by Victor Curiel

In a recent interview with the news website Axios, President Donald Trump boldly proposed his desire to sign an executive order to effectively end the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in the United States.

This proclamation has been met with mixed reactions, with many Americans feeling either supportive of the President’s hard stance on illegal immigration or shocked at what seems to be a slight against the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

However, the most common response from each political aisle seems to be one of skepticism as many citizens question whether such an endeavor is even legal. President Trump believes it to be so as he told interviewers on Sunday. 

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he told Axios. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.” 

Such an executive order would likely face legal challenges immediately. According to the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This specific wording has led many many legal analysts to doubt that the President’s theoretical executive order would pass through the Supreme Court.

“Here we have a situation where the text of the Constitution is quite clear and the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way,” said Mr. Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Baltimore, in an interview with news outlet USA Today. “So, for the president to assert that he can somehow overturn the text of the amendment and Supreme Court precedent by executive order is what we would call an extravagant claim.”

However some analysts, like Yale law professor Peter Schuck, believe that, “contrary to traditional assumptions on this issue, Congress has the power under the Constitution” to end birthright citizenship. Although Mr. Schuck concedes that “is a question of interpretation.”

Nevertheless, Schuck ultimately believes that Trump “clearly cannot” end birthright citizenship with just an executive order.

 “I feel confident that no competent lawyer would advise him otherwise. This is just pre-election politics and misrepresentation and should be sharply criticized as such,” said Schuck. 

Like Mr. Schuck, many voters believe this to be an attempted maneuver by President Trump to stimulate his base by vowing to clamp down on immigration issues, due to the November midterm congressional elections being only a day away. Whether or not this will be effective or detrimental remains to be seen. Whatever the case, the President has made it clear that he plans to go through with his words as he fears that people can too easily play the current system to their advantage. 

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” President Trump told Axios. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

President Trump’s plan was met with swift resistance, from some even in his own party. On Tuesday, October 30th, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said in an interview that the president “obviously” cannot dissolve birthright citizenship via an executive order.

“You obviously cannot do that,” Ryan told WVLK, a radio station in Lexington, Kentucky. “I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process.”

The following day, President Trump fired back against Mr. Ryan, saying that he was wrong about the matter and should focus his efforts elsewhere. 

“Paul Ryan should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about! Our new Republican Majority will work on this, Closing the Immigration Loopholes and Securing our Border!” tweeted President Trump on Wednesday, October 31st. 

Trump repeated his claim that he can eliminate birthright citizenship via executive order later Wednesday, although he said his preference would be for Congress to pass legislation ending that constitutional right.

“I’d rather do it through Congress because that’s permanent, but we can certainly do it through…I really believe we can do it through executive order,” he added, noting he had discussed the issue with legal scholars.

President Trump then referenced an immigration executive order signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy he had sought to revoke. Trump suggested that if former President Obama could execute such an order, then he could end birthright citizenship through executive action as well. 

“If President Obama can get DACA approved … we can do this by executive order,” President Trump said.

Whether this is purely bluster or an actual intended action will not be known for a while. Most likely news will be released after the November elections have taken place and the political layout of Congress has been settled. All any American can do at the moment is wait and listen for news on what could potentially be one of the largest alterations of the country and it’s laws to date. 

by Victor Curiel

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist, author, and a former general manager and editor-in-chief of the Al-Arab News Channel was killed in his hotel on October 2nd. No one knows the real story of what happened.

The well known critic of the Saudi government and of both Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, and the country’s king, Salman of Saudi Arabia went missing. He also opposed the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. On October 2nd, 2018 Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul but did not leave the building and had many people worried. After several news outlets started to publicize and speculate his death, Saudi officials teamed with Turkish investigators to lead an investigation inside the consulate on October 15th to discover the actual whereabouts of the journalist.          

Since then, Saudi Arabia has presented an unstable and unclear narrative of what happened to Khashoggi. After weeks of denying involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance and claiming that Khashoggi was in fact alive and had left the building unharmed,  Saudi Arabia stated that he was killed in the Istanbul consulate, and that his death was the result of a fistfight on Friday, October 19th. The cause of death was later specified to be the result of a choke hold or strangulation by an unknown perpetrator. As a result of the initial investigation, the Saudi government fired five top officials and arrested 18 other Saudis for questioning. Those fired included Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s adviser Saud al-Qahtani and deputy intelligence chief Major General Ahmed Al-Assiri. Although the official story never specified such, on Sunday during an interview with Fox News officials, Saudi Arabian foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, went further by describing Khashoggi’s death as a “murder” and a “tremendous mistake.” He also said they “don’t know where the body is.”

“The individuals who did this, did this outside the scope of their authority…There obviously was a tremendous mistake made, and what compounded the mistake was the attempt to try to cover up. That is unacceptable in any government,” Jubeir later said that Saudi Arabia was taking action to investigate how Khashoggi died and hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

“We are determined to uncover every stone. We are determined to find out all the facts. And we are determined to punish those who are responsible for this murder,” he said.

On Monday, CNN published surveillance footage which, according to a Turkish investigator, showed a Saudi operative dressed up in Khashoggi’s clothes on the day the journalist was killed. The man, whom the Turkish official alleges is a body double, was seen at various locations around Istanbul that same day. Jubeir told Fox that Crown Prince Salman was not aware of the operation beforehand and the senior leadership over intelligence service was not aware of this.

