President Trump

Commentary & Community

Trump Rule Targets Immigrants Receiving Public Assistance

If you are an immigrant who is a recipient of a government assistance program, you may find it more difficult to become a permanent resident or a citizen under a new rule announced by the Trump Administration.

 

Current law allows the federal government to deny permanent residency or citizenship to immigrants who are public charges or likely to become public charges. Under the Trump Administration, proposal, the term “public charge” is broadened to include anyone who uses benefit programs like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing assistance. Under current regulations, a public charge is defined as someone who is primarily dependent on the government programs. Immigrants who are in the U.S. for five years can apply for most government assistance programs under federal law.

 

Critics see this is a way to rewrite immigration law to prioritize high-skilled immigrants over migrants from areas like Central America. They say that this will prevent immigrants who need government assistance from applying for it. Supporters counter that immigration law should encourage immigrants who will contribute to the U.S., not be dependent on taxpayers for support. They say that the law already prohibits permanent residency for immigrants who would drain government resources, and that this rule merely clarifies that standard.

 

The new regulation will go into effect in two months barring any court challenges. Immigrant rights groups are vowing to file lawsuits to stop it, however.

 

Should immigrants to receive government assistance be denied permanent residency in the U.S.?

Trump Considering Backing Background Checks for Private Gun Sales

In the wake of three recent mass shootings, there are increased calls for new gun control measures. President Trump has signaled his support for universal background checks, something that has put him at odds with some in the Republican Party.

 

Currently, federal law requires that any gun sales from federally-licensed firearms dealers must first go through a background check. Sales between private individuals do not have to complete a background check under federal law, although some states require this. President Trump is considering supporting legislation that would expand this mandate nationally.

 

Supporters of such a requirement say that it is necessary to close a "loophole" that allows people who are prohibited from owning firearms from buying them. They say that this will help stop dangerous people from owning guns. Opponents point out that the vast majority of gun sales already go through background checks, and this would only burden individuals who are looking to sell a gun from their private collection or pass along guns to family members.

 

While President Trump has signaled he supports legislation to require universal background checks, many in the Republican Party do not. The National Rifle Association has also come out against such a mandate. Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) have introduced a bill that would put this requirement into law, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to schedule it for a Senate vote. It remains to be seen if President Trump will try to persuade Republicans to back this bill and expand the federal background check requirement.

 

Do you think that all gun sales, including private sales between individuals, should go through the federal background check system?

 

Recent Shootings Prompt Calls for Gun Control

After three recent mass shootings, Democrats are renewing their calls for more federal gun control laws. However, congressional Republicans and President Trump are pushing back, saying instead that the focus should be on mental illness.

 

Dozens were killed and wounded by shooters in California, Texas, and Ohio in recent days. This has led some to say that such shootings could be prevented with stronger laws restricting the sales of guns and what types of guns can be possessed. Among the measures being proposed is a ban on so-called “assault rifles” and expanded background checks. Some state lawmakers are also supporting “red flag” laws that allow law enforcement to seize guns from individuals suspected of posing an immediate threat.

 

The House of Representatives has passed legislation that would mandate that private sales and transfers of guns go through background checks. Currently anyone who has a federal firearms license must conduct a background check, but private sales between individuals do not require such checks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not scheduled this bill for a vote in the Senate, and is unlikely to do so.

 

Supporters of these gun control measures say that they are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who commit mass shootings. Opponents argue that these measures will only hurt law-abiding gun owners. They point out that the vast majority of gun owners do not commit crimes, so the focus should be on the small number of individuals who misuse them. President Trump tweeted his support for looking at mental health issues after these shootings.

 

Do you think that there should be stronger gun control laws? Or is the problem related to mental health, not guns?

Biden Opposes Decriminalizing Unauthorized Border Crossings

Immigration has already been a big issue during the 2020 presidential race, and it will continue to feature prominently in the campaign. Former Vice President Joe Biden is seeking to distinguish himself from the field of Democratic candidates by coming out in opposition to decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing.

 

Biden made his stance on this issue known during last night’s CNN Democratic debate. He said that he opposed changing the law that makes it a misdemeanor to cross the U.S. border without authorization. He was responding to the stance of some Democratic candidates who had said that having such a law on the books has led to family separation at the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

Other Democrats on the stage attacked Biden’s immigration stance, saying that he shares blame for the Obama Administration’s large number of deportations. Biden said that he does not support returning to the deportation policy of those years.

