CVHS MUN XII 2018 CVHS MUN: United States Senate

Transcription

1 CVHS MUN XII 2018 CVHS MUN: United States Senate Introduction: Hi, my name is Josh Meyer and I will be the head chair for the US Senate committee at the CVHS MUN 2018 conference. I am a senior and have been in MUN for all four years of high school. I volunteered on a House campaign during this year s election cycle. For the last few years politics has peaked my interest, hence I am very excited to be running the US Senate Committee. Topic 1: Illegal Immigration: Background In a speech earlier this year, referencing illegal immigration, President Trump said all we need is good legislation. To anyone staying up to date on the issue, it has become clear that the government needs to step in and reform the immigration system to appropriately deal with illegal immigration. This responsibility has (thanks in part to the president) landed squarely in the lap of United States legislators. For President Trump, resolution to illegal immigration was one of his chief campaign promises. His famous promise to build a wall was arguably his most defining proclamation during his campaign and the first year of his presidency. He has placed the future of the DACA program in jeopardy, called for Congress to increase spending for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Control agencies, and threatened sanctuary state laws. While he threatened DACA, he called for Congress to draft a bill to give permanence to many of its provisions. Unfortunately, legislators were unable to find a suitable solution, and

2 now millions of DACA recipients see their livelihoods placed in jeopardy. Congress has also taken no action to address the president's requests for increased border security (including the wall), has not dealt with sanctuary state laws, and it also was unable to enact change when the president s zero tolerance policy on the border went into effect. Hence it seems that the Senate has defined itself with inaction on this issue more than anything else, increasing the amount of pressure on delegates in this committee to pass legislation to resolve this issue. Recently, three issues have escalated the illegal immigration issue: militarizing the border, immigrant caravans, and birthright citizenship. The President has already sent thousands of soldiers to the southern border with Mexico. Existing statute limits the circumstances under which these soldiers can use force, but their deployment is permitted under law. Caravans departing from Central America have also gained national attention. Donald Trump has bluntly stated that these immigrants will not be allowed to cross into the US illegally. Finally, the President has claimed that he will sign an executive order which would revoke birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against such an act, claiming that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Existing Legislation Despite recent attempts, Congress has been unable to reach a consensus on how to address illegal immigration in the US. The president has stepped into legislative affairs, making demands that legislators include certain provisions, namely for increased spending on border security and funding his wall in resolutions to DACA and other issues. Even the president s own political party seems to be divided as to how to best address the immigration issue.

3 As would be expected when the legislature is so incapable of making laws on an issue, the executive and judicial branches, and even some state governments, have made decisive decisions which have shaped the development of illegal immigration in this country, to its current state. In reference to the separation of parents and children at the border thanks to Trump s zero tolerance immigration policy, Congress took no stand to resolve the issue the president had created. The separation is caused by a 1997 judicial precedent known as the Flores Settlement. This states that children may be detained for only a short period of time (20 days), mandating their release even if their parents remain in custody. Hence when ICE enacted Trump s policy and detained all apprehended immigrants, their children had to be removed to separate facilities after 20 days, as is required by the Flores settlement. Changes to the Flores settlement could be required for the Trump administration to institute its zero tolerance policy. As for the DACA, a product of the Obama presidency of dubious constitutionality, which allows children whose parents brought them to the US when they were young to request deferred action against removal every two years, with the ability to remain in the US indefinitely. As legal action threatens to dismantle DACA, it is important that Congress act to protect the large number of people or provide them opportunities to stay in the country. Trump has formerly said that he would pass whatever immigration bill was put on his desk, but has since claimed that he will not support the renewal of DACA. Currently, DACA remains in effect because of federal court rulings in New York, California, and Washington D.C., however seven southern states, led by Texas have begun a lawsuit to end the program. Hence, the program will remain in jeopardy unless Congress steps in and the President signs their legislation.

4 With this administration in the White House, Sanctuary State laws have become a target of lawmakers looking to crack down on illegal immigrants. These laws, though varied by state all have the same general form: They protect illegal immigrants by using the power of the state to prohibit cooperation between different groups within the state (governmental or not) and the federal government. The Justice Department has attacked states like California for their laws which impair the ability of ICE to enforce federal legislation. Policy/Solutions Delegates (Senators) will likely be guided by both the policies of their own state (if applicable) toward illegal immigrants and the policy of their party. The immigration issue has been one of great national attention for a long time now, and delegates should thus research how their Senator stands on immigration issues (the websites for the Senator/campaign might be a good place to start). Delegates should seek to find resolution for the DACA dreamers in the United States and whether or not the program has a future. As has been said, the issue has been addressed by the President and the courts have taken action on it. Congress has a responsibility to at least provide some certainty for the program, and is best branch of government to do so. Senators should understand how they can move past previous attempts, which have failed to resolve DACA, and find new ways to work within and without their party to give closure to a drawn out stalemate, rather than leaving the decision to the Judicial Branch. The calls from the President for increased funding for border security and the possibility of building a wall have not yet been answered by Congress. Senators should consider factoring