The United States views on the case have been generally neutral, as the events and evidence regarding Khashoggi’s disappearance have been unsteady. When inquired on the case, President Trump has clearly stated that the Saudi government has not been truthful about everything.

When asked about Saudi Arabia’s account of the killing of Khashoggi Trump said, “Their stories are all over the place.” 

However, despite the questionable occurrences, Trump has continued to be supportive of the Crown Prince’s leadership and reiterated the importance of economic ties between the two countries.

“He’s seen as a person who can keep things under check…I mean that in a positive way…He truly loves his country,” said Trump.

 The international leaders have to come to question Saudi Arabia’s story. Saudi Arabia has gone from blanket denials of any involvement to an admission that the journalist was killed while visiting the consulate. Omer Celik, a senior official in Turkey’s ruling political party, has vocally questioned the credibility of Saudi Arabia’s explanation for Khashoggi’s death and the credibility of Saudi Arabia’s story.

“We are not preemptively blaming anyone but we will also not allow a coverup…It is a matter of honor for us that this is uncovered. We will shed light on this using all means we have. That is the will of our President,” Celik said on Saturday, in the first official Turkish reaction to Saudi Arabia’s midnight statement saying Khashoggi’s death was accidental.

President Trump, however, again indicated to journalists that he believed the Saudi account was credible, although he added that some questions remained, including the whereabouts of Khashoggi’s remains. It seems that the world will have to wait a little longer for investigations to turn up new evidence, until then it cannot be accurately concluded whether or not the official story by Saudi Arabia is regrettably true or  dreadfully false.

by Lucas Agatep

On October 12th, a massive caravan of migrants, mostly made up of Hondurans, started their journey to the United States. Migrant caravan have happened before, but this one is the biggest of them all.

Past migrant caravans were around a few hundred to a thousand, but the initial amount of migrants for this caravan were estimated at about five thousand. The numbers grew over the last couple weeks, reaching seven thousand, as the number is only expected to grow as the days go on and the caravan nears the U.S. southern border.

Reasoning behind the current migrant caravan is to escape from crime and poverty in the people’s home country of Honduras. There are over 9 million people that live in Honduras, but 5.5 million of them – around two thirds of the population – live in poverty, with most people’s average income ranging around $120 per month.

In recent years murders have gone up to 43 per 100,000 people according to Honduras’ National Autonomous University.  Gangs have a big contribution to the murders and problems that Honduras faces. They control large amounts of territory, and conduct drug trafficking through the country. Crime and corruption amongst government and police leave public support and opinions hopeless.

The migrants on this immigration hope are that they will be able to get a better life in the US and achieve the American Dream.

The caravans plan is to get to the US by traveling on foot or by vehicle through Mexico to the US-Mexico border. Recently, the caravan has already gone through Guatemala where police made an attempt to delay or stop the caravan, but still got through.

This goal and recent activity has a negative view from US president Donald Trump, who has made claims of it being a terrorist and cartel influenced problem, which is false due to no proof of his claims. Trump warns that if the caravan isn’t stopped, he will cut financial aid to certain South American countries and deploy military personnel to close the border between US and Mexico.

Immigrants are looking for a better life and will continue to make their journey from the poverty of Honduras to try and live out the American Dream.

by George Holani and Matthew Ruiz

“School shootings are an unfortunate part of American culture and our American society.”

School shootings are an unnecessarily major part of American society in recent history. This year alone, 10 kids were killed at Santa Fe High School and 17 were killed in the infamous Parkland shooting, where adolescent lives were taken at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

These school shootings were tragic at the time they took place and are still tragic to this day. Families were torn apart because of what happened.

“We shouldn’t alienate students and bully anyone, because that could negatively trigger their mental stability,” said school head of attendance Ms. Margie Woods.

Preventing these school shootings isn’t easy, because there is heavy disagreement on whether or not the Second Amendment should be upheld because of how guns are abused in society.

“If we have safety in and around the school and enough education for our students and our faculty, these [shootings] can be prevented. Teachers shouldn’t carry guns because it would cause mass panic,” said Ms. Woods.

Teachers having guns and being able to obtain them and use them for self-defense when school shooters do intrude is a hot topic, but Woods thinks teachers shouldn’t be able to use them.

“As an American society we must do background checks and especially check for mental health issues with our students and teachers regularly. As a teacher, I don’t feel comfortable with me having a weapon or another teacher having a weapon,” said director of student activities and history teacher Mr. Fernando Avila.

Mr. Avila backs up Ms. Woods in her belief on teachers and firearms and even admits that he himself wouldn’t feel comfortable carrying one.

Students also fear the idea of teachers having and carrying weapons around, such as Bosco junior Nate Quigg.

“Teachers shouldn’t have a weapon in class because an “at-risk” child could pull a gun out and the teacher would have to fire upon that child in self-defense,” said Quigg.

That’s something no teacher would have to ever want to do and creates unnecessary conflicts and potential for disaster.

“If teachers had weapons, there would have to be mental health checks and administration would need to double-check their backgrounds,” said Mr. Avila.

It’s a controversial topic, and definitely a desperate move in hope for preventing school shootings and keeping schools safe in America. Action needs to be taken sometime in the near future.