The Spirit of the Times

We, as a nation, are at a political crossroads. Since the unexpected outcome of the most recent presidential election, much of the American populace has felt rather disheartened by the state of the union. Many politicians seem increasingly willing to put party loyalty before the needs of the public, compromise is a term no longer in the vocabularies of most members of Congress, and our President continues to create divisive and one-sided policies without any consideration for the minority party. Yet to many, this is simply politics. Today, the sentiments associated with the world of politics are, for the most part, negative. Last year, anti-establishment candidates channeled these sentiments; one, in particular, was extremely successful. That man now resides in the White House, and, thus far, he has shown no indication of any plans to follow through on his campaign promise to “drain the swamp.”

During the last election, Democrats and Republicans alike felt that there need to be some serious changes to the way things are done in Washington. To many Republicans, Trump’s message of “making America great again” represented a new hope that would be able to, once and for all, vanquish the political elites that have come to control the country. To some Democrats, too, Trump’s use of anti-establishment rhetoric was appealing. Just imagine a political system in which the Washington insider was not all-powerful, and policy decisions were made based on the best interests of the many, not the few. This is what many envisioned when Trump spoke of “draining the swamp.” However, four months into Trump’s presidency, the swamp remains deeper than ever. Upon his taking office, Trump’s cabinet was immediately filled with corporate elites and Washington insiders; likewise, his business conflicts were only briefly addressed before being shoved under the rug.

Nonetheless, the growing resistance toward the Trump Administration thus far, both from Democrats and Republicans, indicates that there is still a glimmer of hope that we, as a nation, will return the political system to one of integrity. That being said, the polarization in Washington and unwillingness to compromise will not simply disappear. To bring an end to these negative tendencies, it is within the duties of the American public to voice their concerns. This is possible thanks to the fact that we, the people, are responsible for electing our representatives and senators in Washington. If we collectively sit back and allow the swamp to deepen, turning a blind eye to government corruption and unethical behavior, then no change will be achieved. However, if the public remains active in politics and attentive to the actions of those in Washington, it can restore virtue to the political system.

In order to create a political system that better serves the entire nation, we must begin with compromise. This nation was built on compromise and its government, in truth, cannot function without it. In the past decade, we have witnessed the death of compromise. Many members of Congress refuse to even consider working with those of the opposing party to pass legislation, partially because, in many cases, they are not required to. In that respect, when majority rules, compromise dies. Recently, Democrats banded together to block the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Although these attempts ultimately failed, after Republicans moved to lower the number of votes needed to appoint justices to a simple majority, invoking the nuclear option, the point remains. Nowadays, when one party is opposed by the other, its first instinct is to alter the rules, which were put in place to encourage compromise, instead of doing just that.

Moreover, this refusal of many politicians to compromise not only impacts the integrity and effectiveness of the government, but it also weakens the entire nation. When politicians are allowed to close themselves off from opposing opinions and pass only legislation that favors their party, it is increasingly viewed as acceptable by the public do to the same. Today, the presence of public debate on many issues has decreased dramatically, which is, in part, due to the spread of gerrymandering, which allows politicians to ignore large portions of their constituents with no political consequences. Likewise, when people live in areas where the majority of others share similar political ideologies, they become less inclined to acknowledge other sides of the argument, creating echo chambers within their own circles.

Herein lies the problem. When the American public, as well as those who are supposed to be representing them, isolate themselves in their political beliefs and refuse to engage in true debate, the aims of the political system cannot be achieved. As such, the responsibility to engage not only one another, but those in Washington, is placed upon us – the people. When the American people can put their political leanings behind them and understand what is best for the nation, then the swamp will, once and for all, be drained. Whether the candidate is a Democrat or Republican does not matter; what matters is that they are willing to place the best interests of their constituents, and the entire nation, before all else. When this change occurs, it will no longer matter whether we are Democrats or Republicans; it will only matter that we are Americans.