 

With President Trump’s actions to restrict immigration and impose more border control, the Democratic candidates running for president are seeking to outline how they would differ from the president on these issues. Biden is staking out a less liberal plan than some in the party, although his ideas are far more liberal than those of President Trump.

 

Do you think that it should be a crime to cross the border without authorization? Or should it be a civil citation that does not require detention?

California Mandates Release of Presidential Candidate Tax Returns

When he ran for president, Donald Trump broke with decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax returns. Under a new California law, he will be unable to appear on the 2020 primary election ballot in that state unless he does so.

 

Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill yesterday that requires anyone whose name appears on the California primary ballot to submit five years of tax returns to the state. Those returns will then be posted online. The state’s previous governor, Jerry Brown, vetoed a similar bill when he was in office.

 

New York’s law to require that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns to the state legislature is tied up in court. No other state has such a requirement. When he vetoed the previous California bill, then-Gov. Brown said that he was concerned about its constitutionality. Many observers think mandating the disclosure of presidential tax returns places an additional requirement for president, which the Constitution does not allow.

 

From Richard Nixon onward, presidential candidates have released their tax returns to the public. Supporters of this practice say that it gives voters information to see if there are any conflicts of interest. President Trump was the first candidate not to do this in recent times, citing a variety of concerns.

 

Candidates wishing to compete in California’s primary election have until November to submit their tax returns. There will likely be a legal challenge to the law, however, which will almost certainly mean that it will not be in effect for next year’s election.

 

Should states mandate that presidential candidates release their tax returns? Or does this requirement violate the Constitution?

Senate Continuing to Focus on Confirming Trump Nominees

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret that he wants to see the Senate confirm as many of President Trump’s nominees as possible. This has become a top priority for the upper chamber, with far more votes occurring on nominations than on legislation.

 

Many of the nominees being confirmed are federal judges. When Democrats controlled the Senate, they had eliminated the filibuster for some judges; under Sen. McConnell’s leadership, the Senate ended the filibuster entirely for judges and other nominees. The majority leader also reduced the time necessary to consider nominees.

 

The result has been numerous nominee votes during 2019. In recent weeks, these have included some confirmation votes that were broadly bipartisan. The Senate confirmed General Mark Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a vote of 89-1 and Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense by a vote of 90-8.

 

Some confirmation votes split the Democratic caucus, with a sizable number of Democrats supporting President Trump’s nominee. These include Donald Tapia’s nomination to be ambassador to Jamaica (confirmed 66-26), Thomas Barber’s nomination to be a federal judge for the Middle District of Florida (confirmed 77-19), and Rodney Smith’s nomination to be a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida (confirmed 78-18).

 

Most confirmation votes fall largely on partisan lines, however. The Senate confirmed Brian Buescher as federal judge for the District of Nebraska by a vote of 51-40, Wendy Williams Berger as federal judge for the Southern District of Florida by a vote of 54-37, Stephen Dickson to be Federal Aviation Administration Administrator by a vote of 52-40, and Daniel Bess to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 53-45.

 

These votes fall in line with the pattern of other confirmations during the Trump Administration. A few nominations receive widespread bipartisan support, but most only attract a handful of Democratic votes. Supporters of the president say that this is an example of Democratic obstructionism, in which they will do anything to stymie the president. Critics of the president counter that he is nominating radical or unqualified people for these posts, and senators are only doing their duty in opposing them.

 

Do you think that President Trump’s nominees should receive wider bipartisan support? Or are Democratic senators right in opposing many of them?

Trump, Pelosi Agree on Spending Increase, Debt Limit

While President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have their differences, they have found common ground in at least two areas: an increase in federal spending and a suspension of the debt limit.

 

The president and the Speaker of the House, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, announced that they have come to a budget agreement that includes $320 billion in new spending and a two-year suspension of the debt limit.

