Bernie's Backup: How He Can Still Shape the Democratic Party

        After losing his home state of New York to rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders seemed to shift his plan in regard to winning the Democratic nomination for president. This transition was further put into play after Sanders' losses this Tuesday in states including Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. To add, Sanders, this week, decided to lay off hundreds of staffers, explaining, "We have a very large staff, which was designated to deal with fifty states in this country; forty of the states are now behind us." 

        Although it may seem as if Sanders is beginning to admit defeat, there is no reason for him to end his campaign before the convention this July. While he has suffered substantial losses to Clinton, the most recent of which has pushed her delegate count even closer to the 2,383 necessary in order to secure the Democratic nomination, he still has valid motives to stay in the race until the convention. Once the convention arrives, Clinton should not merely be handed the nomination, only to decide upon her own platform for the election. Rather, Sanders, as well as his progressive ideals, should be able to play a role in this process. I do think that Sanders, once Clinton secures the nomination, will back her; however, I do not see him doing so without having his own hand in the forming of the party platform for this election. This platform, which will be created during the convention, is a chance for Sanders to leave a lasting impact on the future of the party and thus, on Hillary Clinton. Sanders may have held a disadvantage running in a party whose electoral system favors "establishment candidates" over outsiders, yet this convention is an opportunity for him to impart his beliefs on the process which has, inevitably, left him in the dust.

        For some time, it seemed as though Sanders had a chance at winning the nomination, his campaign having been victorious in a number of Western states. At that time, Clinton's support appeared to be stagnant. Her significant victory in New York, though, reinvigorated her campaign, as well as her prospects for the nomination. While Sanders' campaign has maintained the majority of its nationwide support in recent weeks, many of his supporters have begun to possess doubts as to whether he will be able to acquire the hundreds of delegates he needs to win the nomination. Sanders' followers, although still buying into his "political revolution," have started to admit that his prospects for the nomination are dwindling. Sanders' losses in four out of the five states which held primaries this Tuesday did not help his campaign. Clinton has garnered substantial support in more densely populated states, such as Maryland and Delaware, and urban areas with large populations of minority voters. Sanders, while typically gaining votes in rural and less affluent areas, continues to have trouble in urban areas, as well as more wealthy regions of the country. It is evident from this primary cycle that the Democratic electoral process favors more moderate candidates, as well as those who gain support from within the party (thanks to superdelegates). The party's platform, too, has remained fairly similar in recent years. Sanders, though, has the ability to change this. 

        At this point in the race, his chances for receiving the nomination are slim, yet, despite this, he will still have a chance to put forth his beliefs and shape the party's platform for 2016, granted that he does not choose to run as an independent. Until now, Sanders has forced Clinton, as well as others in the party, to face issues that, otherwise, probably would not have been discussed. This is a truly positive thing for the Democratic Party–one historically known as a "big tent party." Sanders has clearly gained immense popularity among young voters, and his progressive messages that these millennials love have begun to rub off on Clinton's more moderate agenda. Many claim that Sanders' left-wing approach to the political system has, in fact, forced Clinton to change her stances substantially in order to appeal an the ever-changing voter demographic–one which has become more and more liberal. For example, Clinton has taken stances favoring increased regulation of Wall Street, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and a new look at campaign finance reform, all of which were initially brought to the debate stage by none other than Bernie Sanders. He has, likewise, challenged the typical Democratic way of thinking, which, in your average election, would view Hillary Clinton as the clear choice for the nominee. All of these things have allowed for a diversifying of the Democratic Party and its ideology.

