How would you explain the gap between rhetoric and reality in the idea of the American Dream?

Objective: This essay assignment requires you to demonstrate understanding of what you have read in the course. It requires you to take a position and support it using expert opinion (The Revel readings) by developing an analysis of the essay question.Assignment:Write an analytic essay by taking a position and support it using expert opinion (the Revel readings and the discussions, videos, presentations in class only). An analytic essay is a type of an expository essay , it begs you to formulate and defend a thesis, or argument (your argument). Essay Question:How would you explain the gap between rhetoric and reality in the idea of the American Dream? Do you believe in the American Dream? If yes, why? If not, why not?INSTRUCTIONS:This is an analytic essay-exam answer that is meant to be brief but well-reasoned and thorough examining a political behavior, phenomenon, policy, based on the Revel readings, not a research paper. It is not necessaryor even recommended, that you research beyond the course readings to complete it. But you should discuss the texts in some detail, and use short quotes when appropriate.Length: 3 – 4 pages, double spaced, Times New Roman (12), 1 inch marginsSTYLE: All references must be cited. Use in-text citation next to quotes or paragraphs with author’s last Name and page number , e.g. (Nathan, p.25). In our case (Revel, ch.11, p 3).Provide a list of readings cited in a ‘works cited’ page in the end, or your 4the page. Although you are using only Revel, the works cited page is a mandatory part of your essay.The Revel Articles…Chapter 1 Democracy and American politics Russian Interference in American ElectionsJanuary 2020In his report to the Attorney General in April 2018 and in his congressional testimony on July 24, 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russia, an openly hostile foreign power, intervened in the 2016 presidential election in the United States with an eye toward creating turmoil and uncertainty and influencing its outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. These findings were substantiated in reports issued by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in October 2019 after its own investigations and witness interviews, which showed how the Russian intelligence services, often operating through the Kremlin-directed troll farm (the Internet Research Agency), used social media to sow discord among groups in the United States and distribute false information in a campaign to undermine the Clinton campaign.Elections are central to democracy, the subject of this opening chapter and a theme we return to throughout this book. Our objective in this chapter is to clearly define democracy and help you assess the degree to which the United States is becoming more or less democratic as you learn more about our constitutional system, the actors, and institutions that are important in American politics (including public opinion, political parties, interest groups, the media, social movements, and elections), and the institutions that make and execute federal government policies (Congress, the president, and the judiciary). One of the things you will learn is that democracy in large societies requires, in addition to political liberty and political equality, the existence of free and fair elections. Democracy is fundamentally a system in which citizens shape what the government does. The best mechanism for doing so is the election where voters cast their ballots in favor of candidates who support their preferences about what government should do or against candidates who don’t support their preferences. When false information sowing fear and discord floods the electoral process, trust in the integrity and reliability of the election process can only diminish among the public. The troubles in the conduct of our elections is one of many themes in this book. We are in a confusing time in our nation’s history. Americans are not confident that the U.S. economy can deliver on promises of shared prosperity for ordinary people, nor are they confident in the ability of our political and governmental institutions to be responsive to the concerns of the public and to fashion solutions for the country’s most pressing problems such as access to health care, meeting the threat of global climate change, or fixing our immigration and refugee systems. Our aim in this book is to provide tools to help students better understand where many of these problems come from, why government and political leaders act as they do in the face of these and other problems, and how responsive to the people the American political system is and how it might become more so.Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2018).Cristiano Lima, “Senate Intel’s newest Russia report undermines pro-Trump conspiracy theories,” Politico, October 8, 2019 online at https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/intelligence-committee-russia-trump-report-040736.Blair Guild, “Intelligence Heads Convene at WH Briefing to Warn of Election Interference,” CBS News, August 2, 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-white-house-briefing-august-2-2018-live-stream/.Robert Mueller, “Full transcripts of Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees,” NBCNews, June 24, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216.Jonathan Lemire and Zeke Miller, “Don’t Meddle in the Election, Please” Time Magazine online, June 28, 2019. https://time.com/5616919/trump-vladimir-putin-g20-election-interference.Chapter 2 – The constitution The Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Administration on Citizenship QuestionAugust 2019Because seats in the House of Representatives are divided up among states based on population, the Framers included a provision in the Constitution requiring a national census every ten years. Specifically, Article I, Section II of the Constitution requires the “enumeration” shall be carried out, “within every subsequent Term of ten Years.” Seats are distributed to states based on their population, but so too is federal spending on important items such as Medicare and highway maintenance; the higher the population a state has, the greater the amount of money it receives.The Trump Administration, and the Commerce Department in particular—which is charged by Congress with carrying out the Census—proposed asking individuals whether or not they are a citizen on the 2020 Census. The Department argues that this will result in “more complete and accurate data,” while others argue that it will discourage some types of individuals, especially immigrants (legal and undocumented) from responding out of fear the government will use the data to identify them. While using Census data this way is illegal, this fear is not without justification: the government used Census data to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. Regardless, the result of a citizenship question is likely to be an undercount of population in states which have high numbers of non-citizens living in them. What does the Constitution say about counting citizens or non-citizens? The answer is, not much. The Constitution directs the Census to be carried out “in such Manner as directed by law,” and originally made specific provisions for slaves and Native Americans. But, the federal courts have long interpreted the Census to be a count of all people, and the apportionment of House districts be made on the basis of total population, rather than total number of citizens. Specifically, the courts have said that citizens and persons are not used interchangeably in the Constitution, thus they must mean something different. There is also the possibility that adding a citizenship question to the Census violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in that the federal government added the question at least in part with the intent of discriminating against certain groups. The State of New York, one state that was likely to lose federal funds and representation if a citizenship question was included on the 2020 Census, asked the Federal Courts to intervene, and in June 2019, the Supreme Court ruled against the Federal Government, effectively barring the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 Census. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a majority opinion which was not a legal victory for either side.The final vote was complicated, with the Court’s conservative majority agreeing with some parts of the decision, while the liberal justices agreed with other parts. The Court ruled that asking about citizenship does not violate the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution, saying that the clause gives Congress, “virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial ‘actual Enumeration,’” and Congress “has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary.” This means that Congress and the Executive Branch can decide how to conduct the Census.Instead, Justice Roberts took a much narrower interpretation of the question, and said that the Secretary of the Commerce Department’s rationale for asking about citizenship, to better enforce the Voting Rights Act, was “pretextual,” meaning it was not the real justification and instead was an excuse for an action the Secretary already planned to take, in violation of the relevant administrative law.In short, if the Department of Commerce or the Trump Administration could develop a legitimate reason for asking about citizenship, and take the proper steps to do so, it would be allowed to ask about citizenship on the Census. This is a much weaker ruling than if the Supreme Court had said that asking about citizenship is unconstitutional. Because the Census forms must be printed soon, the Trump Administration will not be able to meet the burden established by the Supreme Court in time, and the citizenship question will not appear on the Census.In the aftermath of the decision, President Trump made bold statements about challenging the decision (though it is not clear to whom) or about issuing an executive order, which would have almost certainly been struck down by the Federal Courts. Instead, the Department of Commerce announced it would try to use existing data to determine the number of non-citizens in different jurisdictions, and Trump abandoned the effort. The controversy over the Census demonstrates the importance of the Constitution in American politics, but also its vagaries. It is not an instruction manual for running the government, but more of an outline about the basic operations of the three branches and the states, including powers, limitations, and structure. As a consequence, new issues and questions are constantly arising, and reasonable people disagree about how best to interpret and implement the Constitution.Sources:Edward Burmila. “The Democratic House Must Prioritize Protecting the 2020 Census.” The Nation. November 13, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/census-immigration-question-democrats/. Miriam Valverde. “What You Need to Know About The Census’ Citizenship Question.” Politifact.com. March 28, 2018. