backgrounds. The bill in the senate, permits someone to have 1 or 2 misdemeanors and 1 felony that cannot be related domestic violence, drug dealing, or DUI.

In this article, the writer shares a story about a few different undocumented immigrants who came here as infants and grew up as Americans. The first story is about Carlos, who lived in the United States for 29 years before he was deported during the first wave of deportations by the Obama Administration. The man lived here for 29 years, had a family and was culturally American, but he was still separated and deported to Tijuana much like other deportees.

GOOD! Some would say, an "illegal got deported". That is a major issue, especially with the way we handle post-deportation. These folks all end up in border towns where work is not available, therefore it impoverishes the entire community. This deportation put a relatively successful undocumented immigrant who was brought here as a child, back into poverty and away from his family. This creates the circumstances for an individual to sneak back into the United States, regardless of the consequences.

For Carlos, this deportation and overhaul of immigration reform is devastating. As an 18 year old Carlos, much like other 18 year old Americans, partied too hard and decided to drive home. He ended up getting a DUI, which automatically disqualifies him from gaining reentry into the United States. This makes me question what laws and histories we need to pay attention to as opposed to just a blanket law. I agree - we should keep out folks who have criminal offenses like domestic violence, etc. Although, determining the threat of someone who grew up in Urban America, who just got in trouble when he was 18 years old for driving under the influence is quite difficult. I don't think we should be deporting people that live here for 20+ years and as a child got in trouble. Although, it is difficult to say that this will be true for all offenders or if this is the outlier. This story puts me between a rock and a hard place for words.

Boston bombing and Immigration Reform - How are they connected?

http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-bill-debate-sidetracked-boston-terror-issues-181229014.html;_ylt=AwrTV.IpqXVRuTIA0QDNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5c3FrYTFqBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIFNlY3Rpb24gUG9saXRpY3MgMgRwa2cDYTc0ZGUzYjEtNzVmZC0zMDBjLThhOWEtOTllOGYwYmNhNWZlBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnlfY29rZQR2ZXIDNWNiYTFhMDEtYWI4MC0xMWUyLWJlZjctYWViNDExMDMzOTcx;_ylg=X3oDMTNhYXBmM3U2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNWUyN2Q1YWItODI2MS0zOGYyLWExMTctMTAwNGIzMmFkZjBhBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x1LXMtZ292ZXJubWVudARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

http://news.yahoo.com/tempers-flare-immigration-hearing-160230661--politics.html

In the wake of the Boston bombing, we are beginning to see some movement in Washington regarding Immigration Reform. The Gang of 8 recently released their blueprint immigration reform - focusing on security, but also creating a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. These two factors play a critical role for both Democrats and Republicans and you can see a progression of compromise in the Gang of 8 which will hopefully blossom into the Senate. The most serious question, is will The speaker of the house, John Boehnor of Ohio gain the votes he needs in the House of Representatives. This House has been very uncooperative and purposefully perpetuating certain social stigmas that negatively effect the immigrant community.

I am surprised to be using Rand Paul (R-KY) again in my blog for immigration. Recently Rand Paul had created an actual filibuster situation in the Senate, against the legal argument the Executive Branch has for Drone attacks on U.S. soil. This was an obvious hyper-politicizing filibuster by Rand Paul, but more importantly, Rand Paul is now coming out after the Boston Bombings in support of slowing down immigration reform legislation.

This move by Rand Paul is not a one man show, but there is support from extremists within the Senate, but also even from moderates. Marco Rubio (R-FL) used the Boston Bombing to emphasize the point of border security. I find this interesting because neither of the suspected terrorists are Latino, nor are their origins in the Western Hemisphere. The suspected bombers are actually Chechnya, one was a  naturalized citizen who did follow the legal procedure and the other was in the application process. I don't believe this bomb situation has any reflection on our immigration system. I believe this has more to do with the political forces within the Senate as opposed to something systematic.  

