Federal Workers’ Children Born Abroad May Not Receive Automatic Citizenship

Federal Workers’ Children Born Abroad May Not Receive Automatic Citizenship

Link Here

Summary/Reaction: The Trump Administration has recently come up with an attempt to keep illegal immigrants out of the US. Children of US military service members who aren’t born on US soil are no longer guaranteed automatic citizenship. This new policy is mainly aimed at military families who have not been in the US in years, yet does not affect families with one parent who is a US citizen and has lived in the US for over 5 years. Although they do not receive automatic citizenship, they are still able to apply for citizenship. This policy is set to apply on October 29, and will affect any child born after. I believe that this policy is wrong and that the children of US military parents should be granted automatic citizenship. Military families are worried about other things, and wondering if their child is a US citizen should not be one of them. If the parents are citizens and their child is not born on US soil, then their child should still be qualified for automatic citizenship because the parents (or parent) is a US citizen.

Historic Connection: I connected this article to Proposition 187 in California(1995). Proposition 187 took away education, welfare, and health sources from immigrants in California, although it never officially became a law. Similar to this, the US is taking away guaranteed citizenship from the children of US military parents to limit legal immigration

Discussion Question: After all US service members have done for our country, do you think that this policy is fair?

Trump administration ends automatic citizenship for some children of military, federal workers born abroad

URL of Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-ends-automatic-citizenship-for-some-children-of-military-federal-workers-born-abroad/2019/08/28/29b811c6-c9d7-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

-Image from Article: https://images.app.goo.gl/sPj5XhE7gTPiDNpN8

Summary/Reflection: The article is about how the Trump administration is making it difficult for children born abroad with U.S. citizen parents who are service members or government employees. The article explains how children can no longer claim citizenship from their parents if their parents have lived in U.S. for less than five years and were born in another country. This was set in place because the U.S. Citizenship and immigration services said the policy allowing children to easily earn citizenship was abolished because according to them, it was conflicting with policies and federal laws. To receive citizenship as a child, the parents have to apply for citizenship on behalf of their children before the age of eighteen and have to be living in the U.S. for more than five years to earn citizenship. My opinion on this is that if these childrens parents are serving in the military or working for the federal government and are U.S. citizens I believe that their children should be allowed to become U.S. citizens.

Historical connection: I am connecting this to the Anarchist Exclusion Act (1903) and the Office of Immigration (1891). This is because, in 1903 they did not allow certain people into the U.S. which relates to the article because they aren't allowing children born in a different country to get citizenship. Finally in 1891, there were certain requirements needed to gain citizenship which also relates to the article because it states that the parents must be living in U.S. for 5+ years, and must apply children for citizenship.

Question for discussion:
Do you agree or disagree about the new policy? What is your opinion on people serving in the military or working for the federal government having to deal with their children not being allowed citizenship?

Alabama governor apologies for wearing blackface in college

-URL of Article: https://www.sfgate.com/news/education/article/Alabama-governor-apologies-for-wearing-blackface-14399984.php

-Image from Article:

-Summary/Reaction: This article is about Alabama Governor Kay Ivey who apologized for doing blackface while she was in college. Ivey stated an apology after a 1967 radio interview that had recently surfaced in which her ex-husband, Ben LaRavia, describes her actions at Auburn University. In the interview, LaRavia states that Ivey was wearing coveralls and black paint all over her face while pretending to search for used cigars. She states,"While some may attempt to excuse this as acceptable behavior for a college student during the mid-1960s, that is not who I am today, and it is not what my Administration represents all these years later." The Alabama NAACP issued a statement calling for her resignation saying that her actions are not forgivable. However, Alabama Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, who is African American, considers that although what she did was disturbing, he accepts her apology and considers her opening up as a "teaching moment".  My reaction to this article is positive because I believe that it was brave for a governor from the South, especially from Alabama, to publicly open up about her discriminatory actions and apologizing for them, as most people instead would stay quiet about these matters. 

-History Connection: I can connect this to the upbringing of blackface after the Civil War when white performers would play characters that dehumanized and degraded African Americans. Blackface rose in popularity due to the restrictions that were being placed on former slaves and other African Americans.

-Question for Discussion: Should the U.S. states apologize for the wrong doings towards African Americans that occurred in the past, or should things like blackface just be simply accepted as part of American history and not needing any apologies?

