In the constitution it states that the Presidents purpose is; to be chief of state, chief executive, chief administrator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislature, party chief, and chief citizen (The presidents job description). As the chief of legislature, one of the presidents duties is to not only review bills being proposed by congress, and occasionally say they must be revised but to also enact laws affecting the people of the United States immediately, rather than wait for them to move up through the many levels and debates of congress. For this, he can use the power of an executive order, a constitutional way to provide laws that relate to national welfare or the good of the citizens. A few good example of this would be executive order 13767, which moves for additional border security on the United States southern border, and executive
Donald Trump has a new plan for the immigration executive order. The original order was not as successful as it caused a lot of confusion. However, his new order will achieve some of the same goals.
The EEO Was born on September 24, 1965, When President Lyndon Johnson issued an Executive Order. This Order basically said that the leader of each executive department and agency needed to provide equal employment opportunity for all employees, workers, and applicants for employment within its company. This Executive order later evolved into another EEO Executive Order. On August 8, 1969, past President Richard Nixon signed Executive Order 11478, that executive order said that the United States government must provide equal opportunity for employing persons in federal buildings this order prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap. As a result of this, EEO laws
The United States is known to have the largest immigration population in the world. There are often three reasons for immigrants coming to the United States. One reason is to take advantage of superior economic opportunities. Another reason could be to escape political or religious oppression that may be occurring in their home countries. A third reason could be to reunite with family members who are already in the United States. Since there are individuals of other nations coming to the United States to live and find workable jobs, the American economy is being effected. Although these effects occur, it does not mean that they are bad or good. These effects just come naturally due to immigration. This paper will examine three effects that
My policy problem is that Congress now wants to reverse President Obama’s executive order and this reversal will be a huge step back in the process of the immigration reform that is needed. This reversal of action can be detrimental to many immigrant families by separating families with deportation and delaying families from being reunited after only parts of families were able to come to the United States. The government has been deporting illegal immigrants and the path to citizenship is difficult for illegal immigrants because of the complications and financial burden of the whole process.
As we all know, Donald Trump issued an executive order which restricts immigration on the following countries:
There are many organizations affected by the new trade policies. Two of the most important organizations are the TPP and NAFTA. NAFTA is a trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. President Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA to improve it. The TPP is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, This trade deal includes the U.S. and many other countries. Donald Trump wants to drop out of the TPP and
With the United States currently experiencing another presidential election the world is in suspense, watching to see who will become the next leader of the free world. Such halt corresponds to the running of two presidential candidates: Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump. Such halt derives from candidates proposed trade policies for the United States and its ramifications. This emphasis on trade originates from this idea that we live in a globalized economy and with the United States being a predominate actor within the international community, policies, for instance, that do not support globalize trade potentially harm developing and developed countries who have ties to the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share similarities amongst their trade agendas; for example, Clinton’s policies surrounding trade must “work” for the U.S. while Trump 's objective is to renegotiate current and future trade agreements to better suit the U.S.. Therefore, each candidate’s trade proposal must undergo an evaluation of the potential outcomes that derive from each proposal and identify which candidate 's agenda is better suited for the United States and the global aim to liberalize trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s trade policies, although minimal in its size, maintains relationships with allied countries and does not harm the United States in trade; while on the other hand, candidate Donald Trump’s trade policies lead to negative ramifications that hurt the
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a free-trade agreement between 44 different countries controlling 40% of the world’s economic output. It spans over 4 continents, comprising of 800 million people, and $28.5 trillion of combined gross domestic product between the 12-pact countries. The TPPA is the world’s largest free-trade agreement to ever exist. This partnership agreement achieves its power by implementing new rules and regulations in their attempt to improve the global economy. However, if the agreement is passed, the new laws introduced will negatively impact the Canadian economy because it strips away basic human rights and needs or make them harder to obtain by restraining government powers. The 6000-page contract targets government
This opinion piece written by the New York Times editorial board analyzes the two major presidential candidates positions on international trade deals, primarily President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed isolationist policies. The article examines the increasingly common perception among the American public that trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP are responsible for causing economic hardships due to prioritizing global interests over American interests. The writers of this article oppose this view and present evidence to refute it. The authors have a liberal viewpoint on this issue and are pro-free trade, however they do concede that there are certain issues that need to be resolved as a result of these trade agreements. They disagree with Trump, viewing his statements as “nothing more than hot air”. The article sets out to dispel some common myths about international free trade deals and also takes a look at the development of the anti-free trade sentiment in the United States over the years.