Although, this does not seem to be gaining support in the House of Representatives. John Boehnor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has come out against these arguments for slowing down immigration reform. He is actually cited in the second article, saying that he can see the benefits of reform, the most important ones are: who are they, why are they here, and what's the legal status? These questions can be answered, but we need to ensure that reform is based in reform of the system, not punishment of those who break the current system. I don't know if these measures of reformation are actually going to be adopted, or if we will end up spilling more money into a fence that will inevitably be jumped or tunneled underneath.

Brazil: Facing its own "Illegal Immigration" debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22106284

As the immigration debate heats up in the United States, there is conflict arising around the same issues in Brazil. The Brazilian state of Acre has seen a huge influx of illegal immigrants from Paraguay, Haiti, Senegal, Pakistan, from almost every corner of the globe. However, in the last two weeks there has been a flow of up to almost 2,000 people entering the state illegally. Normally these folks are headed towards bigger urban cities like Rio De Janeiro or Sao Paulo but much like undocumented immigrants in the United States, get caught up doing anything for a living. This influx has cost the State an estimated $1.5 million dollars on housing and feeding these new immigrants.

This influx is not economically focused like the wave of immigration in the United States, these influxes are related to natural disaster. Natural disasters can cause folk migrations much like an economic force, however unlike an economic force, these disasters may not reoccur. This huge migration may not happen again or it could begin to reoccur as Brazil becomes an important player on the international stage. 

However, much like the United States these "illegal immigrants" are working within the economy, for less than the average citizen. The article references a raid that occurred recently in Sao Paulo and Brasila, looking for undocumented workers in sweatshops. The raid found that these undocumented workers are working in horrible conditions, for almost no pay. This form of exploitation can be associated with the migrant agriculturalists who travel seasonally to and from the United States.

Seeing this article helped me realize that these problems are not just an American issue, but possibly a negative side effect created by living within the bounds of a state system.

The Associated Press makes a social move for comprehensive Immigration Reform

This week, the Associated Press released that they will no longer use the term "Illegal" to describe a person, but rather an action. This is important because most journalist use the "AP's style, when producing articles. The Associated Press wanted to clarify how the term will be used, therefore they released this statement: "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant".

What does this mean?
This provides some insight to how journalism will begin to change the social construction of legal and illegal immigration. This, I would argue, is related to the movement in Washington by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This has been argued for by many civil rights organizations who focus on immigration, but also by immigrant supporters. This change will allow the social perspective on the individuals and families who are here, often documented but no longer authorized to stay because their VISA expired. This change in style is met with opposition, some what to call them Infiltrators and others believe that "illegal" is the best description for these folks. Ultimately, I believe this is a step forward for the culture around immigration, so we can begin to humanize these families and individuals again.

Making the distinction between an illegal act and person is critical for us to move forward on how to view immigration in the United States. With a global world, we will forever encounter immigration, therefore we need to set up a system that can accommodate the movement of people across borders, especially with our neighbors. Our economies (USA, Canada, Mexico) are so intertwined that we need to embrace our cultural differences to create a better and more diverse economy. This distinction to not call someone Illegal, will allow some of the more Egalitarians to accept these immigrants. Until now, many arguments against a pathway to citizenship was blocked by this social construction and application of "Illegal" in the media. Now that we are aiming to remove this term, we can only hope that we will progress further with true immigration reform. 

Senators Visit the Border, Immigration Bill is nearly complete...

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-senators-obama-immigration-reform-bill-april/1630583.html





Yesterday, March 28, 2013 4 of the 8 Senators who make up the "Gang of 8" made a visit to Nogales, Arizona. In my opinion, this move is to show some of the more natavist representatives in the country that the border is being inspected for security by this committee. Oddly enough, a women actually scaled the  18 foot fence while the Senators were there. Of course she was apprehended. This article doesn't mention anything about the women beyond the act. Although, Senator McCain (R-AZ) does use the incident to progress the status quo argument that the borders are not secure and there are threats too it.

Eric Cantor - a Republican in the House of Representatives is also mentioned in this article, alluding to the DREAM Act:
"We’ve got an opportunity to come together on one point, and that is the kids,” he told the U.S. news outlet. “If a kid was brought here by his parents or her parents, unbeknownst to them, and knows no other place … than America as home, why wouldn’t we want to give them a path to citizenship, and I think we should.”