The political system is not inherently unjust – the opposite, in fact. What makes it unjust is that many of those within it seek to abuse it for personal, political, or financial gain. To restate, this nation is at a great political crossroads. If we choose one path, we will continue on the path of division and corruption, which only serves the few and leaves the many in constant suffering. However, if we choose the other path, we will elect politicians who put country before party, we will craft a political system that represents all Americans, and we will restore all that was once honorable about politics. If we choose this path, together, we shall prevail.

Trump and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

For nearly a century, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has caused immense ethnic and religious division in the Middle East. This conflict reached a tipping point shortly after World War II when tensions between the Arab and Jewish populations of Israel prompted the United Nations to pass a proposal in 1947 that split the British territory of Israel into three parts: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and the city of Jerusalem, which was designated as an international zone open to both groups. Since then, Israel has seized much of the land allotted to Palestinians. Though numerous U.S. residents have spoken of solving this great conflict, none have successfully done so. Despite this, Donald Trump believes that he has the negotiating prowess to bring an end to the century-old dispute between Israel and Palestine.

For the eight years before Trump took office, President Obama failed to accomplish much in regard to Israel. This was, in part, due to clear disagreement between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the matter of a two-state solution, meaning the creation of two independent states – Israel and Palestine. Obama clearly desired a two-state solution, as have the past several U.S. presidents, but Netanyahu repeatedly acted in ways that seemed to hinder this goal. On multiple occasions, Obama warned Netanyahu against the construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, viewing them as an impediment to negotiations. Regardless, Israel has continued to extend its reach into the West Bank.

The tension between Obama and Netanyahu came to a head with the passing of a resolution condemning Israeli settlements by the U.N. Security Council on December 23, 2016, just weeks before President Trump took office.

This controversial resolution demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" and declared that the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." Netanyahu, as well as many pro-Israel government officials, were deeply upset by the Obama Administration’s decision not to use the United States' veto power to block the resolution, a move that would have benefitted Israel, a long-time U.S. ally. Despite the strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel, Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed that Israel's infringement on Palestinian territory will not be tolerated. Now, however, with Donald Trump in the White House there is some doubt about whether that position will be upheld.

Once President Trump took office, it seemed as if the once-significant U.N. resolution was nothing more than a piece of paper. Throughout his campaign, Trump took a strong pro-Israel stance, often defending Netanyahu when he viewed him as being treated unfairly by President Obama. Following the U.N. resolution, Trump tweeted, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th." And things certainly are.

During a joint press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu during his official visit to the White House, Trump stated, “I am looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like… I can live with either one.” This shift from his former dedication to establishing a two-state solution marks a departure from a stance that the United States has explicitly supported for the past 15 years. This statement resulted in outrage from many U.S. officials, as well as a great number of international supporters of the two-state solution. After the press conference, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres joined in on the backlash by tweeting that "there is no Plan B to a 2-state solution."

Though this flip-flop on the two-state solution may hold great ramifications on future peace negotiations, it may also have little impact on the issue, depending on whether it holds firm as the Trump Administration’s stance. Because of Trump's limited knowledge about U.S. foreign policy on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his positions often change on a whim. These shifts, whether slight or substantial, threaten much of the progress the United States has achieved internationally over the past several decades. While, to Trump, changing the U.S.’s stance on an issue like the two-state solution or the “One China” policy, may not carry much weight, to others – mostly those living in foreign nations – these departures from standard foreign policy stances may have major consequences. These risks are only amplified by the fact that there are relatively few checks placed on the executive branch in its power to negotiate with foreign nations.

On the matter of Israel, like many others, Trump’s change of heart seems as if it did not arise from much deliberation. Rather, it was amended because the man standing next to him, Benjamin Netanyahu, was exhibiting a clear distaste toward Trump’s references to the two-state solution.

Whether or not Trump is still willing to negotiate a two-state solution is something that nobody but Trump and his advisors can know for sure. Yet, if there is still hope for negotiations, it is essential that they not be done through impulsive or brash intervention. Instead of analyzing the political and cultural history of this conflict and deciding what solution would best serve the people of Israel and Palestine, Trump has chosen to act upon radical campaign promises, along with whatever he believes in a particular moment.