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/mar/28/what-you-need-know-about-census-citizenship-questi/.Hanso Lo Wong. “Multi-State Lawsuit Against Census Citizenship Question to Move Ahead.” NPR.org. July 26, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/629773825/multi-state-lawsuit-against-census-citizenship-question-to-move-ahead.United States Census Bureau. “Decennial Census of Population and Housing.” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html. Chapter 3 – FederalismWashington State Gives Health Care Reform a TryJanuary 2020This chapter is about federalism: the way power is distributed between the national government and the state governments. States have considerable power in the U.S. system and they frequently become laboratories for policy ideas. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a health care reform law that required all its residents to have health insurance and expanded programs aimed at providing insurance for those at the bottom of the income scale. That law became the model for the 2010 Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare) which did many of the same things, while also becoming a hot button issue at the center of American politics for over a decade. One of the key issues at the center of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary has been how to further reform the American health care system. Candidates have been debating an array of options ranging from a system where the government provides everyone their health insurance (“Medicare for All”) to an expansion of the ACA to include a “public option”—a government-sponsored health insurance plan that is available to everyone. What, if any, policies will prevail is difficult to know—Republicans, after all, oppose most of them. However, the state of Washington is trying some ideas out much sooner. Led by Democratic Governor Jay Inslee and a Democratic state legislature, Washington passed legislation that made it the first state with its own “public option” (called Cascade Care). Because the plan (available in 2021) is backed by the state, and the state is not seeking a profit, it will be provided at a lower cost than the health insurance plans offered by private companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare. The state plan will also save money by reimbursing doctors at a slightly lower rate than private insurers do. Just how much cheaper the state plan will be remains to be seen—current estimates place it at 5 to 10 percent less—but the lawmakers behind it hope that it will create a lower-cost alternative that puts pressure on private insurers to lower their own prices.Opposition to a public option—both in Washington and nationally—has come from Republicans, who view it as a disruptive expansion of government and a threat to private markets. Critics of public options have argued that their lower prices may force private insurers out of the market altogether.Whether the state of Washington’s plan turns out to be an effective tool for lowering the cost of health insurance for individuals is something both national and state policy-makers will be watching closely. Several other states, including Colorado and Connecticut, are also considering public options. Washington could be the next state health care policy model the national government adopts, or it could be a lesson in what to avoid.Paul Roberts, “The One State Taking a Big Run at Health Reform,” Politico, November 25, 2019, https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2019/11/25/is-medicare-for-all-right-answer-wrong-idea-072462.Chapter 4 – The structural foundations of american government and politicsThe Decline of Retail Stores and the Impact on JobsJanuary 2020The ways in which the economy is changing have important consequences for what people want from the government and who they elect. Economic discontent among a broad swath of Americans was an important factor in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016. In this chapter, we examine a number of structural factors that shape the lives of Americans—the economy, technological change, and demographic trends—and strongly influence what people want from, and ask of, their government and elected officials. Most Americans are aware of declining manufacturing employment in the United States, even as the manufacturing sector produces far more and varied products than before. Though some manufacturing job loss can be tied to companies moving some of their operations abroad, it is mainly productivity gains in manufacturing that accounts for this job trend. Labor-saving productivity improvements brought about by automation, artificial intelligence, digital design, 3D-printing, and robots mean that manufacturing companies can do more with fewer employees. A less well-known story concerns the mounting troubles in the retail industry, which employs roughly one in nine American workers. According to Coresite Research, a consultancy specializing in the retail sector, about 12,000 retail