This statement gives me hope for at least the DREAM act being passed before the 2014 elections. This also concerns me, because this could mean that true immigration reform will once again be pushed to the back burner and ignored until another problem arises. Not to downplay the importance of the DREAM Act being passed, however I believe the problem should be solved as opposed to bandaged.

Our economy calls these individuals here for work, because these unskilled laborers are normally working in manual labor jobs related to agriculture in the Southwest. This has been a historical movement of peoples, that was not enforced for much of American history. Instead of militarizing the border, we need to make the flow of legal immigration for work easier. Especially our neighbors who are apart of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Immigration Reform may not have been set to the back burner.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/bipartisan-house-group-nearing-agreement-on-immigration-blueprint/
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/senate-considers-path-citizenship-immigrants-temporary-status/story?id=18737887

An equivilient gang of 8 bipartisan reps in the House of Representatives, who have been meeting for almost four years now, are finally coming together on a blueprint for immigration reform. This is critical since there is a Senate bipartisan committee who have been working diligently to try and get some sort of reform agreed upon. This recent publication about this Gang of 8 House Reps, gives me hope when looking forward to true immigration reform beyond the DREAM act. True reform requires both houses coming together and working across the aisle and through each house to agree.

My only major concern is how Tea Party extremists and nativists in the House will respond to this agreement in private committee. On the other hand, looking at how the House operates normally, basically party-line voting and the power structure, its not too "far out" for there to be agreement among the more moderate republicans and democrats. Fortunately the Democrats in the House only needs to pick up roughly 30 seats, we can hope that The Speaker can get those thirty votes.

I am fairly interested in the path to citizenship that is included for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This legal description has the potential to help lay out fair or unfair reform for the 11 million undocumented workers in the United States today.

Rand Paul's Filibuster only proves he's against Drones that kill "Americans" - Not "Illegal Immigrants"

In light of the recent Drone filibuster by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Americans on both sides are supporting Senator Paul's filibuster to attain more information about what the Obama Administration believes it has the authority to do with militarized drones to Americans in the United States. The catch here is not being concerned about militarized drones killing Americans or any human abroad who are "supposedly" engaged in "terrorist/illegal activities", but rather an extremely hypothesized idea that Americans who are supposedly engaged in anti-American (Terrorist) activities in the United States can be targeted. However, I believe the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment protects Americans against our government using force such as Drones against us within our Borders.


My main problem with Senator Paul's argument is that he is trying to pick and choose which people he wants to fight for. He is okay using drones abroad to combat terrorism but the main issues I have with him is a public statement he made regarding immigration reform. 02/11/2013

"Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office" -Senator Rand Paul 
 
I am sorry, but I can't stand behind someone who is using a filibuster as only a political tool only to create more hysteria. How can you stand behind him when he is okay with using a hellfire missile against immigrants who are crossing the American border, even though as the 14th amendment states:   
 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Many of the protections from unwarranted assassinations of Americans on American soil do not extend only to "citizens", but rather ALL PERSONS. This is an important distinction to make, because Rand Paul does not realize he is also throwing away the Constitution.


How did the Obama Administration respond?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/obamas-drone-muddle-88614.html

Bracing For Sequester, What Will Change?

http://www.voanews.com/content/immigration-and-customs-releases-detainees-ahead-of-congressiona-budget-cuts-sequester/1611383.html

"Voice of America - News -Bracing For Sequester, US Frees Illegal Immigrants"
In the recent weeks, Congress has been postponing their responsibility to deal with the budget crisis in the United States. Much like the Fiscal Cliff, lawmakers are sitting on their hands until it is the last minute, playing political chicken, also known as Brinkmanship. This is becoming more interesting as the "automatic cuts" will begin taking place. I believe this is becoming a political pawn for both sides, to argue that the other side failed the American people. I believe this is being used by both sides to just make simple and "ax" like slashes from every department of government, instead of using a scalpel to ensure cuts are being done correctly.