Though it is clear that relations between Israel and Palestine are not exactly good, that does not give Trump the right to insert his power into a matter that he undoubtedly does not understand. While Trump’s capricious behavior may have some consequences on domestic policy, its effects will be infinitely more apparent in the world of foreign policy. As such, it is the duty of the American people to speak up on matters of foreign policy, where the decisions of an administration are often shaped by the zeitgeist.

The Electoral College: Does Every Vote Count?

Centuries ago, the Founding Fathers established the U.S. Constitution as the basis of this nation’s government. Today, with President-elect Donald Trump awaiting inauguration, many are questioning their inclusion of one aspect, in particular: the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is the process through which the President of the United States is elected. It is composed of 538 electors who, once the popular election takes place, meet in each state to formally appoint the president based on the number of states won by each candidate. It was originally designed as both a means of giving small states equal say in the electoral process and a check that prevents populists and unfit candidates from seizing the presidency. However, it is evident from this election that the Electoral College has not fulfilled its purpose. As such, the United States should abolish the Electoral College and replace it with an electoral system that equally represents all Americans and can truly shape the presidency, instead of merely being a formality.

First and foremost, this nation has a duty to represent all voters equally, and the Electoral College simply does not. While it was originally meant to provide small states with more influence in the electoral process, it now awards them a disproportionate number of electoral votes. Thus, votes cast in small states carry far more weight than those filed in large states. For example, according to FairVote.org, “Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas because Wyoming has three electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens and Texas has thirty-two electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million.” This imbalance of electoral power grants voters in Wyoming far more sway in the political process than voters in Texas. If the Electoral College were abolished and replaced by a popular election, votes in all fifty states would count equally, as they should be.

Additionally, because electors from each state are bound to vote for the candidate who won that state’s popular election, voters in traditionally blue or red states sometimes feel as if their votes are not important. The Electoral College discourages voter turnout and makes many votes in states with clear majority parties insignificant to the outcome of the election. For instance, a Democrat in Kentucky may feel like there is no point in voting because Republican presidential candidates are practically guaranteed to win in a state like Kentucky. Similarly, a Republican in Maryland may not vote in any local elections simply because she knows her single vote will not influence the presidential election in her state, one that typically votes Democratic. Furthermore, voters in swing states have far more electoral influence because their votes could, in fact, sway the statewide popular vote and, thus, the electoral vote. If the Electoral College were abolished, voter turnout would likely increase (from the current 55-60%) because the votes of all Americans would directly impact who becomes president.

Likewise, the Founding Fathers constructed the Electoral College so that electors could choose who they thought would be the best president, in case an unfit candidate were to ever win the popular vote. However, because 29 out of 50 states (and the District of Columbia) currently bind their electors to whichever candidate wins the statewide popular vote, the Electoral College has lost most of its former ability to override the popular will, even if it's not truly what the majority of voters want. Rather, it has become nothing more than a formality in the electoral process.

Throughout American history, there have been a number of unqualified presidential candidates, yet none have been as successful as the one set to inherit the White House this month. This election is a perfect illustration of why the Electoral College can, in no way, prevent an anti-government populist like Donald Trump from assuming the most powerful office in the world. Throughout his campaign, Trump was able to appeal to the masses, take advantage of the weak electoral system, and in the end, win the presidency, despite his opponent securing nearly three million more votes. If the Electoral College did not exist, our next president would be qualified and experienced, as opposed to someone who seems to be spending more time on Twitter than attending intelligence briefings. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 68, the Electoral College was established to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications," yet it has clearly failed us in this respect.

If we were, in fact, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we would abolish the Electoral College and restore the concept of “one person, one vote.” Regardless of the Founders’ intentions, it is clear that the original purpose of the Electoral College has been muddled to a point of inefficacy. I am not denying Donald Trump's right to take office; I am simply noting that the man who, for the past year, claimed that the entire system was rigged against him came to win the presidency through the most rigged aspect of the election.