stores were shuttered in 2019 (with only 3,500 new ones opened), and even more are expected to close in 2020. Stores in non-luxury or non-discount malls across wide swaths of the country are in particular trouble. Toys “R” Us declared bankruptcy in 2017 and had closed all its U.S. stores by the middle of 2018. Sears declared bankruptcy in October 2018 and Forever21 did so in 2019. Lowes, Office Depot, CVS, Macys, and Walgreens closed almost 400 stores combined together in 2019. Coresite estimates that about 100,000 retail jobs were lost in 2019 as a result. To be sure, Americans have not stopped shopping. The economy is growing, consumer confidence is high, and unemployment is dropping, but people are shopping in new ways made possible by advances in digital commerce, with Amazon, Walmart, and Target leading the way. Overall, retailers are decreasing and will continue to decrease their number of brick-and-mortar stores as customers order online and take delivery by FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service. In an ominous sign for brick-and-mortar retail stores, on-line retail sales hit a record for Black Friday, 2019 ($7.4 billion) even as store visits and sales slipped by about 2 percent. Of course, new technologies and new business models tend to create jobs as old ones are destroyed. Economist Joseph Schumpeter famously called this process “creative destruction,” suggesting that it is what makes capitalism so innovative and productive, as old and less efficient companies give way to new and more efficient ones. In e-commerce, for example, though firms will close retail stores and shed jobs in them, there will likely be new jobs in warehousing, shipping, delivery services, customer fulfillment, and customer service. The vast majority of Amazon’s 600,000 full-time and part-time employees at the end of 2018, for example, were doing these kinds of jobs—many of which may one day be automated in a process that might look similar to what has happened in manufacturing and retail. Coresight Research, “US and UK Store Opening & Closures Tracker,” accessed on November 30, 2019 at https://coresight.com/research/weekly-us-and-uk-store-openings-and-closures-tracker-2019-week-46-amazon-plans-to-launch-new-grocery-store-format/Andrew Van Dam, “The Retail Apocalypse Was Worse Than We Thought, But There’s a Silver Lining,” The Washington Post, February 6, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/retail-apocalypse-was-worse-than-we-thought-theres-silver-lining/?utm_term=.0277b9c4eecb.“Number of Amazon.com Employees from 2007 to 2018,” Statista, 2018, https://www.statista.com/statistics/234488/number-of-amazon-employees/.“Retail Sales Workers,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2019. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/retail-sales-workers.htm.Kate Gibson, “Retail Graveyard,” CBS News, July 16, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-than-7000-us-stores-have-closed-2019-final-tally-could-exceed-12000/.Chapter 8 – Social Movements White Supremacy January 2020Social movements are loosely organized collections of people who share a grievance, believe government doesn’t listen to them, and use unconventional and often disruptive tactics to force government action. In recent decades, social movements demanding inclusiveness, equal treatment, and respect for people of color, undocumented immigrants, LGBTQ people, and women have been very successful. However, recent survey data show that many white Americans believe that these societal shifts are costing them jobs and forcing them to step aside for formerly excluded minorities so that these minorities can make their way up the socioeconomic and social respect ladders. As you will see in this chapter, successful social movements often trigger extreme opposition groups that seek to preserve lost privileges and stature. The self-described “alt-right,” a white nationalist movement, though imprecise, has been used as a label for a range of groups, individuals, media outlets, and organizations that despise the federal government, the Republican Party establishment, the Democratic Party, Muslims, and educational and cultural elites, especially those who are Jewish—who, in their view, have unfairly advanced minorities at the expense of the white majority and opened U.S. borders to a flood of immigrants. One cause for concern is that white supremacists often use intimidation and violence to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo in American society. White nationalist vigilante groups such as the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, the Rise Above Movement (RAM), and the Oath Keepers, have advocated and participated in violent action against demonstrators at Black Lives Matter gatherings, LGBTQ pride parades, gatherings to protest the deportation of undocumented immigrants, and more. The most notable white supremacist protest event after the 2016 election was the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in mid-August 2017, where protestors marched to oppose the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The protest brought together white supremacists of all stripes, including the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), neo-Nazis, rifle-carrying militia groups, Richard Spencer and many of his followers, and others, chanting at one point in a torchlit march through