These cuts are going to start being played up by each agency of government, Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) is now coming out of the woodwork and "letting immigrants go" to prepare for budget cuts. Stakeholders both in favor and opposition of this release are also coming out with official statements, which range from, these folks should have been let go along time ago, and these are "dangerous" criminals.

What I think many people forget is the difference in crimes, for instance, in the United States we distinguish between two types of violations: malum en se  and malum prohibitum. Malum en se are the violations against ones body, for example: murder, theft, assault, etc. Malum Prohibitum are violations simply because the governing body says its a violation: Drug Policy, Speeding, Immigration, etc. This is an important distinction to make because many of these "unauthorized persons" are not malum en se criminals, but rather prohibitum. Malum en se immigrants in detention centers are remaining in Priority Detention.

The United States through our immigration system, purposefully made them an "illegal immigrant" by either missing the deadline to renew their visa (3:10 rule) or by eliminating local markets in Mexico which in turn create seasonal agricultural migration. These folks are not dangerous, but rather pursuing what even we would call "The American Dream". Freedom to move when the economy tells you its time to move. I believe that is what NAFTA should have improved, our local transnational immigration laws. Our immediate neighbors Canada and Mexico should have relatively free movement for the purpose of trade (land, labor, capital) within North America, since we have entered into a Trade Agreement and tacitly recognized that common interests can be met through cooperation.  



Sequestration - In light of ICE freaking out about budget cuts, I thought we would also take a quick look at the proposed sequestration.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/questions-answers-sequester/story?id=18623605&page=2
 In this ABCnews article we can see how it will work to a certain extent. $85 Billion over 10 months this year - this is to be carried out over 10 years (1.2 Trillion) both Defense and Non-Defense.
Programs exempt from sequestration: Food stamps, Pell Grants, Children's Health Insurance, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Medicare (payments will shrink by 2% to hospitals).  

edit 3/1/2013: added (3:10 rule)

The Obama Adminstration Plan - Will Congress Act Yet?

photo: http://thephilanews.com/obama-administration-prods-congress-on-immigration-reform-38033.htm

This week USAToday released a publication that revealed some of the Immigration reform the Obama Administration is working on. In the beginning the Obama Administration commended The Gang Of 8 for progressing forward on immigration reform, but Congress has yet to act further. President Obama reminded the Gang of 8 that if there is no further progress, he will introduce his own immigration reform legislation. I believe this "leak" by a White House Official is a reminder to Congress that President Obama will act if these "Representatives" refuse to play ball across the aisle. This publication from the Obama administration is a bill that is oriented towards common-sense immigration reform, that should be accepted by Democrats and Republicans.

"The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created 'Lawful Prospective Immigrant' visa, under the draft bill being written by the White House."  USAToday

As stated previously, this plan is very oriented to trying to be passed in both houses, therefore there are aspects of true immigration reform and "security increases". I believe the most important part of this reform bill is the opportunity for currently "unauthorized" persons to apply for lawful status, only by: "people would need to pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa. If approved, they would be allowed to legally reside in the U.S. for four years, work and leave the country for short periods of time. After the four years, they could then reapply for an extension"(USAToday). This would allow many people who were once legal to stay in the United States, to stay and continue with their life. This released plan doesn't layout any future immigration policy or plan to deal with the backlog of visas. I can see another problem around the bend, if the system that renews and issues new visas is inefficient. My other concern is with the fees, where there will begin to disqualify some, and entitle others. With the median wealth of Hispanics being roughly $7000, these fees will weigh more heavily on the lower income, often times the same people trying to immigrate here.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/index.htm

This wealth gap is very dangerous as we progress in trying to decide where most of the responsibility for funding this reform will come from. 

