Texas Times

DE C 2021

2

To our Political Af icionados Time never stops. It’s constantly moving and brings plenty of changes. And sometime there might be repetition of the past, good and bad. If we leave room for conversation, we could foster growth. In this magazine we focus on our home state of Texas and some of its major issues, some of which have been around for years and others that are relatively new. An example of the latter is the COVID 19 pandemic, and of the former, abortion. Some issues, such as immigration, will always be with us because of the Valley’s proximity to the border, while voter fraud and climate change have had intermittent time in the headlines for many years.In this magazine, Kassy Lazos, takes a look into COVID-19 and gets perspectives on how locals feel about the vaccine; she also writes about the oning issue of immigration, focusing on ssue of immigration, focusing on people who gave dealt with the situation firsthand.

Justin Butz, a student-athlete at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, discusses athletes’ stances on the vaccine and how the situation has affected their sports performance.

Myhra Alexandra takes us back in time to the 1970s and the famous Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, and then traces the development of laws concerning the procedures from then on. Where does Texas and its governor stand on abortion now? Alexandra writes about the recently passed Heartbeat Bill and muses about the future of the issue for Texans, coming at the topic from an academic perspective as well as a woman’s.

Adrian Barrios informs us on the argument about facts concerning climate change, and in another piece he looks at the ongoing controversy of voting rights and fraud. His thorough and fact-filled writing pieces should offer plenty of food for thought.

And Lorenzo Galvan dives deep into the subject of corruption, an issue that plagues any state from time to time. He gives an overview of various lobbying, in particular the representatives of major corporations.

This magazine and the issues we cover allowed us to learn more in depth about issues both statewide and nationally, and also a chance to try and understand what locals in the Valley think about them. Asking, “How do the big issues affect people on the border?” allowed us to connect with others and have conversations we might not have had before. We hope that you, the reader, can look on this collection of works and then have all sorts of discussions with various people – on all sides – about the tough topics, and then take a stand for whatever you feel is right.

3

4

COVID-19 VACCINE •

Vaccines causing a shift in 2020 pandemic:How COVID-19 vaccine impacted Texas

The last time our country had a pandemic was when influenza hit during 1918. As reported by CDC, this virus was found all over the world. On March 25, 2020 was when the first case of COVID-19 was discovered in the United States. This lead America to be overwhelmed and frightened, in need to take action in ending the pandemic as soon as possible. By the year 2021, the FDA approved three vaccines and more than 93.6 million vaccination doses that had been administered and was stated by the Centers for Biosimilars. According with Medical News Today, creating a vaccine under 1 year is no small feat, however, many Americans were hesitant to get the vaccination, but by 2021, 188 million individuals were vaccinated.Jocelyn Guerra, who has been a teacher at Horizon Montessori for three years explained that the vaccine is political and it does not guarantee you from getting COVID-19.

“I believe COVID-19 is political because I recall that many people got vaccinated because family members advised them to. I am aware the government began to exert influence on all of our citizens in the Rio Grande Valley. Citizens decided to receive the vaccine, and it wasn’t to prevent anything, but rather to terrify us into getting the vaccine. Instead, the government should have stated, “You need to start taking care of yourself, begin walking in order to strengthen your immunity, wear your mask at all times, avoid large groups, and follow all safety precautions.” Instead, the government chose to inform the public that the vaccination is the last hope for ending this pandemic. There was never any hope with the vaccine; so, it was merely a ruse to make them feel overwhelmed and uneasy. Even though they received the vaccine, some of my friends contracted COVID-19. From what the administration claimed, the vaccine did not seem to be as effective because there isn’t enough study on what is in the vaccine. I wouldn’t advise anyone to receive it,” Guerra said.

Since December 2020, more than 350 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the U.S. and VAERS, which is a program for vaccine safety co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. CDC claimed that those patients who took the vaccine, 6,968 deaths had been reported. If you contracted COVID-19, your immune system plays a significant role with the virus, Harvard Health Publishing stated that in order to boost your immune system a person must have a clean diet, exercise, and take care of your stress levels.

Victoria Lerma, who is junior attending Texas A&M Corpus Christi studies in nursing. She is certified and qualified in phlebotomy, nursing assistant, patient care tech, and electrocardiogram. She explained how the vaccine is effective.

“Vaccines are very effective in prevent an eradicating disease. The vaccine introduced the antigen of a disease into the body without causing actual illness, allowing the body to create antibodies against the antigen for the future use. The immune system creates a defense mechanism against COVID-19, that

5

against the antigen for the future use. The immune system creates a defense mechanism against against the antigen for the future use. The immune system creates a defense mechanism against COVID-19, that way your body is well equipped to fight the virus if it comes into contact with it, “said Lerma. I took the COVID-19 vaccine myself and contributed to eradicating the virus. It was also a requirement for me to be vaccinated to go to clinical, but I took the vaccine before going into nursing. I chose to put it on because I did not feel pressured to get the vaccine beforehand. I would recommend people to get the COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves and their families.

It is a global pandemic, so the only way to decrease the cases of COVID-19 is to get vaccinated. I understand everyone has the right to make their own decisions, but many people are unaware that COVID-19 can be fatal if they do not take the vaccine,” said Lerma.

CDC stated that if you are fully vaccinated you can resume activities you did before the pandemic. However, vaccinated people are still required to wear a mask, which means that they are not fully protected from COVID-19.

Fatima Cantu who is a junior and majoring in Medial Laboratory Science, works with physicians to provide patients diagnosis. She discloses the vaccine does not fight off COVID-19.

“I feel this is a common misconception people tend to have with the vaccines. A vaccine does not mean you are no longer susceptible of getting COVID-19, rather you are building immunity towards it. This means if you got COVID-19, you are less likely to get severely ill, so, instead of saying you won’t get COVID-19 at all because you are vaccinated, I say you have a lower risk of developing a fatal form of COVID,” said Cantu. “After receiving my second dose, I felt very safe when I took the vaccine. After receiving my second dose, I had a great sense of relief taking it. It made me feel secure, especially since we been transitioning back to traditional face-to-face classes. I still choose to wear my mask and take necessary precautions because as I previously mentioned, the chances of getting COVID-19 are not completely diminished even if we have the vaccine,” said Cantu.

Although CDC and the government mentioned the vaccine is secure and effective, people are feeling pressured to take it. Jocelyn Guerra tells us that she will not be taking the vaccine no matter what the government tells her.

“I feel the government does not care about us, they planned this pandemic to control us and tell everyone specifically when to take the vaccine and why this vaccine is good to protect others.

They want to control our society and citizens; I always hear ads about taking the vaccine when I listen to the radio. The government is getting involved with our lives and are finding ways to make us fold and take it out of spite. I am still curious to know what effects of the people who are vaccinated will have long term. The only person who can protect you from a pandemic is God. I do not believe vaccines are capable of providing safety for us,” said Guerra. “I do not think the vaccine prevents you from having COVID-19. We are basically the targets to the government,” said Guerra.

As stated by frontiers in medicine, out of 6,688,231 individuals who received COVID-19 vaccinations, 55 deaths were reported in January 8, 2021. This proves the vaccine can lead to death.

There still remains many people wondering if the vaccine will be a good benefit for their life.

Owen Hansford, a 23-year-old republican who specializes in power lines, clarifies the vaccine and why taking it isn’t useful or ethical.