campus, “You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us.” Skirmishes with counter-protestors resulted in at least 15 injuries, and a woman was killed when a white supremacist purposely drove his car into a crowd of counter-protestors. Individuals citing white supremacist beliefs also have been responsible for a number of heinous violent acts in recent years:In 2012, an avowed white supremacist killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.In 2015, an avowed white supremacist killed nine African Americans in a prayer group at the Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.In 2018, an avowed white supremacist killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburg. In one week in late July/early August 2019 avowed white supremacists killed 3 people at a garlic festival in Gilroy, California, and at least 20 people, mostly Hispanics, at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.Some of the fringe ideas associated with white supremacy can make their way into the conventional political arena as some candidates and elected officials use these ideas to rally their supporters and shape public policies even if these candidates and elected officials do not necessarily embrace the white supremacist label. There is a long history of this in the United States, including the several presidential runs of segregationist George Wallace in the 1960s. In November, 2019, it was revealed that Steven Miller, a presidential speech writer and the leading voice on immigration policy in the Trump White House, had been for years coaching the editors of Breitbart News on which white supremacist web sites they should be reading on issues like the threat of “white genocide,” the coming fall of western civilization, the sacred nature of confederate monuments, and the violence-prone nature of refugees and asylum seekers.Michael Edison Hayden, “Stephen Miller’s Affinity for White Nationalism Revealed in Leaked Emails,” The Southern Poverty Law Center, November 12, 2019, online at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/11/12/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emailsAlan Feuer and Jeremy W. Peters, “Fringe Groups Revel as Protests Turn Violent,” New York Times, June 2, 2017. https://nyti.ms/2rBzYZh.Simon Van Zuylen-Wood et al., “Beyond Alt: The Extremely Reactionary, Burn-It-Down-Radical, Newfangled Far Right,” New York Magazine, April 30, 2017. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/beyond-alt-understanding-the-new-far-right.html.“Murder and Extremism in the United States 2018,” The Antidefamation League, January, 2019. https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018#executive-summary.Chapter 9 – Political parties Primary Debates Test A Crowded Democratic Field January 2020In this chapter, you will be reading about how political parties in the American system are made up of networks of related organizations, each of which functions to further the electoral and governing goals of the party. In presidential election years, the national organizing committee of each party—the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC)—take on many important roles including helping to fund and organize campaigns, putting on the national nominating convention, and organizing debates for the presidential primaries. National party committees typically work with major television networks and their news divisions to schedule and determine a format for debates. Incumbent President Trump is not currently facing a major challenger for the Republican presidential nomination—though some lower-tier challengers like former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld are in the race—so the RNC will not be hosting any primary debates for the 2020 election. In fact, under Trump’s leadership, the RNC planned to remove its debates committee for the 2020 campaign. It is a very different story with the Democratic Party where more than 20 candidates initially emerged to challenge President Trump. The DNC is planning on holding 12 debates for the 2020 primary season—the first six of which took place in 2019 and the last of which is scheduled to happen in April 2020. The early debates—such as those that occurred this past June and July—featured nearly the full slate of candidates. To accommodate all the candidates, the DNC randomly selected two equally sized groups of candidates to debate each other on subsequent nights. As the primary elections have approached, candidates have dropped out and the party has increased the threshold for participation. For example, to have qualified for the November 20, 2019, debate candidates had to have reached three percent or more in four polls or five percent or more in early primary states. Candidates also had to have had received donations from 165,000 different people in 20 different states. Ten candidates ultimately qualified and only one debate was held. Determining debate schedules and rules is always contentious. Upstart candidates may not make it to the stage and feel that the party is favoring more established candidates. Moreover, the top-tier candidates tend to get more opportunities to answer questions than those that are polling toward the bottom. These debates are important as they allow candidates to share their views and gain the name recognition necessary to challenge the front-runners. But they are also not decisive. A strong performance from California