        No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, it is essential that the party, as well as its voters, unite behind that person because the alternative will be someone far worse. This means that supporters of Bernie Sanders should vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee, as well as the opposite, should Sanders miraculously pull through and win the nomination. There have been some doubts about whether or not Sanders supporters would be willing to back the more moderate Clinton in the general election, yet in order for a Democrat to win the White House he or she will need the entire party's support. In addition, there have been speculations regarding possibility of Sanders running as an independent in the race; this, though, would be completely irrational on Sanders' part and would likely give the election to the Republican Party due to the the split that would occur between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders, while not necessarily right for president, has had a profound impact on the Democratic Party and has opened it up to a plurality of new, more progressive ideas. Some, despite his probable loss to Hillary Clinton, argue that his ideology is more in tune with the party's progressive roots. It is true that Clinton and Sanders do not agree on all issues, but it is also clear they should not solely focus on defeating one another; this is due to the fact that their true enemies are, in truth, members of the increasingly conservative Republican Party, which has come to represent a part of America so far to the right that it has alienated much of the public, in particular moderate Republicans. Lastly, Clinton and Sanders have exhibited that, even in this chaotic political world, there is still room for civil, intelligent debate (at least on one side of the aisle).

The EU-Turkey Deal: One Step Toward Resolving of the Migrant Crisis

        Recently, the European Union passed a controversial deal in early April mandating that Greece begin to deport migrants who have not applied for asylum. This process of deportation began last week, when three boats carrying 202 people in total departed the Greek Islands of Lesbos and Chios for the Turkish coast. The migrants on these three boats, the majority of whom were originally from Pakistan, had never applied for asylum and were, thus, being forced to leave the country. This deal included an agreement that Turkey will resettle one pre-vetted refugee into the EU for every refugee it accepts from Greece. In addition, the EU has agreed to give both Turkey and Greece millions of Euros in funding for their help in resolving the migrant crisis and relocating refugees. 

        In 2015, more than one million refugees migrated to Europe as a result of the ongoing refugee crisis, which has displaced an immense number of people from the Middle East and other regions. These refugees, most of whom travel to Europe by either sea or land, are fleeing their home countries due to an increasing presence of terror and violence. While the majority of these refugees are traveling from Syria, a great number are also emigrating from nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Eritrea, Albania, and Pakistan. 

  For some time, the European Union, as well as the citizens of European nations, have struggled to deal with this continuous stream of migrants looking for asylum. While a number of countries, such as Germany and France, have been highly accepting of refugees, others, like Hungary, have opted to turn migrants away and even prosecute those entering the country illegally. Since the beginning of the refugee crisis, politicians and world leaders both at home and abroad, have attempted to resolve the issue, yet it seems as if the stream of refugees will never cease.

       

        This recent plan represents a course of action being taken by the EU in order to curb the mass migration of refugees to Europe that has taken place over the past few years. It has proven to be difficult for European nations to regulate this mass migration of refugees, yet they have, in recent months, begun an effort to ease the stream of migrants. In order to accomplish this, the EU has begun to strengthen border security between certain European nations and implement the deportation of refugees without applications for asylum. This action is, in part, an attempt to resolve this crisis, but it is also a decision which is encouraging migrants to travel to the EU through legal means, such as the asylum process. 
        These new actions passed by the EU have proven to be successful recently. In the first few months of 2016, the number of migrants crossing between Turkey and Bulgaria decreased by twenty percent from that of last year. Many leaders and migration analysts, though, have expressed doubts regarding this new plan, believing that it may even increase migration across European borders. This, as well as a number of other factors, have contributed to the controversial nature of this deal. 
        Two aspects of its controversiality lay in the methods Greece is using in order to deport refugees and the ways in which Turkey is deciding to accept them. The refugees leaving Greece, most of whom live in filthy conditions, have traveled great distances in order to reach the safety of the EU; these people are then sent back across the Aegean Sea to the place they risked their lives to get away from. In a broader sense, some claim that this deal violates principles of International Law which dictate the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers; this argument asserts that these refugees who are living in Greece have the right of protection from being pushed back across a border (or a sea). Lastly, some claim that this deal will force migrants wishing to travel to Europe to take even more dangerous routes in order to get there. In total, the recent EU-Turkey deal may not be a perfect solution, yet it is, nonetheless, one step toward a resolution of one of the largest mass migrations the world has ever witnessed.