These fees will inhibit some from becoming legal citizens, but also some of the other security measures included in this plan will do the same thing. Not only does the Obama Administration want to reform the Border Patrol to accept donations from any source, but also wants to study how border crossing fees will cover the costs of the agency. My concern with the donations is the probability of an unjust Sheriff like Joe Arpaio or Governor like Jan Brewer  taking advantage of their accumulated wealth to maintain a neoconservative view of border security. Why do I pick Sheriff Joe and Brewer? Both own stock in the private prison industry that is currently profiting greatly from increased border security. These are the same folks that want to increase apprehensions at the border, keep "unauthorized" persons around and create schemes to persuade the public that border is not secure. I would argue that both of these individuals should be removed from office due solely to their very obvious conflict of interests. 

foxnews.com

Just when I think I am done talking about Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), he returns to the limelight to disregard what the Obama Administration is working towards, to spew the same Republican jargon. 

"It fails to follow through on previously broken promises to secure our borders, (and) creates a special pathway that puts those who broke our immigration laws at an advantage over those who chose to do things the right way and come here legal" - Marco Rubio

I don't know what more he wants from the Obama Administration, as I have said before, apprehensions at the border are down, deportations are at a high, President Obama wants a ID card for these new Prospective Immigrants, more studies after reform to see how border patrol can be improved, an E-Verify program to help limit the number of "unauthorized" persons working in the country and of course... more Status Checks. I don't believe these attempts to criticize the Obama Administration is useful or beneficial for our government or progress for true immigration reform. I consider these to be political stunts that will be referenced in 2016 during the Presidential Election. The motive behind these actions must be to completely halt any progress the Obama Administration can make to meet the expectations of voters. Marco Rubio and the GOP are attempting to push the Administration to be a Lame Duck, however will these actions be detrimental during the 2014 midterm elections?

State of the Union and Marco Rubio's response to the State of the Union

The State of the Union seemed to be focused on the economy and middle class families. There was little mention of immigration reform, foreign policy and the environment. This is surprising to me because the Hispanic vote for the first time influenced the outcome of the election. However, with that being said, I can also see how this State of the Union was focused mainly domestically and on the American (White, Union) Community. I do not believe that this is laying the groundwork for immigration reform to be thrown to the back burner, however, I just do not believe that it will be fully reformed. I feel that we can anticipate only the DREAM act being passed before Congress has to change gears and prepares for election year. I definitely support the passing of the DREAM Act, however I believe true immigration reform will need do more to include more people who could become legal residents. There needs to be a correction of language, to remove the concept of "illegal/legal" immigration. Congress should attempt to pass a full reform bill that is beyond the DREAM act, that lays out a pathway to citizenship for those who are already in the country. Most unauthorized persons in this country overstayed a visa or were caught up renewing their visa. This is true for some of the record breaking number of deportations by the Obama administration in the last four years. I was not impressed by President Obama's State of the Union address, I think there are far more issues that could have been mentioned in an economic context to illustrate their importance.  However, I do find Marco Rubio's response to be interesting, only because President Obama is doing exactly what the Republicans want him to do... Nothing.

Here is Marco Rubio's Official response to the State of the Union. Here is the written Transcript - Marco Rubio's Reponse

I find Marco Rubio's response to be a very partisan, and almost just the same Republican argument. I want to bring light to a couple of his statements.

"For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance...Presidents in both parties -- from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan -- have known that our free-enterprise economy is the source of our middle-class prosperity." Washington Post

This introduction and conclusion is leading the listener into how the Obama Administration is acting different than any other Democrat or even Republican. Also, that the Administration is working against the free-enterprise economy that creates the middle class. I wouldn't find this argument to be completely out of touch, however its almost to the border. I don't believe Marco Rubio, or the Republican party has done research about the distribution of wealth during and after the Reagan years. It looks much like the distribution of wealth that we saw in the 1920's, a whole lot at the top and very little for the rest. I would like to also introduce the inequality of pay: for instance, the average American CEO pay is upwards of x343 more than employee pay.  It was only 40x that in 1980, so I want to ask: What exactly did Ronald Reagan DO?