Senator Kamala Harris in the first debate last June—in which she aggressively questioned former Vice President Joe Biden’s record—boosted her support substantially and vaulted in her into the top-tier of candidates. Harris dropped out of the presidential race in early December, 2019. Rebecca Berg, “Republican Party Nixes Debate Committee Ahead of 2020,” CNN, May 3, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/politics/rnc-2020-debates/index.html.Ashlyn Still, “Who has qualified for the December Democratic debate,” Washington Post, December 3, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/15/who-has-qualified-december-democratic-debate/.Chapter 12 – The presidency”The Commander-in-Chief Intervenes in the Military Justice System”January 2020The Constitution names the president as commander-in-chief of the United States’ armed forces. As such, the president sits atop the chain of commander for each of the military services. In this capacity, President Donald Trump recently intervened in three cases that overturned actions of the military justice system. The most attention has been paid to the case of a long-time Navy Seal who had been stripped of his rank and membership in that elite fighting force because he had posed for photos with the corpse of a teenage enemy fighter. The commander-in-chief allowed him to regain his rank and to retain his membership in the Navy Seals.The president intervened in two other cases involving the murder of civilians. He issued a full pardon for an Army Lieutenant who had been convicted by a military court in 2013 for ordering the execution of a group of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan. The president then ordered that the coming trial of a Special Forces Major be stopped and that he be released from confinement. The Army Special Forces officer stood accused of murdering an unarmed and detained Afghan civilian in 2010 based on interviews with soldiers under his command. The president’s actions proved controversial. No one argued that the president did not have the constitutional warrant to intervene, as he did, but many in the military and military observers worried about the effects of overturning the actions of military courts made up of members of the armed forces passing judgment on soldiers like themselves for committing crimes. Some worried about how good order and discipline can be maintained when military courts cannot punish soldiers who go beyond the rules of war. Others expressed alarm at what these actions would say about the standing of the U.S. military in the world. Still, others worried about what might happen to wounded or captured Americans on the battlefield in the future. Douglas Porch, former department chair of national security affairs at the Navy War College pointed out that the treatment of POWs is reciprocal so to release and pardon soldiers who commit war crimes is a risk to your own soldiers.The president acting as commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces exercises broad powers related to war and peace and how our military is deployed and utilized. It sometimes takes years for historians looking back at presidential use of these powers to reach judgments about how effectively these powers have been used. It is too early yet to reach a conclusion about whether the concerns raised by President Trump’s interventions in the military justice system have helped or hindered American national security interests.Thomas B. Edsall, “The Savage Injustice of Trump’s Military Pardons,” The New York Times,” December 4, 2019, online at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/opinion/trump-military-pardons.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share“Donald Trump falls out with the military establishment he once wooed,” The Economist, November 28, 2019, online at https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/11/28/donald-trump-falls-out-with-the-military-establishment-he-once-wooed.Chapter 13 -The executive branch Conditions Deteriorate at Border Camps Holding Migrant Children August 2019In early June 2018, a controversy erupted over the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on immigration, in which those deemed to be illegally entering the U.S. would face immediate arrest. Because many immigrants from Mexico and Central America arrived with children, the policy separated many parents from their children at the border. The controversy resulted in protests at ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) offices around the country, strongly worded statements from members of Congress, and eventually, a change in immigration procedures for those caught trying to enter the country illegally. The family separation policy began with a change in how the United States treats individuals illegally trying to enter the country. While ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are charged with enforcing immigration laws, as is typical, Congress delegates a substantial amount of discretion to federal agencies to carry out the mechanisms of enforcement. Previously, individuals caught trying to enter the United States illegally were referred to an immigration court where their case was heard by an immigration judge, and if they were deemed to be in the country illegally, they were deported back to their country of origin. On May 7th, 2018, the Trump Administration implemented its “zero