The Politics of Space Exploration

     

        Throughout the course of history, there has always been an uncharted frontier for Americans to explore–whether the New World, the West, or the depths of the oceans. Now, thanks to the effects of industrialization, the frontiers of this world are beginning to dwindle. There will, though, always be one unexplored frontier–one which cannot possibly be explored in entirety, never ceases to drive our curiosity as a nation, and inspires people around the world to dream big–space.
        Ever since the Space Race of the 1960s, the United States has been at the forefront of space exploration. While other nations have accomplished similar feats as those of the United States, no nation's space agency is as well-known as NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Since Armstrong first walked on the moon, NASA has inspired young minds to dream big, and even become astronauts. This ability to accomplish such great technological feats has been, for decades, a result of major bipartisan support for space exploration. For years, it has been an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can, for the most part, unite and agree.
        Space exploration drives us forward as a nation, unites us under the cause of curiosity, and pushes us "where no man has gone before." Not only is there an ever-present desire in the American public for space exploration, but politicians, as well, seek to continue to explore our own solar system and beyond. Many view it as essential to the national agenda, as well as to our nation's scientific advancements. No matter how imperative the future of space exploration to this great nation, though, it is often undermined by a Congress unable to either agree or compromise.

        Recently, NASA requested its 2017 budget from various branches of the U.S. Government–the House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama. The budget was received rather differently from each respondent. Both the Senate and the President did not give NASA significant advances in funding; both of their budget proposals placed far more emphasis on space travel than on earth science, as well. The House committee that decides upon NASA's annual budget, however, was rather generous in its allotting of funds. Seeing that NASA needs a certain amount of funding for its ambitious space travel programs, the House provided NASA with a hefty $19.5 billion budget for 2017. This was $200 million more than the Senate's proposal and $500 million more than that of the President.
        This budget, which will have to pass through both the House and the Senate in order to become effective, could potentially grant NASA the ability to expand its programs and bring seemingly distant exploratory missions to the near future. However, the House and the Senate have not agreed upon a budget for the NASA since 2010–the Senate often being reluctant to endorse space spending in all fields. NASA's budget has historically been lowballed, which has resulted in NASA being limited in its capabilities. Should Congress be able to agree upon a substantial budget for NASA this year, the United States will be able to maintain its position of global leadership atop the ladder of space exploration. As stated in a Huffington Post article by Eileen Collins and Nick Lampson, "As a nation, we must put politics aside to ensure that expanding the space frontier occupies a prominent place on our national agenda."

        In the past several years, some have criticized the government's waning support for space exploration, as it has given rise to the growth of privatized space corporations, such as Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. SpaceX, in particular, has publicized its intentions to launch missions to Mars in the next several years and has given a new hope to those wishing to see more space missions in the near future. The sort of fascinating research tests and propositions made by SpaceX have demonstrated that space exploration is not a lost cause. SpaceX, as well, has proven that, if NASA were to receive more substantial funding from the government, it would be able to accomplish more notable feats–as opposed to those it has focused on recently, the majority of which do not excite the public as much as the thought of a mission to Mars. 
        In addition, the House has demonstrated a great deal of interest in the rise of America's commercial space sector. In May, it passed the SPACE Act, which is helping to promote growth for companies like SpaceX, which possess similar objectives to NASA, yet far more capabilities. In recent news, SpaceX failed to successfully land its Falcon 9 rocket on a cargo ship, only to successfully land it on the ship during a second test. For companies like SpaceX, which have far more budgetary flexibility than NASA, it is okay to fail once in a while. Nonetheless, NASA has shown interest in cooperating with SpaceX's proposed missions to Mars in the future, giving hope to a potential merge of public and private spaceflight organizations.
        Moreover, although space exploration seems to be an issue with a great deal of bipartisan support, there is, nonetheless, a certain level of partisan division regarding the placement of funds for NASA. While Republican politicians tend to favor more funding for deep-space-exploration missions, such as NASA's planned Orion Exploration Mission, Democrats typically support more tangible space projects–such as those regarding NASA's earth science division, which often deals with research on climate change and has, for years, received inadequate government funding thanks to an incompetent Congress.
        As Lamar Smith, Republican Representative and chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told The Atlantic in an interview, "The future is bright for discovery, but failure to invest in innovation and space exploration could leave America in the dark." It is clear that members of both major parties see the need to invest in the future of space exploration, yet it is often the result of partisan quarreling that NASA's budget remains too low for it to strive for anything truly revolutionary. If Congress can simply agree upon a substantial budget for NASA, it will allow the United States to remain a global leader in space exploration and to continue to push further into the infinite universe. 