 

Some see this as a victory for responsible government, as it averts a government shutdown this year and the possibility that the federal government would default on its debt payments. During both the Trump and Obama Administrations, there have been numerous government shutdowns due to differences over federal spending or threats of a shutdown. There have also been repeated attempts to stop the debt limit from increasing, which would end the capacity of the federal government to borrow money to cover the budget deficit. President Trump praised the new spending as a way to revive American military strength.

 

However, this deal has drawn strong criticism from both liberals and conservatives. Liberals do not like that this agreement precludes them from using the spending process to stop the Trump Administration’s actions at the border. They argue that Congress is giving up a prime way to counter the president’s moves. Conservatives, on the other hand, decry the increased spending and government borrowing that will come from this agreement. They note that the president ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and that this deal is the opposite of that.


When President Trump entered office, the budget deficit was $516 billion. It will likely top $1 trillion this year. Government debt was $19 billion when the president was sworn in; today, it is $22 trillion.

 

Congress must pass this budget deal. While party leaders in both the House and Senate support it, there will be strong opposition from some members.

 

Do you support the budget deal that President Trump and Nancy Pelosi negotiated? Do you agree that the federal government should spend an additional $320 billion? Is it a good idea to suspend the debt limit?

House to Consider Bill to Raise Immigration Detention Standards

The situation at the U.S.-Mexican border continues to be the center of attention for many elected officials. Both President Trump and Democrats in Congress are focusing on this issue, though with widely different ideas on how to solve the problems on the southern border. This week the House of Representatives will vote on one idea put forward by Democrats – increasing the standards of care for those detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

 

Some observers have criticized the CBP for detaining individuals under inhumane conditions. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) has introduced H.R. 3239, the “Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act.” This bill would require that CBP provide the following services to those in its custody:

  • A health screening
  • Emergency medical care
  • Access to drinking water and hygiene facilities
  • Adequate meals

 

The legislation also sets standards for the buildings housing detainees and forbids unaccompanied minors from being housed with adults. In addition, the bill would require that members of Congress have access to these facilities.

 

Following visits to CBP facilities, some members of Congress have decried the conditions there and have complained about their treatment by CBP staff. Some have even labeled such facilities as “concentration camps.” This charges have met pushbacks by Trump Administration officials, who say that detainees are being treated as well as possible under the circumstances of a rising tide of illegal immigration.


The House is expected to pass H.R. 3239 this week. However, it is unlikely to receive a vote in the Senate.

 

Do you think that Congress should pass legislation to mandate certain standards of care for immigration detention facilities?

 

 

 

 

House to Consider Moving Forward on Impeachment

Yesterday, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump. In those articles, Rep. Green accuses President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors for his comments about four members of Congress. Rep. Green’s motion is a privileged motion, which means that it requires a vote within two days. Today, the House of Representatives will vote on a procedural motion that could either begin or kill impeachment proceedings. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to make a motion to table, or indefinitely delay, consideration of these articles.

 

Impeachment is the bringing of charges against the president, vice president, or other “civil officials,” such as cabinet officers. Impeachment does not remove them from office, however. Instead, impeachment refers charges to the Senate, which then must vote to remove that person from office.

 

Impeachment and the Constitution

 

The Constitution establishes the impeachment and removal process, explaining it in a few key sections:

 

  • Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

 

  • Article I, Section 3: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

 

  • Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

 

The U.S. impeachment and removal process is similar to the process that existed in Britain during the writing of the Constitution. However, the British Parliament impeaches and removes officials in one action. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made impeachment and removal two separate processes, thus weakening the ability of the legislative branch to remove executive branch officials.

 

How Impeachment and Removal Works

 

The House Judiciary Committee begins the impeachment process. Its members consider articles of impeachment, with approval coming with a majority vote. If approved, these articles of impeachment move to the full House of Representatives for a vote. The House then debates and votes on these articles. If a majority approves them, then that person has been impeached.

 

The Senate then begins its role. With the Chief Justice of the U.S. presiding, the Senate conducts a trial. The House of Representatives appoints members to manage the case before the Senate, laying out the charges contained in the articles of impeachment. The Senate then votes, with a two-thirds vote being necessary to remove that person from office.

 

Impeachment and removal may be for a public official’s criminal act, but they are not criminal proceedings. The only penalty, as the Constitution stipulates, is removal from office. The underlying crimes can be prosecuted by civil authorities, however, which may result in criminal conviction and penalties after impeachment and removal from office.