“No, the vaccine has already been proven to not help the spread of COVID cases, it is still just as transmittable, the vaccine does not keep you from getting the virus, nor does it keep you from spreading it. The mask and simple good hygiene are effective along with not going out often,” said Hansford. “I think the government is trying to control us, but this isn’t the first step as stated by Biden, it is not about your freedom if the democratic government in office at this moment was not trying to control us, why mandate the vaccine and fire people from their jobs that use their rights as an individual to not inject themselves with the vaccine? Why are the schools encouraging students to get vaccinated, the government is all smoke and mirrors? Why are truck drivers stuck at ports waiting for loads while ports are not being operated, we are told that it’s the trucker’s shortage, but it is not. Why are farmers being paid by the government to destroy crops while stores continue to have shortages of organic foods? Why is the government paying for oil to just

6

to just get dumped on the ground while gas prices continue to rise? The supply is here, but the government is greedy due to the debt it creates using our money for other countries or insignificant items for funding our own. The government is brainwashing you to make you believe they want the best for you, when all the government wants is your hard-earned money,” said Hansford.

Many people’s lives have been affected by the vaccine, and some may argue that they would rather take it for their own safety or because they believed they do not need it.

Melanie Garcia, is a UTRGV junior who is vaccinated and shared her views on the vaccination in why she decided to get it.

“I took the COVID-19 vaccine for my safety as well as others. I was an essential worker and worked throughout the entire pandemic; I did not get a break. This vaccine was proven to protect my immune system not 100% but 80% – 90% which is still very high for a vaccine that was created within one year. It has been proven that the vaccine also helps with side effects, people who are vaccinated do not get COVID-19 as drastic as someone who isn’t vaccinated.

Also, I cannot bare to think about being the reason I infect my parents with COVID-19, my parents are older and COVID-19 has actually been affecting older people, even worse,” Garcia said. “I believe the vaccine helped with COVID-19, it was proven that even if you take the vaccine you could still get it but the side effects, so, it won’t be as drastic which is really my biggest concern. Side effects such as pain in the chest, loss of taste, sense of smell, extreme fevers, headaches, and shortness of breath. All of these side effects are very scary to me and they have resulted in people being admitted to the hospital and incubated. I’m prepared to take the risk if the vaccine increases my chances of reducing side effects and gives immunity,” Garcia said.

Athletes Affected By The Vaccine In the world of sports, vaccine mandates have taken the country by storm. The big debate is if it is right to mandate vaccines, or if the right to choose is the better route. Recently the first big name to publicly disagree with the mandate is 29 year old Kyrie Irving, an NBA player for the Brooklyn Nets. Kyrie Irving has publicly stated he does not agree with the mandate. Kyrie believes nobody should have to be forced to take a vaccine. “He respects doctors who continue to try to keep people safe and those who are vaccinated, while also respecting those who aren’t vaccinated and are being mandated to do this and are losing their livelihood.”

Irving said, “This is about my life and what I am choosing to do.”

Some people believe that because they have signed contracts they should follow the rules of the team required to participate. Chase Bridges, a senior baseball player for the University of Texas at Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), agrees that we should abide by the rules. “As a college athlete we sign a National Letter of Intent (NLI) that means we owe this amount of time toward a University”. Bridges explains, “If I agree and sign a contract to play for them we are obligated to do things that don’t breach that contract which right now is a vaccine”.

Texas Government Involvement Because athletes, coaches, and students are required to follow a protocol, many have been unable to comply with their organizations and university’s standards. A huge reason for the

7

Demonstrators stand outside of Barclay’s center homeof the nets to support Kyrie’s decision to not get the vaccine.

for the lack of vaccinations is the fight between the right and left side.

With the left side pushing for mask mandates and vaccine mandates the right side is pushing for looser mandates and the right to choose when it comes to the vaccine. No matter what political side you believe in, the dilemma is if athletes should have to lose their ability to play because of a vaccine that was just introduced with FDA clearing it. Within the state of Texas which is a red state many people disagree with mandates.

According to the Office of the Texas Governor, Greg Abbott released information about the mandate. Abbott issued an executive order stating that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19. “The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, and our best defense against the virus, but should remain voluntary and never forced,” said Governor Abbott.

While Governor Abbott is a right wing political figure CNN has taken interest in the ideology of the man behind the ban of vaccine mandates. The political Op-Eds social commentary section of CNN’s written by Jill Filipovic, a journalist out of the New York Times, expresses that it’s an attempt to use freedom to halt mandates in the editorial. “All of this is done under the cover of “freedom” -- freedom, apparently, to sicken and potentially kill your colleagues and neighbors” Filipovic said.

UTRGV Covid Requirements

Although the state government has put in place a ban on vaccine mandates, colleges across Texas all have different protocols when it comes to tackling covid-19 and requirements to keep athletes safe. UTRGV has thrived in the conditions they were in last season as only very few games were missed due to covid across all sports. Most impressive was baseball as they had only three games cancelled due to the opposing team catching covid. Now that they loosened restrictions around campus the big question was how do they implement a vaccine plan. Recently in a student athlete meeting Chase Conque the Athletic Director for UTRGV announced vaccine ratings across sports.

“More than 80% of student athletes have been vaccinated,” Conque said.

With a high percentage of athletes getting the vaccine, the agenda of the university seemed to lean towards mandating the vaccine. One UTRGV baseball player believes they’re setting certain rules in place to force you to get the vaccine. Hunter Rosenbaum, a first year pitcher from Wisconsin, doesn’t agree with the vaccine due to the democratic agenda and the schools political beliefs which lean towards democratic. “The requirements they’ve set in place for the unvaccinated make it difficult for me to participate in baseball regularly as I’ve sat out twice this fall due to players contracting the virus” Rosenbaum said. “They found ways to force us without actually saying the vaccine is mandatory”.

8

9

Immigrants wanting to come to Texas Rise of Immigration

Stated by library of congress in the late 1800s, people in many parts of the world decided to leave their homes and immigrate to the United States due to crop failure, lands, job shortages, rising taxes, and famine. Many came to the U. S. because it was perceived as the land of economic opportunity. In the United States, immigration has been a cause of conflict in the nation, and in order to enhance our immigration, we must learn to cope with the challenges.

We see that immigration is in issue right now with many citizens from Mexico wanting to cross over the border for the American dream. According to Investopedia, the American dream is the belief that anyone, regardless of where they were born or what class they were born into, can attain their own version Magnis excerore pamobility verae nobis Ecturem.

Itaestr umquosant fuga. dream is beof success in a society inporro which upward is possible for everyone.

The American atquethrough vellorro min et, et dolut ex expliti and Eligendusam verum etur lieved to be achieved sacrifice, risk-taking, hard work,quisque rather than by chance.

Mexico has id que commoluptio beratis ut verum mi, nihil iustia nus sim sunt renissi been the most common country of origin for immigrants, but it is not the only one. Stated by the Pew repelit sit antand ut Elmagnamus id also elluptatio.

Onsequos Research Center,dolor China, India,offictemquis the Philippines, Salvador are well-known for migrating. aute reicim et voluptibus, officitius as alitisit, nimus et re sequam, quid In order to avoid the border crisis, our nation should be helped by many immigrants to find the help ut desti nis aware vit labor as eshow ut volupta they need to become better about to travelmaios to thesinveliat.