HB2: The Bill that Reinvigorated the Transgender Debate

       

        The transgender debate, which has been under the radar for some time, was recently reenergized due to the heated controversy surrounding House Bill 2, North Carolina's so-called "bathroom bill." This bill, which was passed in the NC state legislature on March 23, requires all people, when in public facilities or universities, to use the bathroom which corresponds to their birth sex. 

        This new requirement, though, is only one point in an extensive bill limiting the rights of transgender people. Katie Zezima, in a May 14th Washington Post article, wrote, "the law not only reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended similar rights to gay and transgender people. HB2 also prevents cities and counties from establishing a minimum-wage standard for private employers and limits how people can sue for discrimination. And it contains a provision allowing the remaining parts of the law to stand if others are struck down in Court." 

        To sum, as the true motives of HB2 are beginning to surface, the North Carolina government has sought to deprive transgender people of certain civil rights which are guaranteed by law under the guise of a "bathroom bill."

        Since the passing of HB2 in late March, nationwide criticism of the bill has begun to surface; this discontent has, in particular, come from the transgender community and a number of civil rights groups. Many of these activist groups, one of the most prominent being the NAACP, claim that the bill discriminates against transgender people and violates federal civil rights laws. 

        "This is not about bathrooms. It's about whether or not you can codify hate and discrimination into the laws of the state," Rev. William Barber II, the leader of the North Carolina NAACP, told the Washington Post. For some time, groups like the NAACP have sought to reveal the unjust nature of the bill. In fact, there has been a growing national dislike of HB2, which is, in part, thanks to the growing opposition of the bill by civil rights groups. Recent NC polls show that the majority of people in the state oppose the bill; one poll demonstrated that around 45 percent of North Carolinians opposed the bill, while only 36 percent support it. Similar national polls have been conducted, the majority of which have conveyed similar sentiments toward the controversial bill.

        Additionally, there is clear evidence that the passing of HB2 may have simply been a political move made by NC Republicans, such as North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. Some elected officials in NC have struggled to maintain support from the state's substantial evangelical population, the majority of whom reside in rural areas. This bill provides a favorable image for these Republican politicians, many of whom are expected to experience contentious races in November. The law, while alienating many of the state's more liberal voters, appeals greatly to the state's conservative, evangelical base. Likewise, the claims of state officials as to the necessity of the bill strongly appeals to conservatives who, supposedly claim to, hold high family values. Many believe that HB2 will help to prevent instances of sexual assault in bathrooms, thus implying that sexual assaults are likely to be perpetrated by transgender people. In reality, there has been virtually no proof that transgender people are likely to commit sexual assault.

        In the past several weeks, a battle has ensued over HB2 between the Justice Department and the state of North Carolina. First, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claimed that the bill, which limited the rights of transgender people, violated basic civil rights and could be seen as a form of state-sponsored discrimination. In response, Gov. McCrory filed a law suit to oppose the Justice Department and support the bill's lawfulness. To add, the Justice Department has stated that it possesses the authority to cut federal funding to both the NC Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina, citing a 1972 law banning sex discrimination in federally-funded schools. Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch, during her statement about the suit, noted, "It's about the founding ideals that have led this country haltingly but inexorably in the direction of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all Americans."

        In truth, the passing of HB2 has renewed a continuous debate over the extent of rights which many believe should be granted to all Americans, including transgender people. Much disagreement has arisen over this topic, a great deal of it existing across party lines. Yet, many members of both parties agree that all people, no matter their sexual identification, deserve certain rights. HB2 is a means by which one state government is depriving a large body of people a plurality of well-deserved civil rights. Furthermore, its passing will likely spark a renewed debate over the rights and privileges of transgender people in today's society, which seems to be becoming ever more accepting of LGBT people.

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.