 

The History of Impeachment

 

The House of Representatives has considered over 60 impeachment cases, but most have failed. There have only been 8 instances where individuals have been impeached and removed from office. Fifteen judges have been impeached, as have 2 presidents:

 

  • Andrew Johnson: The House passed 11 articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868. The Senate came within one vote of removing him from office.

 

  • Bill Clinton: The House passed 2 articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998. The Senate vote to remove him from office failed.

 

In 1974, the House began the impeachment process against President Richard Nixon. The House Judiciary Committee approved 3 articles of impeachment against him, but Nixon resigned prior to a full House vote.

 

Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., was the last official impeached and removed from office. His impeachment and conviction occurred in 2010.

 

The Clinton Impeachment

 

The last presidential impeachment and trial took place over 20 years ago, when the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton. If there are proceedings initiated against President Trump, it would likely follow the pattern set during these proceedings.

 

In 1998, Independent Counsel Ken Starr provided a report to Congress that contained evidence gathered in the course of his investigation into various allegations against President Clinton. The House Judiciary Committee passed four articles of impeachment. Two were for perjury, one was for obstruction of justice, and one was for abuse of power. The full House of Representatives passed two of those articles of impeachment, one for perjury and one for obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.

 

The House of Representatives appointed thirteen managers to present their case to the Senate, which began its trial on January 7, 1999. Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided. The trial lasted a month, with the Senate beginning closed-door deliberations on February 9. The Senate took a vote on February 13 on the articles of impeachment. The Senate defeated the perjury charge by a vote of 45-55 and the obstruction of justice charge by 50-50. Sixty-seven votes would have been necessary to convict the president and remove him from office.

 

While both the votes in the House and Senate were largely along party lines, there were members of Congress who broke with their party leadership on impeachment or conviction. Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania (who later became a Democrat), voted “not proved.” Many observers saw these proceedings as an example of partisanship on both sides. This is in contrast with the impeachment proceedings that had begun against President Nixon, where a bipartisan consensus was forming to impeach and remove him from office prior to his resignation.

 

What This Means for You

 

Aside from Rep. Green's motion, there is growing movement in the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. These members accuse the president of obstructing justice and other crimes, saying that it is the House’s duty to impeach under these circumstances. Speaker Pelosi has cautioned members that such a move is politically risky, pointing out that Republicans lost popularity when they impeached President Clinton in the 1990s. Her move to table Rep. Green's articles fit in with her longstanding reluctance to launch an inquiry that could lead to impeachment.

 

With Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, there is a possibility that it could pass impeachment articles. However, it is unlikely that the Senate would follow suit, given Republican control of the chamber. If the Senate would convict the president and remove him from office under this situation, then the vice president would assume office.

House Democrats Ready Resolution to Condemn Trump’s Tweets

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on Twitter is once again causing controversy. This time it may lead to a formal vote of condemnation in the House of Representatives.

 

On Sunday, President Trump tweeted that four Democratic members of Congress -- Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – should “go back” to their home countries. Rep. Omar is the only one of these four who was born outside the U.S.

 

This brought swift condemnation from many for being racist and for trying to silence his critics. In a series of continuing tweets, the president denied that he was racist. He also continued attacking these members of Congress, saying that they hate America and should apologize to him, the U.S., and Israel for their actions.

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans a vote on House Resolution 489 this week. The resolution reads, in part:

 

Whereas President Donald Trump’s racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color: Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

 

(1) believes that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger, and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations;

 

(2) is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, and those who are willing to work hard to live the American Dream, no matter their race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin; and

 

(3) strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants, and those who may look to the President like immigrants, should “go back” to other countries, by referring to immigrants and asylum seekers as “invaders,” and by saying that Members of Congress who are immigrants (or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants) do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America.

 

This resolution will have no force of law, but it would indicate that the House of Representatives disapproves of the president’s attacks its members.

 

Do you think that the House of Representatives should vote to condemn President Trump’s attacks on some members of Congress? Do you think that telling minority members of Congress to “go back” to their home countries is racist?

 

 

Trump Hosts Social Media Summit

 

President Trump is no stranger to social media. His tweets make news on an almost daily basis, and have helped shape his presidency. But the president has issues with social media companies, saying they discriminate against conservative viewpoints. Today he hosted a summit at the White House to discuss these concerns.

