The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Clarissa Alvarez
Clarissa Alvarez is a sophomore at The George Washington University studying political science and economics. As a native of bordertown Laredo, Texas, I am often surprised by how little others know about the borderlands, and those who do mention it often bring up common misconceptions. For example, there’s the popular misconception that bloodshed and violence is commonplace along the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. While that may be true for Mexican border towns, the opposite is most accurate for U.S. towns along the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, U.S. border cities tend to be some of the safest regions in the U.S. Law enforcement ranging from the local police department and Border Patrol to the FBI, DEA, Texas National Guard, and ICE tend to be overly present. Though, that may well be because U.S. border cities sit across what have been labeled as some of the most murderous cities in the world. Geography and landscape differ from border state to border state. Some sister cities are separated by a wall, while others are separated by natural barriers like the Rio Grande River that runs along the Southern Texan border. To alleviate border security issues, a large influx of law enforcement is present along the edge of the U.S. border checkpoint, acting as a militarized-like zone. On the Mexican side of the border, people have get-togethers and parents throw their children small birthday parties along the narrow area of land beside the Rio Grande. Children jump into the Rio Grande and playfully splash water at each other, their parent’s watchful of their children, constantly reminding them to not go as far as to accidentally cross into the U.S. and attract Border Patrol attention. People on the U.S. side of the border generally do not want to know what happens, and they shut their eyes to the mishaps that occur on the Mexican side of the border. As famously said by a previous Mexican President Porfirio Diaz, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.” For U.S.-Mexico border cities that share a culture, there are evident political parallels and intersections between both countries.
0 Comments
 By Clarissa Alvarez
Clarissa Alvarez is a sophomore at The George Washington University studying political science and economics. For years, Mexican drug ballads known as narcocorridos that depict the now powerful and lavish lives, as well as the humble beginnings, of cartel leaders have taken the U.S.-Mexico Borderland region by storm. For many young Mexicans living in the Northern States of Mexico and Mexican-Americans living along the southern border states, narcocorridos have unexpectedly become a trendy theme. However, many also believe that these ballads only show how Mexican youth have lost their values and now idolize the nefarious and criminal drug lords. The origin of the narcocorrido stems from the corrido, which often depicts the political themes of immigration, struggle, and the U.S.-Mexico border. There has been a dramatic shift in popularity from the corrido to the polemical narcocorrido since Felipe Calderón announced the infamous “war on drugs” in December 2006. Calderon’s “war on drugs” exacerbated violence and corruption by fracturing large and stable cartels into smaller, more violent groups. During Calderon’s presidency, the “war on drugs” claimed over 60,000 lives and 25,000 disappearances, though the latter numbers are often regarded as extreme underestimations. A recent Mexican National Survey on Victimization and Perception of Public Security shows, “93.7% of crimes were not reported by victims, due mainly to a lack of faith in police and the judicial system. [1] For many Mexicans, narcocorridos are ballads that give voice to the grievances of their nation’s dire situation. In other words, the narcocorrido is an esteemed part of “narco culture” that has overwhelmingly become a way of life for many Mexican and Mexican-American youth.  By Clarissa Alvarez
Clarissa Alvarez is a sophomore at The George Washington University studying political science and economics. The United States v. Texas case, brought into dispute on April 18, 2016, presented to President Obama what was very likely his final opportunity to pass the DACA/DAPA program before the end of his term in January 2017. [1] The latter immigration plan originally proposed by Obama in 2014 advocated for immigration reform and would guarantee deferred action to nearly 4.4 million immigrants. What ultimately hindered Obama from passing a comprehensive immigration reform plan was a 4-4 split decision by the Supreme Court. [2] Had the Supreme Court voted in favor of United States and President Obama, over millions of immigrants under the DACA/DAPA program would have been granted deportation relief, a work permit, a social security number, a driver’s license (except in Nebraska), and a stable pathway to citizenship. [3] Students under the DACA/DAPA program might have even had the possibility of attaining in-state tuition and benefits. The program demonstrated a conceivable solution to an issue that pleads for amendment. However, a deadlocked decision and the undeniable truth that Obama’s presidency will soon come to an end will leave America’s next president to deal with a problem that cannot afford to be ignored any longer. Any subsequent changes to the immigration policy will be left in the hands of either Donald Trump, who firmly vows to reverse Obama’s DACA/DAPA program and deport all illegal immigrants, or Hillary Clinton, who promises to pursue even greater strides than Obama has on immigration reform. [4] The decision was a huge blow for the Obama administration, not to mention the 4.4 million DACA/DAPA protected immigrants. Many Republicans, however, were relieved to see the United States v. Texas case result as a deadlock. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stated, “This is a win for the constitution, it’s a win for Congress.” [5] It was a win for Republicans who accused Obama of transcending his executive power rights as well as violating the Constitution. People of all political affiliations and no affiliation are frustrated with an American government that appears to show trifling efforts to collaboratively agree on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. Many insist that Congress should set aside partisan differences and come to terms with present immigration reform proposals. Others argue that Obama should not be allowed overstep his executive powers. Fingers are pointed at the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and even immigrants themselves. The failure to put forth full-scale immigration reform is quick to be acknowledged, but many Americans forget to acknowledge the incapacity of local level institutions to properly and successfully integrate immigrants—something that requires the collaboration of everyday Americans within regional and local communities. Discourse over whether America should continue to welcome immigrants, largely depends on whether they can fully integrate within the American society. The cooperation between immigrants, receiving communities, and local governments and services is critical to any city’s continual social, cultural, and economic growth. [6] Many times, what an American community imposes on immigrants (legal and illegal) instead is the act of assimilation not integration. |
|
|