tolerance” policy which says that individuals trying to enter the country illegally will be charged with a misdemeanor, even if they were seeking asylum (U.S. law allows asylum seekers to remain in the country while their case is heard.) This means that these individuals will be sent to federal court and will be housed in federal prison while moving through the court process. As a result of an agreement the government made in the 1990s called the “Flores agreement,” children cannot be sent to federal prison while their parents are there, so they are separated in the interim and in some cases, children are being placed in separate detention centers.The controversy continued through the summer of 2019 as the number of women and children detained grew, many housed in camps near the border. By all accounts, these camps have become overcrowded, and the children held there are living in unsanitary conditions. According to news reports, diseases such as scabies, shingles, and chickenpox were widespread among the children. The UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, who toured a facility in Texas, said she was “appalled” at the conditions. Seven children have died in CBP custody or shortly after being released, adding to concerns about the conditions.In late June, Congress voted on additional federal funding to ease the overcrowding in these facilities. The vote divided the Democratic Party, as members were caught between a desire to help the humanitarian situation and their opposition to the family separation policy as a whole. Moderate Democrats joined with Republicans to vote for the funding, while many liberals voted against it, seeing it as providing additional money to continue a policy they strongly opposed. These actions, and the congressional response, demonstrate the often chaotic nature of American policymaking and legislative enforcement. Congress passes immigration laws, while it is up to the executive branch—headed by the President—to enforce the laws through bureaucratic agencies like ICE. Successful policy implementation requires coordination between all three institutions: the president, the bureaucratic agencies involved, and Congress. When coordination or appropriate planning does not occur, the consequences can be stark. The family separation policy is a case in point, as the news program 60 Minutes uncovered evidence that the policy was imposed from the top, with little notification to, or consultation with, the appropriate bureaucratic agencies. As a result, agencies like ICE had little guidance on how to process family separations, lost track of an unknown number of children and their parents, and were not prepared for the number of migrants that are being held in their camps.As you will see in this chapter, if Congress wants to remove bureaucratic discretion, it can pass a law to do so, or change funding levels. Comprehensive immigration reform would require agreement from both the House and Senate and the president’s signature on a new bill that would spell out exactly what to do with families caught trying to cross the border or seek asylum. The sheer difficulty in passing legislation, especially when the president’s preferences are unclear, make this unlikely to happen in the coming years. As a result, the chaotic nature of border enforcement is likely to continue in the near future._________________________________________________Sources:“The Trump Administration’s Separation of Families at the Border, Explained.” Vox.com. Accessed at: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents.“CBP Through the Years.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accessed at: https://www.cbp.gov/about/history.“History of ICE.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Accessed at: https://www.ice.gov/history#wcm-survey-target-idhttps://www.ice.gov/history#wcm-survey-target-id.Camila Domonoske and Richard Gonzales. “Fact Check: What’s Happening on the U.S.-Mexico Border.” NPR.org. November 27, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/670807343/fact-check-whats-happening-on-the-u-s-mexico-border.“The Chaos Behind Donald Trump’s Policy of Family Separation at the Border.” 60 Minutes, November 26, 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-family-separation-policy-mexican-border-60-minutes-investigation-greater-in-number-than-trump-administration-admits/.Romero, Simon, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Manny Fernandez, Daniel Borunda, Aaron Montes, and Caitlin Dickerson, “Hungry, Scared and Sick: Inside the Migrant Detention Center in Clint, TX. The New York Times, July 6, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/06/us/migrants-border-patrol-clint.html.Chapter 18 – Foreign and National Defense PoliciesConditions Deteriorate at Border Camps Holding Migrant Children August 2019In early June 2018, a controversy erupted over the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on immigration, in which those deemed to be illegally entering the U.S. would face immediate arrest. Because many immigrants from Mexico and Central America arrived with children, the policy separated many parents from their children at the border. The controversy resulted in protests at ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) offices around the country, strongly worded statements from members of Congress, and eventually, a change in immigration procedures for