 

The president invited members of Congress, think tank analysts, campaign strategists, and some online personalities to attend the summit. He tweeted that he was concerned about “be the tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression practiced by certain companies.” This echoes complaints of some conservative activists that Google, Facebook, and Twitter have tried to silence them.

 

Tech companies deny they have a bias against conservative voices. However, President Trump and his allies argue that they are engaging in censorship and may need stronger federal regulation. Others push back against this suggestion, saying that it would violate the Constitution for the government to interfere with how these companies operate their platforms.

 

It is unclear if there will be any policy goals that emerge from this social media summit, but President Trump will likely continue to decry what he sees as unfair treatment from technology companies.

 

Do you think that social media companies are biased against conservatives? Should the federal government regulate how these companies treat users?

Court Won’t Let Border Wall Plans Move Forward

The Trump Administration wants to move forward with building a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but lawsuits are stopping this from happening. A federal appeals court this week declined to issue a stay that would allow the wall work to proceed.

 

President Trump has made a border wall a top priority for his administration. Congress, however, has failed to provide money to build one. After a government shutdown earlier this year over the issue, the president used his emergency power to re-allocate funds to build such a wall. Residents in the border area went to court to stop this construction.

 

These residents argued that the president is violating the Constitution and federal law by his emergency action. They say that Congress did not appropriate funds for a border wall, so the president should not be able to build a wall. Federal courts have agreed with this argument, stopping the Trump Administration from proceeding with border barriers.

 

The Justice Department asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay these lower court orders, which would allowed construction to begin. By a 2-1 decision, a panel of this court’s judges disagreed. They wrote that the president is indeed misusing his authority:

 

The Constitution assigns to Congress the power of the purse. Under the Appropriations Clause, it is Congress that is to make decisions regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars. Congress did not appropriate money to build the border barriers Defendants seek to build here. Congress presumably decided such construction at this time was not in the public interest. It is not for us to reach a different conclusion.

 

The Trump Administration argues that the wall is necessary to secure the border from drug traffickers and illegal immigrants.

 

This decision by the 9th Circuit judges does not end the matter. The Justice Department can continue its legal fight in favor of the border wall, which means the Supreme Court may ultimately decide this matter.

 

Do you think that President Trump misused his power to spend money for a border wall when Congress did not authorize such spending?

Judge Blocks Indefinite Detention of Asylum-Seekers

A federal judge dealt the Trump Administration another setback in its quest to reshape the nation’s immigration policy. Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued a nationwide injunction stopping the administration’s plan to end bail hearings for some asylum seekers. The White House blasted the judge, saying she had no authority to do this.

 

Judge Pechman’s order affected a decision by Attorney General William Barr to end bail hearings for some people who have entered the U.S. seeking asylum. This order would have left these individuals in detention indefinitely, without any chance to request a hearing for release.

 

In the judge’s decision, she wrote “that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue.”

 

She then ordered that these asylum seekers must either have a bond hearing within seven days of detention or be released.

 

In response, White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham released a statement saying, “The decision only incentivizes smugglers and traffickers, which will lead to the further overwhelming of our immigration system by illegal aliens. No single district judge has legitimate authority to impose his or her open borders views on the country.”

 

This case is the latest in a series of decisions where federal judges have blocked or overturned aspects of the Trump Administration’s changes to immigration policy.

 

Do you think that asylum seekers should be able to be held without a bail hearing? Should a federal judge be able to block implementation of a policy nationwide?

Booker Calls for Fixes to Immigration Detention Policy

Sen. Cory Booker laid out an immigration plan today that he said he would implement if elected president. The New Jersey senator’s proposal would be a big break from President Trump’s immigration actions.

 

Decrying the current situation at the border, Sen. Booker pledged to use executive action to remedy what he sees as inhumane conditions for individuals being held in detention. His proposal includes new standards for immigration detention facilities and an end to for-profit companies operating such facilities.

 

Sen. Booker also said he would reverse many of President Trump’s immigration actions. These steps would include stopping construction of the border wall with Mexico, reinstating the policy protecting “Dreamers” who came to the country illegally as children, ending the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers, and revoking the ban on people entering the U.S. from several majority-Muslim nations.