"But America is exceptional, because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them...Like most Americans, for me, this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here...We can also help grow our -- grow our economy if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world’s best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws." Washington Post

For a Progressive, this statement is a real turn off mainly because it is making reference to Abortion policy. I cannot believe this is being repeatedly brought up by the Republican party, this should no longer be in the sight of legislators. I don't know what else to say other than - The belief that life begins at conception is only a belief that is held by Catholics and some other religions. NOT BY ALL. I believe legislators assisted by doctors and other experts, have come to the consensus as to when an abortion should be legal. That is what holds weight in the public domain, not the opinion of a Religion. Moving from Abortion, to the final portion of that excerpt, that his parents immigrated here. He takes a tough stance on enforcement of the borders even though deportations rates are at all times highs, and apprehensions at the border are low. His parents immigrated here from Cuba, which means they immediately assume priority immigrant status, because they are trying to "flee" a Communist country. I believe this "entitlement" makes him believe that all immigration is that easy, however when only 500,000 visas are granted to the Western Hemisphere, including priority immigrants, how can anyone from south of the border expect to gain entry into the United States?

Marco Rubio a GOP prospect for 2016?

As immigration reform is evolving in Washington, I am not surprised by the GOP's attempt to thrust relatively new faces in Congress into the limelight. Senator Marco Rubio is becoming an increasingly important representative for the GOP. "Wednesday, it was announced the 41-year-old Cuban-American Rubio would rebut Mr. Obama's State of the Union speech next week - in English and in Spanish. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568216/rubio-there-is-only-one-savior-and-its-not-me/ ). I thought this is an important step forward, because it will raise questions about how we will begin to recognize the second most spoken language in the U.S. I am curious how it will continue to develop over the long term with the changing demographics of the United States, but also how it will evolve over this immigration debate. I am beginning to believe that this can become a political tool for either the Democrats or Republicans during the debate to gain momentum in 2014 and further in 2016. 

Beginning to look further, Marco Rubio could be a Candidate for the Republicans in 2016, especially as he begins to spend his political capital on immigration reform. Although, the election in 2016 is dependent on how these next four years change. If Immigration Reform is dealt with in Washington quicker than anticipated, it will provide more time for other issues. This requires me to look into Senator Rubio's actions in Washington. I find that he is influenced by what should be his private belief: religion.  I believe that religion is supposed to be viewed as completely separate and absent from the legislative process in the United States. I think this barrier will be a difficult hurdle to jump over for more moderate voters in the United States as he is campaigning in 2015. I think this is mainly applicable when viewing Abortion and Gay Marriage policy. Also, if Senator Rubio works against the Afghanistan timeline he can lose potential voters that would otherwise vote the party line. I would argue that the secrets of war and war itself is becoming very unpopular in the United States, and this will be continued to be questioned when approaching the end of the timeline. Senator Rubio has a few hurdles to jump over for more moderate voters to begin to pay attention to a Rubio 16' bid.

Immigration policy is not the only policy matter in the news currently, gun policy is being again questioned in the United States. Senator Rubio will indefinitely be a public figure for the GOP when it comes to gun policy in the coming months.

Bipartisan Reemergence? - Immigration Reform

The "Gang of 8" Senators from both sides of the aisle presented ideals and values that should be held while trying to develop a new Immigration Policy. The first provision presented was tightening and ensuring the security of our border. I find this problematic because some actors, both Democrats and Republicans, are opponents to any type of Immigration Reform. This provision must be "completed" and approved through unknown standards and unknown actors for other aspects of reform to occur. Depending on the committee, governor, or senator, this stamp of approval may never be accomplished. Even with more deportations in the Obama Administration than 8 years of the Bush Administration, how can we still be concerned about security? (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/18/news/la-pn-deportation-ice-20111018). Our border is secure, our net migration is nearly zero, and I argue that we need serious Immigration reform if we want to remain a hegemonic power. We need to concern ourselves less with border security and more with trying to get legal immigration streamlined and simple. Making legal immigration to the United States easy, affordable and flexible especially for our close neighbors has the possibility to jump start economic growth. This economic growth will be stopped if "security of the border" inhibits our ability to move forward. History has proven time after time that walls do not stop entry, regardless how tall they are. Border security is always an illusion, there is no such thing as a truly secure border.