United States legally. There should be an turitiorum simus, quodica borrum Xim fugiae magnate nos doluptatus. establishment to have a brighter future for the country. Are the id undocumented citizens aware of their nobit que nihiciamusda sequidipiet, Ibustrum acipsae ptaque lamenimpore opportunities? Are immigrants being treated fairly by our government? Foreign policy claims that mitem volupiciis prae. derorehent molorest, quae.prisoners of war grants should beoditatustiae treated at avitaquam, bare minimum, no worse thanItainternational law requires et laborwhy min are pro dem eliatur? becoming Nequi ut dolorepta conempo to be treated. However, immigrants our enemy if wedoluptati are supposed to help them and Por restorum que omnis qui que remquo ipsandessum est vendio officers should be aware they are wanting to come over for a better life. alictus magnati berundipid explabo tenimus solor aborrofor et volutatur aut et Juan Garza who has been a permanent citizen for 23 years and worked Pharr International Bridge recatet aut acepratur ratur a con eum inctur sit, sitatiur sequia vent aut lam for 15 years. He was born in Reynosa Tamaulipas. rate optate por atisimp ostissimet sitetthen et occab is sit,selling corepedi demosfollowed et “I started selling cum newspapers when I was eight years old, I began donuts, by tacos, moluptatus, quassi as eneserumque aut modiori tatusda atest que la vent, and after that, I got a job at Pollo Loco. My father had us working so young, because we didn’t have much enem harum voluptaecto volorpo solorro for vollacit unt que explignime money and all my brothers including me needed to provide the house.

My mother had 10 children to reroreptat et audaepe rsperiatum consenimus, unt voluptasse conectae. feed so all males had to bring in money,” said Garza. unt for prame. eserum exped estrum alibusam essinverio “I remember lifesundici was notliquam very easy I hadquos manyAt hardships and had to adult very young. Until I met exernat iorepra escient volor min expel is sit vite nonsercia nem iusant the love of my life at age 20, she would always have to meet me near the border to see me. We were long et aliquid elitatemque quam fuga. maio et laboreiumque pa sam fugi. distance for a bit until the year 1996, and that is when my life changed. We both decided to marry and the only way I could was because I had a local card where you can come to the United States just to shop, but instead I chose to get married,” said Garza.

Immigrants have a waiting period to become a permanent citizen which takes 7 to 33 months according with Immigration impact.

“I got very anxious during the waiting period. I had my green card to work here, but I wanted to get my permanent card because I wanted to build a family with my love of my life. I was afraid to be sent back to Mexico when I was already trying to build a life with my woman in McAllen. I started working up north in

10

in construction after a few months we had an apartment together. The company I was with paid me more, so, my wife and I decided it was best for me to work in different location to provide for her while she was working and was pregnant with my daughter,” said Guerra.

Not only do immigrants go through challenges, but being a child with immigrant parents puts a lot of stress on the child. According to Urban, one out of four children in the United States has at least one immigrant parent. These children are America’s children; the nation’s future is inextricably linked to theirs. Children of immigrant families are more likely to have low incomes than families of children who were born in the United States.

Andrea Vega who is a graduate from Texas Pan American has her master’s in teaching and a minor in business. She is currently working in la Joya High school as an assistant principal. She lived in a trailer near McAllen with five brothers and one sister.

“I felt very honorable of my immigrant parents I think that just the fact that they left their lives over in Mexico basically taught me the importance of their love for their children. I think it was something that I will never forget to pay them back because they left their heritage over there and their family members. My parents came over to McAllen hoping for a better life and opportunities for their children. My parents were willing to sacrifice their own lives and jobs to leave Mexico for our family,” said Vega

“The most difficult part I saw growing up with my immigrant parents was how they struggled because they did not have an education. I saw how they had to work multiple jobs that didn’t pay good for the amount of hours they worked. It was all because they didn’t have papers and didn’t know how to speak English. It was very hard seeing my parents work many jobs just to provide for us. They spend rarely any time with us. The education I got was because of their sacrifices. One of the biggest factors that made me want to become an educator was wanting a better life for myself.

I thought to myself if they were able to do better without papers then I can do much more because I was born here. Just being able to give my parents that reward of seeing me finish high school and college made them feel very proud. They knew that they made the right decision just by hearing my accomplishments,” said Vega.

As reported by president alliance there is 39% of undocumented graduate students that hold a bachelor’s degree in a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math field. More than 450,000 (approximately 2% of all students) undocumented students are enrolled in higher education. Daca means deferred action for childhood arrivals. Many undocumented students are in the United States for a good education and opportunities. It is really challenging for them to leave their parents behind while they stay focus to graduate.

Evelyn Lopez who is a first generation going to college and was born in Guadalajara Jalisco, Mexico came to the United States when she was two years old. She explains her struggles as a DACA student.

“I have lived here for sixteen years and in all those times I have never committed a felony. I have never committed a crime. I have done nothing, but be a good citizen. I have forgotten my own native tongue and my cultures because of the culture shock that has hit me in the United States. My college counselor told me recently that since I am an immigrant without a social security or a work permit, I cannot get my teaching credential. I have gone through many challenges, but my grades have always maintained good,” said Lopez.

“It is my dream to become an English teacher because children already go through so much on their own personal lives that school should not be a battlefield. I know how it feels to have a teacher that doesn’t understand you or comprehend. That’s why I want to be a teacher to connect with the students, but since I am an immigrant I am unable to get my teacher credentials. I have tried to get my work permit and apply to many programs, but haven’t been successful. I really want to study to be a teacher. It makes me so sad that I can’t because there are many people who do have the opportunity and they don’t take advantage of it. If I don’t get my residency or a citizenship in the next three to four years, I can’t get my teaching credentials and that’s all I have worked for,” said Lopez.

According to U.S Customs and Border Protection stated “McAllen [Texas] was hit really, really hard,” said Ben Stern, a supervisory Border Patrol agent from Maine, one of hundreds of agents and offi-

Ictibea pernati optatia ipsan.

11

, one of hundreds of agents and officers deployed to address the crisis. His assignments were to help process illegal aliens after they were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the area with the highest number of apprehensions. At the height of apprehensions in May, the entire Rio Grande Valley Sector averaged more than 1,600 each day, compared to just 560 a day in May 2018.

The wall was built to reduce the rate of immigration and to inform Mexico that we take our regulations seriously. In improved border barrier is seen to be under control and restrict any illegal immigrants or crime lords. According to the journalist’s resource the effectiveness of border barriers is limited and offers conflicting results in terms of how much of a role barriers play in deterring unauthorized entry in the United States. Modifications in the border may make life more difficult for immigrants to attempt to cross the barrier.

As stated by BBC news former president Trump has allowed more people to come to the U.S. temporarily for work, but made it harder for people to settle permanently in the U.S. He made sure that Americans were aware that residents from Mexico should go through the process of becoming a legal citizen.

It was shocking of how particular he was with the border. He made sure that Americans were protected from suspicion of criminals. To conduct a better border, we must enforce constitutional limits and fairly represent our country.

The Border War Between College Student The goal of this interview is to give an insight into the mind of a college student faced with difficult decisions during a tough time economically. The ultimate objective in this writing is to illustrate real life situations to familiarize people with South Texas criminal activities. The answers in this interview will give the interviewee the chance to tell his story. The man being interviewed requested to be kept anonymous so he will be using the name Cameron Jackson.

Question: Where are you from?

Answer: I was born and raised in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Question: How was it growing up in Muskogee?

Answer: It was really fun, it’s a small town and most people don’t like Oklahoma but I loved being outside with friends. You got to know everyone.

Question: How was family life growing up?

Answer: My Mom was always there for me when I was growing up but my Dad left when I was really young. I still don’t know where he is or anything. My mom is my support system and I just want to make her proud.

Question: How did you end up at UTRGV? Answer: I ended up getting a baseball scholarship and decided to take it and come here.

Question: How was your time at UTRGV before the incident?

Answer: It was really fun, I loved my teammates, I loved how fun the weekends were, and the baseball was really good.

Question: Were you affected by Covid-19 at all once it hit the US? Answer: When it first hit, my Mom got by for a little bit then started struggling more and more each week. I was doing okay because of the scholarship I had and the baseball coach giving us meals for the time being.

Question: Did you feel responsible for helping out your Mom during the pandemic?