To conclude, there are two sides to this TPP scenario. While some, like myself, may believe that American jobs will be lost or wages lowered due to another country’s ability to produce a cheaper good, others may believe it gives countries a greater chance to become more dominant with their trade, especially against countries like China. The TPP will always cause some controversy on many levels, and there prove to be many reasons to believe whether U.S. congress should or should not ratify it. However, depending on one’s perspective, the TPP could serve as an asset or detriment to the United
Over the modern history of changing global leaderships, joint alliances have played a tremendous role in defining new world orders. In 1944, at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire - 44 nations came together to sign the world 's biggest financial regulation to date: the Bretton Woods Agreement. We saw a shift of global power and an era of constructive peace since, yet it came at a heavy economic cost in the failure of the dollar and the breakdown of the system shortly after. Today, the U.S. is reaching out to its Asian allies through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that aims to lift tariffs and expand trade relationships between nations accounting for 40% of global trade, in hopes of consolidating its security interests in the world 's fastest-growing region. It promises American businesses and workers a new level of prosperity by requiring member nations to follow U.S. IP best practices and American trade values. The TPP should not be ratified, however, as it is primarily negotiated by corporate lobbyists for their profit-driven interests. It contains over-optimistic fallacies that communicate unsupported economic forecasts amid America 's growing middle-class crisis. It would hurt the U.S. economy hard with questionable political benefits, and previous disappointment with the U.S.-Korea trade agreement as well as the lack of negotiation transparency points to another bureaucracy-filled trade agreement that our future political leaders should not pass.
In today’s America, international trade is a crucial part of the U.S. economy. In 2012 U.S. exports of services exceeded U.S. imports of services by $196 billion. Efficient production of various goods requires different technologies and certain endowments of resources, and not all nations have the same level of technological expertise and resources (McConnell, 2015). Trade deals allow countries to benefit from the technology and resources of other countries. The Trans Pacific Partnership also known as TPP is a proposed trade deal and would be the biggest of its kind. Originally TPP had both support of democrats and republics during the Obama administration with little opposition, but recently the TPP has been a hot-button issue in the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump, being one of the biggest critics of TPP called it unfair and a potential disaster for our country that would cost American jobs. Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate opposed to TPP though; Hillary Clinton has said that TPP could lose American jobs to the manipulations that countries particularly in Asia have engaged in. While many politicians have concerns for TPP, an in depth look at the trade deal from both sides of the argument will help identify many issues with TPP; both good and bad. This examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is an attempt to answer two basic questions about TPP; those questions being:
Globalization has become one of the most influential forces in the twentieth century. International integration of world views, products, trade and ideas has caused a variety of states to blur the lines of their borders and be open to an international perspective. The merger of the Europeans Union, the ASEAN group in the Pacific and NAFTA in North America is reflective of the notion of globalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement was the largest free trade zone in the world at its conception and set an example for the future of liberalized trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement is coming into it's twentieth anniversary on January 1st, 2014. 1 NAFTA not only sought to enhance the trade of goods and services across
Across the world, globalization is one of the most significant aspects that has occurred over the last fifty years. It allows a country to integrate economically with other countries through a global network comprised of people, trade, and transportation. With the global landscape only becoming more intertwined, globalization and its inherent pros and cons seem to be here to stay. In many areas, global powers tend to lack in rectifying the negative aspects and only focus on the positive side. America, for example, is a leader in the globalization efforts, even though it has greatly effected job opportunities at home, widening income gaps, and an increased standard of living due to fluctuating world markets.