Fires in the Amazon Rainforest

    Image credit

    Original Article

Summary - Around three weeks ago the Amazon rainforst was set ablaze. Many believe that the fire was man made, however, there is no concrete proof that shows this claim is true. The people of Brazil and many around the world are wondering who is responsible, so people have been turning to the president of Brazil (Jair Bolsonaro). The president hasnt done much to stop these fires which has caused him to be bombarded by massive amounts of critisim. Recently other wealthy countries have come together to help raise money creating a total of around 22 million dollars. Unfortunatly, Bolsonaro declined the offer and told these countries to focus more on themselves rather than Brazil. Many people around the world see Bolsonaro as joke and are furious with his actions. Later on at G7 summit meeting he declined another aid package from France, only to later on to show signs of intrest in the offer. After further discussion at the meeting Brazil accepted 12 million dollars from Britain. Even though Brazil's president isnt helping, other countries are, for example, Bolivia who is also being affected by the fires contracted a Boeing 747 "Supertank" that can carry over 30,000 gallons of water. At this point in  time there isnt much we can do other than to donate to charities that are helping the cause. If you are intersted in donating here is a link to movent supported by Leonardo Di Caprio Donation Link. 

History Connection - This connects to the Bracero Program because when president Roosevelt sent out the executive order to begin the Bracero Program he was careless and the program's structure was not properly analyzed to ensure the workers saftey and health. The same is happening with Brazil's president, he isnt making the saftey of the indigenous people or the forest a priority.

Question -  If you were in the presidents position what would you do to deal with the fires?

She voiced Disneyland's most storied rides. Then a rare cancer almost took her voice.

Link to Article

- Summary/ Reaction: Kat Cressida was the person who voiced Snow Whites, Ariel, Bella, Black Widow Bride and Jessie the Cowgirl. Cressida graduated from UC Berkeley in Theater, she had failed many times for on- camera . After failing she applied for voice over and succeeded. One day she heard something weird in her voice and went for a check up. The doctors said she had a cyst. Still worried and doubting it she asked for an MRI. She went to Germany and had to wait months until she was diagnosed with dermatofibrosarcoma which is a very rare cancer one out of one million per year diagnosed with it. This lead to the conclusion of doctors that she wasn't going to speak again. My reaction to this article is negative- I think doctors should be educated well and be tested before being hired. I believe they should be given a patient with a rare type of disease without knowing in order to test their skills. If she wouldn't have insisted on the MRI she probably wouldn't be alive due to the fact she was not being checked correctly for her health. Doctors should have hands on exams after graduating and being hired, or simply be fired when something like this occurs. 

History Connection: I can connect this to Ellis Island. In Ellis Island one could have had a severe disease or illness and they wouldn't know just because only the ones that looked like they were sick were sent for a check up. I can also connect it to Braceros Program where the doctor would just say they were perfectly fine when in reality they were dying. 

- Discussion Question: Should all people all over the world that are graduating have all materials needed and diagnose people with rare diseases without being told to test their skills?

Oregon teens successfully advocate for mental health days for students

-URL of Article: https://newsela.com/read/oregon-students-mental-health/id/54533 (log in with your school google to see the entire text of article)

-Image from Article:

-Summary/Reaction: This article details a new law in the state of Oregon that allows students to receive an excused absence if they miss school due to mental health.  The goal is for students to be honest with themselves, their families, and their teachers when they need a mental health day (rather than just saying they are sick) and then hopefully get help or assistance if needed to help address any mental health concerns.  According to the article, “Mental health experts say Oregon's new law is one of the first to clearly instruct schools to treat mental health and physical health equally.”  Students in Oregon who advocated for the law said they were inspired by the Parkside shooting.  Most lawmakers were readily supportive of the law, but many parents argued that the law was not necessary.  My reaction to this article is positive - I think it is a great idea for students to be able to take a mental health day if needed and I would support such a law in California.  I think students should be honest about what is keeping them from school and this law encourages students to be genuine.  

-History Connection: I can connect this with compulsory education state laws throughout the country.  Prior to the 1900s, most states did not have laws requiring school attendance, however due to issues such as child labor and welfare during industrialization in the US, many states in the country began passing laws that required children attend school.  By 1918, every state in the country had a compulsory education law.  This new Oregon law could be the beginning of similar education reform throughout the country just like the compulsory education laws.    

-Question(s) for Discussion: Should other states in the country follow Oregon’s lead and establish excused absences for mental health?