Answer: I’ve always felt the need to take care of my Mom because I never had a Dad present so when the pandemic hit I wanted to make sure anything I was making was going towards her.

Question: When was the first interaction you had with someone that moved illegals?

Answer: I first met someone through a friend at the apartment complex I lived at because I needed to make more money for my Mom. Question: What did you talk about with this guy and what was the next step?

12

Answer: I first met someone through a friend at the apartment complex I lived at because I needed to make more money for my Mom. Question: What did you talk about with this guy and what was the next step?

Answer: Our first conversation was a bit sketchy and he was asking a lot of personal questions and seemed to know who I was before I met him. He asked why I wanted to do it and I told him to help my Mom. He seemed to be okay with my answer and he told me we’d meet again at the same place and time.

Question: Did you want to meet him again or after that meeting were you ready to be done?

Answer: I was torn between meeting him again or not but I knew once I met him the first time I wasn’t going to be able to turn back.

Question: When was the first time you completed a trip?

Answer: The term they used was “moving heads,” so the first time I officially did that was the first weekend in February. I didn’t travel with the team so I ended up committing to driving them that weekend.

Question: How many people did you move and how much did you make?

Answer: I moved a family of four the first weekend. I put two of them in suitcases and the others laid down on their backs flat in order to be more hidden. My car was a mom looking car so it was easier to get away. I made three thousand dollars my first weekend alone.

Question: Where did you drive them and how long did it take?

Answer: I drove them through the checkpoint in Corpus Christi and dropped them off in Houston.

Question: Would you always bring them through Corpus or was there a specific route to pick them up and drop them off?

Answer: I would pick them up in random places about an hour from my apartment. Sometimes I’d pull into this one closed off dirt road and peel off to the right a little where a rundown trailer would sit. Most of them would come in groups and I’d drive them either a little bit past the checkpoint or drive them all the way to Houston.

Question: How much did you make overall and how many trips did you take?

Answer: I made over thirty grand because I would make trips every weekend from there on out and would start pushing it to see how many people I could take at once.

Question: What happened the time you finally got caught? Walk me through the night.

Answer: I had just returned from a weekend trip with the team and didn’t plan on doing it. The guy that would give me the details on trips wasn’t working that week but another guy I had met was this time. In the past he told me not to work with him because a lot of people got caught when working for him but I didn’t care I needed the money. I went to meet the new guy at a new location and picked up only one young woman. She was pretty and was around the same age as me I guess which at the time I was 22. She sat up in the front for most of the ride but right before we got to the checkpoint I pulled over and zipped her up in a suitcase. When I got to the checkpoint the guy who usually checked cars wasn’t there, it was a new guy. This guy was more thorough when it came to checking cars. The border patrol agent took one look at my license plate and called the dogs over where they popped my truck and found the girl in the suitcase. Almost immediately they cuffed me and threw me into a holding cell. They asked a lot of questions. I can’t even remember because I was so scared all I could think about was I’m stuck here forever.

Question: What happened after that? How long did they hold you?

Answer: I couldn’t let anyone know where I was because they took my phone and held me in a cell for about a week before I got my phone call. My teammate had my phone location and I was lucky enough to have him know where I was during all of this.

13

Texas Heartbeat Act: Visiting abortion in the past, present and what will come next 52 years ago, Norma McCorvey a young and troubled women found herself pregnant. She knew she wasn’t fit to take care of a child. McCorvey’s financial situation wasn’t the best. She also struggled with substance and alcohol abuse.

McCorvey, was in a bit of a dilemma given her residency was in Texas where abortion was illegal. She was extremely desperate and claimed to the doctor she needed to have an abortion. She claimed she had been raped in hopes that the Texas court would make an exception, but her claim didn’t take and McCorvey found herself seeking out an underground abortion clinic which she would find it had been shut down by authorities. She would later cross path with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee.

Sarah Weddington in 1972

14

Linda Coffee in Dallas, 1972

Weddington and Coffee had just gotten out of law school and were looking for women plaintiffs who were seeking abortions but couldn’t given that they lived in state where abortion was illegal and not accessible. Another matter they took into consideration was if they had a low income status, because then these women were not able to afford to travel to a state where abortion was legal. McCorvey fit the role as she lived in Texas and was of low income. In 1970, Weddington and Coffee filed a lawsuit on behalf of McCorvey under the name Jane Roe. Although, it was late for McCorvey to have an abortion she still wanted to follow through with the lawsuit, which became Roe vs. Wade.

Roe v. Wade went to the Supreme Court but was a lengthy process. It wasn’t until three years later that a decision would be reached. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7 to 2 decision which ruled in favor of Roe. Declaring, “Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.”

19 years later challenges started to arise to Roe v. Wade in Texas. Legislators started working up new bills to make getting an abortion more difficult. A law was introduced in 1992 which stated only Texas Licensed physicians were allowed to perform the procedures. Then in 1997, a total of 21 abortion related bills were drawn up. Five of them were enacted. One law gave clini nurses, doctors the right to refuse an abortion allowing them to opt out of performing the procedure. Another law stated that if Texas Department of Health believed that a clinic, staff members, nurses or patients were being threatened they could suspend the abortion license that facility carried. Meaning that clinic would no longer be able to perform procedures while under suspension.

The legislators didn’t stop there though.

Jumping forward to 2010, a series of tug of war between the bills. Each stepping on one another’s toes forcing many Texas women to jump through hoops and hurdles just to have access to their rights. Laws ranging now from women had to listen to ultrasounds twice before they could get the procedure to later down the line being eliminated. Another bill said that clinics needed to meet ambulatory surgical center regulations and the doctor performing the abortion procedures had to have hospital admitting privilege. This bill was signed into law in 2013 and made things extremely difficult out of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas only 5 of them met the requirements. For example, women in the Rio Grande Valley struggled with this bill as the nearest abortion clinic was 300 miles away. This bill did not hold for long.

Moving into 2019, where Gov. Gregg Abbott made clear his stance on abortion with a judicial ruling banning abortion after 22 weeks. To go even further he signed a law saying that local governments were not allowed to provide funding or help in lobbying the beliefs or interest of abortion providers and clinics. In 2021, Gov. Abbot continues to strengthen his Republican Party ideals that Abortion is considered murder and the reason behind signed the latest abortion bill Texas Heartbeat Act into law i to ensure his party that he will put an end to these deaths of

Demonstrators in front the Mansion in Austin on May 19,2021, protesting Senate Bill 8, that Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law. Evan L’Roy/The Texas Tribune Abortion in Texas now and what’s to come

On September 1, 2021 the Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect. It states that if heartbeat can be detected even if its faint clinics must turn the patient away as it is now illegal to carry through with the procedure. A fetal heartbeat can be detected in as early as six weeks. Most women are unaware as six week is equivalent to a two-week late period. That’s not much of a notice for women who don’t track their cycles or who have irregular cycles. This law means that Texas has the strictest abortion ban sitting at six week in comparison to their 2019’s 22-week limit which is a 16 week jump ban in less than three years.

The THA gives an incentive for those who encounter someone getting an abortion and those aiding in the abortion the ability to sue the parties involved in the abortion and receive a payout of ten thousand dollars.

According to an article in the Texas Tribune, Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas

15

College of Law Houston, says this law is very clever as this incentive has left private citizens in charge of enforcing the law rather than the state, because of that financial threat. He says “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General Ken Paxton as he no role in enforcing the statue.”, He said “They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

Dr. Clyde Barrow, of the Political Science department at University of Texas at Rio Grande Valley, specializes in public policy, political economy and political theory. When asked if this law could cause a rift in the upcoming election Barrow believes it to be a central issue for the upcoming elections both state and federal. He states the reason being that “Primarily, this intent of this law is to make abortions illegal. Set in motion a legal process which Republicans hope will result in the new Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, which would strip women the right of privacy and the right to choice in the matter of abortion” Barrow says that it’d be a gray matter if it were to be overturned as abortion wouldn’t be flat out illegal some states would still allow it such as: California, New York and Massachusetts would make it legal to have abortions whereas Texas, Georgia and Alabama would have abortion be illegal and if anything could possibly make it a criminal offence where women could become imprisoned if that were to be the case.