 

President Trump has imposed many of these policies through executive action, so they can be undone by the next president without congressional approval. This is what Sen. Booker said he would to accomplish if he is elected president.

 

Sen. Booker is part of a crowded field of challengers seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, all of whom have expressed some level of disagreement with how President Trump is pursuing immigration policy.

 

Do you think that there should be higher standards for immigration detention facilities? Should for-profit companies be prohibited from operating these facilities? How should the federal government treat immigration detainees?

Most Democrats Embrace Iran Deal During Debate

The large field of Democratic candidates held their first debate last night, with a variety of issues being discussed. One thing where nearly all candidates agreed was reviving the nuclear deal with Iran. Everyone on stage except Sen. Cory Booker raised his or her hand when asked if they supported the deal.

 

In 2015, President Barack Obama entered the U.S. into a multinational agreement that was aimed at keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Many on the right criticized him for this, saying that it would ultimately lead to a nuclear-armed Iran. President Trump withdrew the U.S. from this deal, saying it was “disastrous.”

 

The question about the U.S. once again joining this agreement came during a period of increased tensions with Iran. That nation shot down a U.S. drone last week. President Trump considered retaliating with a military strike, but ultimately did not do so. He imposed sanctions, instead. The president has verbally sparred with the Iranian leadership during the course of his term, at times threatening war with the nation. He recently ordered more military personnel to the Middle East.

 

Senator Cory Booker broke with his fellow Democratic candidates in supporting the Iran deal. He backed it in 2015, but now says that conditions have changed. He said he supported some kind of agreement with Iran, but it would differ from the one agreed to by President Obama.

 

Do you think the U.S. should re-enter the multinational nuclear deal with Iran? Should the U.S. take military action against Iran?

House Votes to End Federal Spending at Trump Properties

Some observers have long been troubled by federal agencies that contract with properties owned by President Trump for things like lodging or food. Now the House of Representatives is taking steps to prevent federal dollars from being spent at Trump property.

 

By a vote of 231-187, the House of Representatives approved an amendment that included a provision banning the State Department from spending money on services provided at properties owned by the president. House members also approved a similar amendment for the Commerce and Justice Departments by a voice vote. These provisions are attached to the annual legislation that funds federal agencies.

 

Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Jaime Raskin (D-MD) proposed these amendments as a way to stop federal employees from lodging at Trump hotels, among other actions. They contend that this is a way for the president to profit from his office. They argue that the presidency should not be leveraged for personal gain, and that requiring federal money to be spent at Trump properties is unethical.

 

Republicans in the House pushed back, saying that such a prohibition could jeopardize security. They note that the federal government must undertake a number of actions at Trump properties when foreign dignitaries or the president is at them, and many of these activities would be impossible under the Cohen and Raskin amendment.

 

The spending bill that contains this prohibition must still be approved by the Senate. It is unlikely that it will remain in the Senate’s version of the legislation.

 

Do you think that there should be a ban on federal spending at property owned by President Trump? Is it improper for the federal government to pay for lodging and other services at Trump properties?

Trump Carbon Reduction Rule Displeases Environmentalists

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a regulation that mandates a reduction in U.S. carbon emissions of 30% over 2005 levels by 2030. Environmentalist say it does not go far enough.

 

The new carbon emissions regulation is a replacement of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. Under that rule, which would have required states to take a host of steps to restructure the power sector with the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Under the Trump plan, states will have more flexibility to meet its goals.

 

Critics decry the EPA’s actions as being insufficient. They say that the U.S. must cut carbon emissions by at least 60% in order to prevent a 2 degree increase in global temperature. Because of the phase-out of high-carbon coal power plants, U.S. carbon emissions have been falling in recent years. Some observers say the nation is on track to meet the new regulatory goals because of this effect.

 

President Trump came into office vowing to support the coal industry and roll back Obama Administration environmental policies. The president has also expressed skepticism about humans causing global warming.

 

Do you support federal climate change rules that mandate how electricity is produced to reduce carbon emissions? Or should the federal government set an overall carbon emissions reduction goal and let states determine how to meet that limit?