5 these provisions into their solution to some extent. Addressing the Flores Settlement, allowing or prohibiting detention of immigrants and/or their children might also be important. Currently the US deals with immigrants with a catch and release policy, whereby immigrants, even if caught, are put through a complicated and dubious legal process. Creating a new system for dealing with immigrants coming into the country is necessary. Delegates could incorporate into this system resolutions for sanctuary state laws, the detention of immigrants, a solution for DACA, and more such that, be it pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant, the government might provide a clear and lawful way for immigrants to be processed by the US. Questions to Consider: 1. To what extent should Congress leave authority over immigration and border control to the president and the judicial branch? 2. Should DACA recipients have a future in the US? If so, what should that future look like? 3. Should the federal government take a stand against sanctuary laws? If so, what would replace these laws, if anything? Sources: Farkas, Steve. What Immigrants Say About Life in the United States. Migrationpolicy.org, 2 Mar. 2017,

6 García, Angela S., and David G. Keyes. Life as an Undocumented Immigrant. Center for American Progress, life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant/ Hesson, Ted, et al. Can Trump Revoke Birthright Citizenship? Nearly All on Left and Right Say No. POLITICO, 30 Oct. 2018, Krogstad, Jens Manuel, et al. 5 Facts about Illegal Immigration in the U.S. Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 Apr. 2017, Zong, Jie, et al. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States. Migrationpolicy.org, 27 Feb. 2018, -statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states.

7 Topic 2: Gun Control Background: The United States is a nation which has become famous (or infamous, depending on who you ask) for its policy and culture towards guns. Such policy and beliefs have not emerged for no reason; the very right for private citizens to own guns is written into the US Constitution. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has affirmed this amendment in multiple cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) in which it ruled that Americans have the right to own a gun for the purpose of self-defense. The NRA is. a large lobbying organization with power over members of both parties; it works hard to protect this right for Americans. All of this and more adds up to mean that the United States has more guns than any other country in the world, an estimated million firearms. The daunting number of guns in the United States is a concern for many Americans and politicians, as firearms have had consequences for the nation. The USA claims the highest homicide by firearm rate of any developed country. Additionally, 64% of all homicides are related to guns, mostly handguns. Of note, however, is the fact that the majority of deaths by firearms in the US were not homicides, but suicides. This combined with the apparent growing prevalence of mass shootings of the nation clearly show that high rates of gun ownership has its consequences. Especially after the recent shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, many politicians and communities have been mobilized to fight for more stringent gun control legislation, while others have suggested providing teachers at schools with guns to be used to protect students. All of this added together provides a pretty clear image that the gun culture and

8 legislation in the USA are currently inadequate, the question is whether the nation will move for greater gun control or less. Gun legislation is, for the most part, very subjective by state, with laws differing greatly from one to another. Nonetheless, the problems created by gun ownership are universal and are to be addressed by all the states, together and united by the federal action. The debate rages on over which guns should be banned, to what extent, and how the government should change its policies toward the buying registering, and owning those guns. Existing Legislation: The Federal Government of the United States has an important set of laws which set the boundaries on gun ownership. All Americans must go through a background check before they may purchase a firearm, with few exceptions. Automatic firearms made after 1986 cannot be sold to civilians. In order to purchase rifles and shotguns, Americans must be 18 years old, 21 years old for handguns. As well, those who have committed a felony or misdemeanor and served more than 2 years in prison are not able to purchase guns. Neither are those who were involuntarily submitted to a mental facility. The government has also made an effort to protect parties involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms from legal action resulting from the illegal use of them. The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents the victims of crimes involving guns from suing the makers of those guns. The Tiahrt Amendment in 2003 prevents the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms from releasing data showing where criminals obtained their firearms from. Supporters argue these laws keep the eyes off of those who are doing nothing more than

9 participating in the market of making and selling firearms. Opponents contend that such efforts effectively cover up the black market for guns, protect the industry from necessary scrutiny, and protect those who, in some cases, might be responsible for cases of gun violence. In addition to all of the federal laws, there are many more state laws, as much of the regulation of guns in the United States is left to the individual states or local governments. Some states require owners to have a permit or a license to own a gun, others require such weapons by registered with law enforcement. To some extent, each state allows for concealed carry as well, but not all states provide this. A significant number of states restrict ownership of semi-automatic guns labeled as assault weapons. Not all states allow localities to regulate guns on their own, many only allows for the state to have these powers. Finally, and perhaps quintessentially American are stand your ground laws which, in some states, allow individuals to use guns in self defense. Policy/Solutions: Each delegate s (Senator s) policy and propositions regarding gun control will be largely dependant on the solutions championed by their state and their party. Delegates must also take into account the public outcry following recent mass shootings. Bans on certain technologies and firearms have been proposed and enacted in response to these events; Senators should understand how their own state has responded to these mass shooting in determining where they stand on such technologies as the bump stock. More general resolutions regarding gun control and gun culture as a whole might also be proposed. Many have cited certain elements of US culture as factoring into the causes of mass

10 shootings and gun violence. As has already been mentioned, there are many different ways which states approach gun violence, regulating gun sale and ownership, etc. Delegates should consider how different states approach these issues and perhaps develop their own. New ways of dealing closing loopholes, monitoring gun ownership, changing the purchasing process, etc. may all be proposed and considered by the Senate as part of this topic. Questions to Consider: 1. Should the federal government introduce more nationwide gun control laws, or should regulation continue to be left to individual states? 2. What are some gun control proposals which have been put forth by either your party or your state which your Senator can propose to the whole committee? 3. What actions can Congress take to prevent mass shootings and gun violence in the future? Sources: The Flores Settlement: A Brief History and Next Steps. Human Rights First, Gun Laws in the United States by State. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 Oct. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gun_laws_in_the_united_states_by_state. Gray, Sarah. A Timeline of Gun Control Laws in The U.S. Time, Time, 22 Feb. 2018, time.com/ /us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/