Ty Wooton, regional director for Gov. Abbott’s campaign in the Valley, doesn’t believe the THA will cause a rift as Texas has always been represented a red state and will continue to do so. Wooton says, “ Yes, people will be unhappy, but that’s what makes America. In America, people have the right to assemble and protest what they don’t believe is right. I don’t think it’d be enough to cause a rift in Texas though as most of the state is red.” Wooton also feels that this law has helped Abbot in his campaign as his polling number have increased in comparison to the other running candidates: Alan West and Don Huffines and as well as Beto O’ Rourke who is also running for governor of Texas in 2022 as democratic.

Barrow also states that this new abortion law will work in Abbot’s favor in the upcoming election as there are a lot of Republicans in Texas that are Christian. “The Republican party knows that it’s only path to political power and to retain political party is to energize and mobilize the right wing Evangelical religious protestant voters.”Also compared the new THA law to red meat that’s being thrown to the hungry right wings. It’s a way for the Republican party to keep them energized. “Without the support of that group”, he said ” Republicans could never win an election anywhere and this is their single issue: abortion.”

Gov. Abbott is running for governor again in 2022. And is making waves with this abortion law but what is next on the agenda for him and what will that mean for Texas? On May 19, 2021 Governor Gregg Abbott signed The Texas Heartbeat Act law dooming all women in Texas of their fundamental rights. Which rights specifically the rights to have an abortion. Technically, you could still have it you just have to make sure you know the minute of conception or hope that Plan B works, there’s always a quick trip to California or New York if the finance is there otherwise once six weeks have passed it is illegal for women no matter the circumstance to have an abortion.

New York Times stated that “The Supreme Court have two separate cases challenging the new Texas law effectively banning abortion that they.” The first case is Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. This case questions Texas’s loophole in The Texas Heartbeat Act which gives public citizen the authority to enforce the abortion law as opposed to public officials by offering the incentive of a 10,000 pay in lieu of suing all parties involved in the abortion.

The second case is United States v Texas, wants to know whether the federal government has a genuine interest in the case, and if they’re willing to sue state courts and officials to prevent them from enforcing the law. This could very well be just a scare tactic, unless there’s money just lying around to be given which doesn’t really seem likely.

“The United States has a vested interest in vindicating constitutional law” Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said, “and warned that if the Supreme Court approved of this method of limiting judicial review, it could be replicated in other contexts.” What’s worrisome is that this method could be replicated on other constitutional matters such as: the second amendment and same-sex marriage as well.

Yet, the most important case that is looming over the decision of overturning Roe v Wade is Mississippi’s Dobb’s v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that is coming up on Dec 1 of this year. Jackson’s clinic and abortion facility challenges the constitution.

The case focuses on the constitutionality of “The Gestational Age” the newly acted law from 2018 that makes it illegal to have an abortion at fifteen weeks except for medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities.

The last time a case threatened Roe v Wade was in 1992. The case was Planned Parenthood vs Casey, it argued that some of the provisions they enacted in Pennsylvania were unconstitutional under Roe v Wade. The five provisions were: Informed consent, Spousal Notice, Parental Consent, Medical Emergencies, and Reporting Requirements.

Informed consent required a women seeking an abortion to wait a 24 hour period in which a doctor would have to give specific information and reiterate the possibility of complications in the procedure. This provision was a way to scare many into thinking that death could be a possibility as a result from abortion as it could “detrimental to her health” The second is spousal notice, which was definitely a troublesome provision to have as it required women seeking abortion to sign a statement in which they declared they had informed their spouse they were getting the procedure. This law was extremely problematic as it subjected some women to abuse and as well child abuse depending on their partner’s nature and of course gave power to men over the rights of a women’s body as if it were property. Sound familiar?

The third parental consent, was the requirement that a minor were to atleast have one parent or guardians approval before seeking an abortion; however, they could challenge the decision in court.

The fourth were medical emergencies which if the abortion procedure were to complicate or result in death of the women they were not able to follow through. The fifth was just reporting requirements ensuring all abortion or clientele information was recorded.

The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, on the spousal notice, but believed the other provisions were not entirely burdensome and left a majority of the provisions to stay.

This time around will the supreme court continue to hold up Roe v Wade or will it be reversed, and if so legitimacy might be questioned if the courts do decide to reverse the decision as mentioned in the New York Times “The voters who trusted in the public statements of judges to interpret the law as written would have reason to doubt whether their trust was well placed.”

Nonetheless, lets say The Supreme Court does follow through on the reversing of Roe V Wade. Not all states would make abortions illegal a possibility of 21 to 26 states that are represented as red states would opt for making it illegal where the remaining states would have abortion accessible still.That’s a lot of states where women actively seeking abortion might not be able financially be able to

take a trip to the nearest state with abortion access.

I hope that the Supreme Court doesn’t take this decision lightly, and make sure to understand the consequences that could result in the ruling of a reversal, otherwise what has America been fighting for the last 40 years, and will you just stand there?

16

Corruption in America

After decades of it, people are beginning to wonder: how legal is it?

WESLACO-- Growing up in America, people don’t tend to hear or learn much about corruption. Generally, corruption isn’t learned about teenagers develop their sense of self in the political world. Watergate is the most well-known case of corruption, but just how further does this go?

One of the biggest forms of corruption in the U.S. is money. Researchers at Princeton University looked at over 20 years of data to answer one question: Does the government represent the people? Their findings may not surprise people who pay attention to politics, but for the average person, the answer is a bit of a shock, and that is that the U.S. mostly doesn’t.

17

To simplify things, the bottom axis stands for the percentage of people who approve of a certain policy change, for example, socialized healthcare. In an ideal situation, if 50% of the population agrees on socialized healthcare, then there should be a 50% chance that the policy of socialized healthcare would be adopted. Now look at the bottom graph, even if 0% of the population agrees on a certain policy change, there’s a 30% chance it will be adopted, and what’s even more peculiar is that the 30% chance doesn’t change, even if 100% of the population agrees with the policy. Now, this is just to question whether the government represents the people, but where does corruption come in all of this? Look at the top graph.

This is closer to the ideal situation. The increase in likelihood that a policy change would be adopted is in line with the percent of people who favor it. But there’s a difference in what people are looking at. The bottom graph identifies the average citizen, which accounts for 90% of the population. the top shows the elites, the 10% of people and corporations who can afford lobbyists’, they give money to the government via contributions to the specific congressperson’s re-election campaign to get exactly what they want.

According to the research done Princeton, “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”

If you’ve ever been told “your vote matters,” the harsh reality is that it doesn’t. Back to the top graph, showing elites who get what they want. This is where the corruption lies. Just to review, if the elites want a policy to be adopted, the likelihood of it being passed more than doubles. And if none of them agree, then there’s no possible way the policy gets adopted, even if the rest of the U.S. wants it. That’s true power.

Almost every major issue people in the U.S. is facing can be traced back to that graph. The U.S. has the most expensive healthcare, internet that’s more expensive and slower than other countries, a catastrophic drug war, a declining education system and 1 in 5 American children born into poverty is all because of that graph.

How is this all possible? Money. It unfortunately is legal to buy political influence. For example, if a big bank wants a law that makes sure the average citizen bails them out, like during the financial crisis of 2008. Under normal circumstances, congress would recognize that the American people do not want that. And that would be the end of it.