those caught trying to enter the country illegally. The family separation policy began with a change in how the United States treats individuals illegally trying to enter the country. While ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are charged with enforcing immigration laws, as is typical, Congress delegates a substantial amount of discretion to federal agencies to carry out the mechanisms of enforcement. Previously, individuals caught trying to enter the United States illegally were referred to an immigration court where their case was heard by an immigration judge, and if they were deemed to be in the country illegally, they were deported back to their country of origin. On May 7th, 2018, the Trump Administration implemented its “zero tolerance” policy which says that individuals trying to enter the country illegally will be charged with a misdemeanor, even if they were seeking asylum (U.S. law allows asylum seekers to remain in the country while their case is heard.) This means that these individuals will be sent to federal court and will be housed in federal prison while moving through the court process. As a result of an agreement the government made in the 1990s called the “Flores agreement,” children cannot be sent to federal prison while their parents are there, so they are separated in the interim and in some cases, children are being placed in separate detention centers.The controversy continued through the summer of 2019 as the number of women and children detained grew, many housed in camps near the border. By all accounts, these camps have become overcrowded, and the children held there are living in unsanitary conditions. According to news reports, diseases such as scabies, shingles, and chickenpox were widespread among the children. The UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, who toured a facility in Texas, said she was “appalled” at the conditions. Seven children have died in CBP custody or shortly after being released, adding to concerns about the conditions.In late June, Congress voted on additional federal funding to ease the overcrowding in these facilities. The vote divided the Democratic Party, as members were caught between a desire to help the humanitarian situation and their opposition to the family separation policy as a whole. Moderate Democrats joined with Republicans to vote for the funding, while many liberals voted against it, seeing it as providing additional money to continue a policy they strongly opposed. These actions, and the congressional response, demonstrate the often chaotic nature of American policymaking and legislative enforcement. Congress passes immigration laws, while it is up to the executive branch—headed by the President—to enforce the laws through bureaucratic agencies like ICE. Successful policy implementation requires coordination between all three institutions: the president, the bureaucratic agencies involved, and Congress. When coordination or appropriate planning does not occur, the consequences can be stark. The family separation policy is a case in point, as the news program 60 Minutes uncovered evidence that the policy was imposed from the top, with little notification to, or consultation with, the appropriate bureaucratic agencies. As a result, agencies like ICE had little guidance on how to process family separations, lost track of an unknown number of children and their parents, and were not prepared for the number of migrants that are being held in their camps.As you will see in this chapter, if Congress wants to remove bureaucratic discretion, it can pass a law to do so, or change funding levels. Comprehensive immigration reform would require agreement from both the House and Senate and the president’s signature on a new bill that would spell out exactly what to do with families caught trying to cross the border or seek asylum. The sheer difficulty in passing legislation, especially when the president’s preferences are unclear, make this unlikely to happen in the coming years. As a result, the chaotic nature of border enforcement is likely to continue in the near future.Sources:“The Trump Administration’s Separation of Families at the Border, Explained.” Vox.com. Accessed at: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents.“CBP Through the Years.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accessed at: https://www.cbp.gov/about/history.“History of ICE.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Accessed at: https://www.ice.gov/history#wcm-survey-target-idhttps://www.ice.gov/history#wcm-survey-target-id.Camila Domonoske and Richard Gonzales. “Fact Check: What’s Happening on the U.S.-Mexico Border.” NPR.org. November 27, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/670807343/fact-check-whats-happening-on-the-u-s-mexico-border.“The Chaos Behind Donald Trump’s Policy of Family Separation at the Border.” 60 Minutes, November 26, 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-family-separation-policy-mexican-border-60-minutes-investigation-greater-in-number-than-trump-administration-admits/.Romero, Simon, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Manny Fernandez, Daniel Borunda, Aaron Montes, and Caitlin Dickerson, “Hungry, Scared and Sick: Inside the Migrant Detention Center in Clint, TX. The New York Times, July 6, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/06/us/migrants-border-patrol-clint.html.