Mexico and U.S. Reach Immigration Agreement

Illegal immigration has been a hot topic throughout President Trump’s term in office. The president recently threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican goods unless that nation’s government took steps to curtail illegal immigration. This weekend, the two nations came to an agreement that will avoid these tariffs.

 

Under this deal, Mexico will increase the military presence on its southern border to deter migrants from Central America entering and coming to the U.S. Mexico will also allow some asylum seekers to be returned to Mexico to await a resolution of their claim.

 

This plan was drawn up after President Trump threatened an escalating series of tariffs in response to what he termed the Mexican government’s inadequate efforts to deter illegal immigration into the U.S. Many in the business community, and many Republicans in Congress, said that these tariffs would be destructive to the U.S. economy.

 

Democrats have expressed skepticism that this agreement will do much to address the problems causing people to enter the U.S. illegally. President Trump’s supporters hail it as a victory for his negotiating skill.

 

What should the Mexican government be doing, if anything, to stop illegal immigrants from entering the U.S.?

House Passes Residency Fix for Dreamers

The fate of so-called “Dreamers” – illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children – has been debated in Washington for years. This week, the House of Representatives passed legislation to provide them with a path to permanent residency. But President Donald Trump has said he is opposed to it.

 

The House passed H.R. 6 by a vote of 237-187 on June 4. Here is how VoteSpotter described the legislation:

 

To stop deportation proceedings against non-citizens who were brought to the U.S. as minors, and allow those individuals to remain in the U.S. for 10 years. To qualify, a person must have been brought to the U.S. as a minor, must meet certain educational and residency requirements, and cannot have been convicted of a felony, among other things. The bill would also allow these individuals to become permanent legal residents if they graduate college, complete military service, or have three years of steady employment.

 

President Obama attempted to deal with the status of Dreamers without Congress. He instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This affected illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and who met educational requirements and had no criminal record to be shielded from deportation. Once he assumed office, Donald Trump canceled DACA, saying it was an overreach of executive power.

 

President Trump has signaled support for legislation that would provide permanent residency for Dreamers. However, he has issued a veto threat for H.R. 6. He would like to see this issue tied to a larger plan that limits immigration and provides more border security. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees with the president, and has said that the Senate will not consider H.R. 6.

 

Do you think that children who were brought to the U.S. illegally should receive legal residence if they have no criminal record and meet education requirements? Should the status of Dreamers be tied to overall immigration reform?

Congress May Block Trump's Tariffs

President Trump is a big fan of tariffs. In fact, he’s called himself “Tariff Man” on Twitter. But many members of Congress disagree with him. The president’s announcement that he would be imposing new tariffs on Mexico could prompt a response from these lawmakers that would end his ability to start a trade war with our southern neighbor.

 

Last week the president said that he would impose an escalating series of tariffs on Mexico until its government stopped the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. He would have the authority to do this under his declaration of an emergency at the U.S.-Mexican border. He issued this emergency declaration in February, claiming that a surge of illegal immigration threatened the U.S. This allows him broad powers to deal with the situation, including repurposing money for a border wall and imposing tariffs.

 

Congress also has power under this emergency declaration – specifically the power to revoke it. Both the House and Senate voted to undo the emergency, but the president vetoed the resolution. With only a handful of Republicans joining all the Democrats in rebuking the president, there were not supermajorities in either house to override his veto. Resolutions to revoke a presidential emergency can be considered every six months.

 

President Trump’s latest move on tariffs may prompt more Republicans to support another attempt to undo the February emergency declaration. In recent years, Republicans have generally opposed high tariffs. They see them as a tax on Americans who are forced to pay higher prices for foreign goods directly affected by tariffs and American goods that no longer face as much foreign competition. The president’s desire to impose steep tariffs on Mexico, a large trading partner with the U.S., has caused consternation among many GOP members of Congress.

 

If one house of Congress passes a resolution to revoke a presidential emergency, the other house must also consider it. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives will almost certainly pass such a resolution, meaning that the Republican-controlled Senate would then put the measure on its agenda. It remains to be seen if there will be more Republicans in both chambers who choose to buck the president on this issue because of their dislike of tariffs.

 

Do you support President Trump’s plan to impose new tariffs on products coming from Mexico? Should Congress stop these tariffs?

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.