But instead, what happens is the bank hires a team of lobbyists. They track down members of Congress who regulate banks and raise money for reelection. The lobbyists can also offer million-dollar jobs at their firm. Then the lobbyists write the law and hand it to that same politician who then passes that law and now the American people are stuck paying for it. How do they pay for it exactly?

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”

According to a study done by the Sunlight Foundation, between 2007 and 2012, 200 of the most active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. But here’s where the people pay. While those corporations paid billions, they were given $4.4 trillion in federal business and support. And this is only scratching the surface of what’s been given and taken, as that’s only the top 200 corporations. Imagine other special interest groups, union, and other billionaires.

18

Barbed wire wraps surrounds the base of a flag pole erected by Minutemen-style activists where US Border Patrol agents are carrying out special operations near the US-Mexico border fence

WE HAVE FAILED

50 years of ravaging poor communities has led to the longest lasting and most devastating war on U.S. soil, the drug war. Is there an end in sight?

19

WESLACO, TX – The “offensive” against drugs, as then President Richard Nixon put it, started in 1971. This was a high risk, high reward plan to reduce the drug trade. They wanted to discourage all three phases of drugs, which included production, distribution, and consumption of mostly psychoactive drugs, like marijuana, LSD, heroin, and ecstasy. The year prior, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act, which classified those drugs as “Schedule 1” drugs. The drugs in that class were considered the most dangerous. During the 1960’s, recreational drug use was increasing. Along with the heroin epidemic it’s easy to understand Nixon’s aggressiveness toward wanting to end the increase as soon and as swiftly as he could.

50 years later, researchers and policymakers mostly agree, it’s been a massive failure. By the numbers, the U.S. has spent an estimated $1 trillion over the 50 years. $3.3 billion spent annually incarcerating people charged with drug offenses. Looking at the numbers alone, it’s easy to see exactly why it’s a failure. But it goes much deeper.

John Ehrlichman, domestic advisor to Nixon, stated that at the time of the War on Drugs, it wasn’t really that, but rather a war on his enemies, especially those who were against the Vietnam war.

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities and vilify them night after night on the evening news,”

Surprisingly, the War on Drugs quieted down between 1973 and 1977. During that time, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In the 1980’s President Ronald Reagan expanded on Nixon’s policies. Reagan’s wife Nancy created the “Just Say No” campaign, which included the Drug Abuse Resistance Education or DARE program. In 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed, this is where mandatory minimum sentences were introduced.

People of color have been especially devasted by the war on drugs. Black Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana charges than their white peers and make up nearly 30 percent of all drug-related arrests. They account for 70 percent of all defendants convicted of charges with a mandatory minimum sentence.

20

For 50 years the drug war has cost so much more than money, it’s cost lives, families, and communities. People have known that for the entire time, it was designed to fail, yet politicians today are still pushing the agenda.

It’s time to move forward. And some states have already started. In Washington state, a syringe access program has documented an 80 percent drop in new diagnoses of hepatitis B and hepatitis C. The program provides people with clean injection equipment to prevent sharing. In the District of Columbia, those same programs were credited with a 70 percent decrease in new HIV infection over two years, saving $44.3 million in lifetime health care costs.

In some states, there’s also programs that allow officers to divert individuals to treatment or social services, instead of making arrests. This was pioneered in Seattle where 58 percent of people who were led through that program were less likely to be rearrested. They also get access to housing and economic stability and spend less time in jail.

Of course, let’s not forget about marijuana, where 17 states have already legalized for medical or recreational use. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, only eight percent of U.S. adults say the drug should not be legal in any form.

“we could disrupt those communities and vilify them night after night on the evening news,”

All the evidence is there, most of the country believes that the War on Drugs has been a massive failure, and there’s ways to peel it back. So why hasn’t the government stepped up? The U.S. as a country is young, there’s time to change, it should change, but if true change can happen, it starts with each person standing up for what they believe in. It’s happened before, and it’s sure to happen again.

21

The integrity of national elections is an essential building block that all countries try to maintain, due to the importance of the peaceful transfer of power. The significance of this cannot be understated, and is why citizenry are encouraged to participate in the process through voting, as they help determine the direction the country should take.

During a year when the coronavirus pandemic made everyday life tumultuous for many Americans, the 2020 presidential election came into focus. Democratic candidate Joe Biden ultimately won, but the process itself featured massive controversy. There would be an onslaught of accusations of fraud, causing many to believe that the foundation of the political system had been broken. This resulted in about 33% of Americans believing that Republican Donald Trump had been cheated out of reelection, according to the New York Times.

The question remains, was the election actually stolen or was it just the ravings of one man and his extremist followers? When a group of people invaded the Capitol in January, the nation was rocked by a rare incidence of political violence. In the future, will there be more such incidents, or was this just a one-off?

In the aftermath, some people have questioned the idea of the “American Dream,” this country as a land of freedom and opportunity. America has been at the forefront of technological innovation for more than a century, being an example worldwide. Despite this, large portions

to point out many tangible issues that Americans faced on a daily basis. He eventually served as a voice for those that had previously felt invisible in today’s political system.

Since there was now growing universal resentment toward Washington and the inner dealings of the White House, Trump proudly labeled himself as a “non-establishment candidate.”

Ironically, the relatively small Washington resume Barack Obama had in 2008 was a glaring weakness in the eyes of many, and this was pointed out by his long-tenured opponent John McCain. Obama flipped the inexperience narrative and turned it into one of his strengths, giving him enough momentum to propel him into the presidency. He made the argument that he would bring a much-needed fresh perspective in the White House that was long overdue in his view. In 2016, this was taken to a new level as Trump proclaimed that his lack of experience in politics, and life as a businessman, represented a vital change that was necessary in order for the American people to finally be heard.

Following his victory, politics and the usual norms of the past would change forever.

In order for many Americans to feel the need for such a drastically different candidate, they had to have had some evidence that it was indeed necessary. Around the time of the election, the number of people thinking the country was headed in the wrong direction was spiking. And even

in the opioid crisis that resulted in more than 100,000 deaths in one recent year; NPR suggested that the crisis was ignored by the media for far too long, leading to frustration and anger and cynicism about the entire system.

In the past several years division and discontentment have surged, with people seeking to place blame for the country’s problems on one side or the other. For the left, it is often easy to paint the other side as uneducated, bigoted folk who voted for Trump due to misogynistic or racist tendencies. For conservatives, it’s often easy to paint liberals as out of touch with the regular working class and focus too heavily on the Progressive platform of diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism.

22

of the populatio reasons Trump was by gatherin low-income, rur great again.”

The mainstream did Democratic of deplorables” Often times, the stunt in order to they were ignor to come out. Cha his rallies, refer many had felt di tween Trump an establishment c press due to the tempt, and a situ

The Unstable

The scene of the United States Capitol on Jan. 6 a the certification of the 2020 election.

With many Americans distrusting the political system

Some say the increased division began with the d housing bubble. This economic slump started wh to bust, as large numbers of mortgage-backed se significant value. These MBS’s are investments si loans bought from the banks that initially issued ly reached 10%, with nearly 19 million jobs being to the eventual nomination of former president this newcomer. As the Obama administration rea Street institutions such as General Motors with a cy Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. This led m oritized by the government in a great time of nee Donald Trump. Polarization would go on to spik to it; him being one of the leading voices of the “b status as a natural born U.S. citizen.

It comes to no surprise that citizens in 2021 feel m recent University of Virginia poll, 52% of Trump v vor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to

on may be beginning to doubt the nation’s promises. One of the p was able to make his unlikely ascendancy to the highest office ng the people who considered themselves forgotten, such as ral whites, and convincing them to help him “make America

m media certainly contributed to this phenomenon in 2016, as c candidate Hillary Clinton, who called Trump’s base “a basket and disdained them time after time. e media treated Trump’s actions as nothing more than a public o bring him more notoriety. While this might have been true, ring the undeniable raucous crowds that he was encouraging ants of “Drain the Swamp” were often shouted with passion at rring to the desire of the purging of corrupt politicians that iluted the current democratic process. The juxtaposition bend Hillary was almost too perfect, with Hillary being the ideal candidate and Trump the outsider. Clinton also suffered bad e disaster in Libya, where several Americans died in a coup atuation of potential dishonesty concerning her private e-mail

House of Cards

server. She was not very likeable according to the polls and her relation to former president Bill Clinton, who had has his own trust and honesty issues, also did not help her campaign.

Though she came with political experience and obviously high intelligence, Clinton lost that election partly because many people seemed to have become tired of politics and politicians. Trump capitalized on this groundswell of mistrust in politics and corruption to win a surprise victory.

“Sadly, the American Dream is dead. But if I get elected president, I will bring it back, bigger and better than ever,” Trump said in a 2016 presidential rally.

This quote resonated with many Americans as Trump successfully established a connection with the masses. Even though there was a high unfavorability factor associated with him, there was also a passionate and fervent crowd backing him. Trump went on

a majority of Americans are unhappy with things. According to a recent Gallup poll, satisfaction has stayed below 50% with a recent 23% of people in 2021 not approving of the current trajectory of the United States.

This is often why you see cyclical changes of power, as when people feel left behind by the system, they act by voting for someone new. Several hot-button issues cause people to get more active in politics, including health care, housing costs, the psychological weight of tuition and medical debt, and stagnant wages resulting in many Americans to lose faith in the political system.

Often, it is the middle class that feels it the most, as poorer Americans have a series of safety nets while wealthy people don’t suffer these problems very often. The anxiety was manifested in the opioid crisis that resulted in more than 100,000 deaths in one recent year; NPR suggested that the crisis was ignored by the media for far too long, lead-

as protestors stormed the halls looking to stop

m, what will be the final result?

downturn of 2008 which was caused by the hen the U.S. housing market went from boom ecurities (MBS’s) and derivatives began to lose imilar to a bond, made up of a bundle of home d them. The unemployment rate at its peak briefg lost, according to pewresearch.org. This led Barack Obama with cautious hope regarding ached a pivotal crossroads, he chose to aid Wall a massive taxpayer-funded bailout, his Emergenmany Americans to feel left behind and not pried, setting up the roots of the eventual victory of ke in recent years, with Trump being no stranger birther” movement that questioned Obama’s

massive distrust of each other. According to a voters said, “the situation is such that I would faform their own separate country.” Approximate-

41% of Biden-voting respondents answered similarly. The survey also showed Democrats and Republicans heavily distrusting one another, with 80% or more of respondents from each party saying the opposing side presents “a clear and present danger to American democracy.” To add to this, 80% or more of survey respondents said they’re worried they or someone close to them will experience “personal loss or suffering due to the effects” of the opposing party’s policies. This highlights the division, and means that many perceive others as not people who might have a difference of opinion, but instead those who are out to make one’s life actively worse. This loss of trust in the political system has made it more likely that extreme measures may result, such as the Capitol invasion.

23

DEEP ROOTS OF REBELLION Psychologists and sociologists have studied the behavior or large numbers of people, for some time. In the late 19th century, the social psychologist Gustave Le Bon argued that a crowd was not the sum of its parts as some are led to believe. Instead, people in a mass of others assume a new, emotional and irrational identity, rendering individuality of the group’s members unrecognizable and leading to violent acts with little or no accountability to law or custom. This may have happened to the Jan. 6 group of Trump supporters as they became enamored with the idea that democracy was under attack.

Concerning the crowd dynamic, cognitive dissonance was also present as well, most particularly in the days following the election. In Arizona, Biden ended up capturing a narrow lead with supporters of Donald Trump saying, “Count the Votes!” Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, Trump held a lead but one that was quickly vanishing, with the counting of mail-in ballots being skewed toward Biden. As this occurred, shouts of “Stop the Count” were also heard. Sometimes, as Le Bon wrote, a mass of people moved by a powerful or charismatic figure will tend to do things the figure wants, without thinking rationally at the time.

Oftentimes, groups of frustrated people seek a scapegoat, and focus on the other side, painting them as bad people; potential targets for those on the right include immigrants, the elites, politicians in general, the LGBTQ community; on the left there are racists, homophobes, fundamentalists, etc. Social media plays a role in amplifying many of the more extremist takes, and often tends to make people feel more disconnected with one another.

Trump’s repeated accusations that the election was rigged has had an undoubted effect on voters, most particularly among his base of supporters. A recent NPR poll found out that overall, 58% of respondents said they trust the voting process. When asked specifically if they would trust the result from the upcoming 2024 presidential election, 82% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 33% itself, the so-called watchdog keeping tabs on powerful institutions, the press, or media, it has suffered its own crisis of credibility. People have such a low opinion of the media today, with only 7% of people having a “great deal” of trust according to a 2021 Gallup poll. This represents the second lowest level on record, a horrible sign for journalism. This is among the many factors that led many Americans to initially begin questioning the system, and start having doubts about the results of the latest presidential election.

The whole ordeal reaches a crescendo on Jan. 6, when doubters stormed the Capitol determined to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. These protestors were met with disdain on news networks, most notably from liberal leaning networks such as CNN and MSNBC, who pointed to Trump’s unwillingness to admit defeat. It seemed that many people had stopped believing in politics, and the media, and as Le Bon wrote in 1895, when a mass of people act irrationally, anything can happen.

of Re This d fraud mail dispr vote, Texa and t state Thou meas volve gove that i tutio For a ing th Gove from a cer that, The p

The Unstable House of

As Trump tweeted that day: “These are the things and events

Trump was criticized for not condemning the event, and he has still not conceded the election outright, leaving many worried about the potential future. Will he be forced to admit defeat in hopes of getting the support necessary to win in 2024 if he in fact runs again? According to a recent Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll, Trump seems to be the shoe-in frontrunner if he desires the Republican nomination. The poll states that 47 percent of registered Republicans support him, with the closest candidate being Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 10 percent. If Trump indeed decides to give it another shot at the White House, he will most certainly win the party nod, barring an event or situation that massively tanks his popularity among the current Republican base.

24

As it stands, opposition, polarizatio erate with th elections fo the division

If we may be in th sary to resto There has to system, inst nize the pro experience The loss of p mode of com discourage root cause o sphere, the pointed out

epublicans stated that they would do so, with the other remaining percentage stating that they would not. distrust in the election process has resulted in many states making a concentrated effort to curb what they see as d. In Texas specifically, there have been measures from Gov. Greg Abbott to ban 24-hour voting, regulate vote-byl, and the removal of drive-thru voting. While these laws can be defended at some basic level, they will probably roportionately larger cities. The recent legislation might cause longer voter waiting periods, making it harder to , and some critics suggest this as Abbott’s way of disenfranchising people of color. as is home to some of the fastest growing cities in the nation, such as Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas, the voting law changes might weaken the chances of the Democrats ever taking control of a traditionally Red e. ugh there is opposition to these new laws, there is also support as well. Some voters have applauded the new sures to curb fraud in the process, though little proof of such events is offered. Others have pointed to U.S. inement in other countries’ politics to ensure free elections and point to it as one of the reasons why the American ernment should not be so easily trusted. They state that if we have lied about our involvement in other elections involve other people – which is a basically unfounded argument – isn’t it fair to cast doubt when those same instions of power are involved in our democratic process? another example, those on the left say, why trust a government that took us to war in the early 2000s by perpetuathe idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when these claims were flimsy as best? ernment actions have always been criticized since the beginning of the country. A prominent example came m the 1970s when the Watergate scandal exposed Richard Nixon’s deceit and malfeasance. One can always expect rtain amount of skepticism about the honesty of leaders, and frankly, one of the features of democracy is just , a healthy critique of institutions and by the First Amendment, a free press to help keep them honest. problem is that as a major institution itself, the so-called watchdog keeping tabs on powerful institutions, the

f Cards (2) ....

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

These “unfairly treated patriots” do in fact have some history associated with them. The issues they were concerned with are beyond the catalyst of election results. Nearly 60 percent of the people facing charges related to the Capitol riot had experienced prior money troubles, including bankruptcies, notices of eviction or foreclosure, bad debt, or unpaid taxes over the past two decades, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records. The group’s bankruptcy rate was 18 percent, nearly twice as high as that of the American public. Moreover, a quarter of them had been sued for money owed to a creditor, with 1 in 5 of them having also faced the possibility of losing their home at one point, according to court filings. These financial problems can offer a clue as to why they felt mobilized enough to act: their circumstances along with their sense of betrayal had become too much to bear.

At the time, Trump was criticized for not condemning the event, and he has still not conceded the election outright, leaving many worried about the potential future. Will he be forced to admit

, the two major party system encourages people to latch onto a specific side, rendering the other as outright , as people determined to stop what you may happen to be in favor of. This mindset is central to the current on, as is the blame game. And it extends to government itself, as the days of “reaching across the aisle” to coophe other party seem to have vanished, leading to gridlock, filibusters, name calling, and the like. The mid-term or the House and Senate – bodies that are narrowly held right now – will surely offer another chance to see of n in American life continues. e assume that many Americans no longer trust in the process, it stands to reason that more acts of violence he cards for the future. And the trouble is, such acts might be seen as not immoral or illegal, but instead necesore the proper functioning of government. o be a genuine examination of the underlying factors explaining why many Americans lost faith in the political tead of just more argument and recriminations. The crucial part in coming up with a solution is to first recogoblem at hand. In order to successfully reunite the country, people first need to be genuinely heard, and their es must be addressed. This must be true for all citizens, whether they be in rural Alabama or in the urban east. perspective by the public has been multiplied by the internet and social media, but it goes deeper than the mmunication. It is my belief that events like Jan. 6 will continue to happen the more people feel restless and ed about their current standing in life; they will look to find an outlet for answers. Trump was never the sole of the invasion, but rather the breaking point that led to the event. Once Trump eventually exits the political discontentment he encouraged many Americans to embrace will still be present. His legacy will be to have t the alienation a portion of the citizens feel, and is a problem that won’t be fixed by a voting law or a riot.

25

RIO GRANDE VALLEY- As further development and constant improvement of daily life continue, most notably through technology such as the usage of smartphones, one factor stands in the way. The prospect of climate change has been claimed by most scientists as an “undeniable” phenomenon, and one that is actively becoming worse. This view has been subject to controversy as some people believe climate change to be a topic of massive importance, while some suggest for it to be untrue to begin with, or just simply overblown.

There are various angles to take when deciding how to best handle the prospect of climate

change. The argument to act comes after such incidents such as the planet’s average surface temperature having risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century, according to NASA’s climate research page. Furthermore, the seven most recent years recorded have been the warmest, with 2016 and 2020 tied for the warmest years on record. Additionally, the global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century, and in the last two decades, the rate being nearly double that. This is a trend that is accelerating slightly every year. Also, to reference have proven difficult to bring on board to the game, while developing nations are balking at giving up fossil fuels for various reasons; as some do not have the infrastructure or technology to transition to so-called clean energy.

The current warming trend is of note as it is generally, say scientists, the result of human activities, most notably through the constant burning of fossil fuels. These would fall under the spectrum of anthropogenic effects, which are processes that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without the influences of humans. The rate of warming has proceeded at a rate that is unprecedented over multiple millennia, and yet, critics note that during the various ice ages, change in the climate was infinitely more drastic even though human activity at the time was minimal compared to what it is currently now.

A research article from Sage Journals that had been published in 2019 by James Powell representing the National Physical Science Consortium had found that the consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming had grown to 100%. This was based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in

at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent since 1930. If the conservative assumption that annual economic growth will average 2 percent for the next 70 years held, the U.S. economy will be four times larger in 2090 than it is currently today. The purported climate impact of 4 percent in 2090 then corresponds to two years of growth. In other words, an additional warming of 5 °C (9 °F) by 2090 would delay the growth of the U.S. economy to that time by only two years. They are citing climate change as a real development occurring, but the reported effects of it being blown out of proportion by those stating to “trust the science.” Science in general is often held up with scrutiny by fellow scientists and is a constantly evolving topic in itself, and helps people to get the most relevant information at the time. In recent developments, the debate surrounding this issue has got more intensified as time has gone on, but what

26

the use of hu sphere, the a 30% as a resu talists as evid facts paint a people aroun lands, impac of life.

Is it too late t some see as s vince people Those who fe building a be

umans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmoacidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about ult. These results have been discussed by environmendence that there has to be urgent action. These scientific picture regarding not only the futures of Americans, but nd the globe, with possible results being uninhabitable cted food sources, increase in disease, and lesser quality

to make considerable progress to change a course that spinning out of control? How feasible is it to fully cone who may perceive it as a hoax, or dismiss it entirely? ear climate change want to take the initiative to start etter future, such as the group of nations that joined

together at the COP26 meeting held at Glasgow, Scotland, in early November. While various nations have yet again pleaded their urgency when tackling climate change, their progress remains to be seen at this point in time.

To combat climate change, it would cost vast sums of money with the major factors being a road to zero emissions by the year 2050, a carbon tax encouraging companies to burn less carbon-based fuels, and is something that would cost upwards to tens of trillions of dollars over this long span of time. Seeing as how this plan is extremely ambitious to say the least, many nations have not signed on to various pacts and plans in the past. The major polluters, including the U.S., China, India, and Russia have proven difficult to bring on board to the the first seven months of 2019. This highlights the overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change is a topic that is worth taking seriously, but also may suggest that researchers know what sort of articles will be published by the liberal academic community, and write accordingly. There are those that are not entirely convinced on the science behind climate change. Efforts largely associated with the fossil fuels lobby and advocates of the industry and conservative think tanks are often the source here in the United States. More than 90% of papers skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks. The theories range from the current predicament stemming from a natural change in temperature that occurs due to natural cycles, models currently used to gauge climate change being unreliable, and it being the result of a large conspiracy in order to suit the benefactors of clean energy companies. According to an article by National Review, climate change proving to be disastrous for the economy most particularly is often exaggerated. They state that the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will instead be minimal through at least the end of this century. The U.S. economy has grown at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent since 1930. If

exactly sparked this?

The Foundation of Climate Change’s Controversial Debate In 1988, George H.W. Bush spoke to the topic of climate change during his presidential campaign.

“Our land, water and soil support a remarkable range of human activities, but they can only take so much, and we must remember to treat them not as a given but as a gift,” he said. “These issues know no ideology, no political boundaries. It’s not a liberal or conservative thing we’re talking about.”

Seen from a perspective 40 years onward, the quotes sound like a fairly typical response from a politician in the Democratic party of 2021.

Meanwhile, Republicans have routinely shown a willingness to trim environmental regulations and make accessing energy resources easier; some complain that a lack of regulation aids big corporations as they increase revenue, but the more energy available, the lower the rates for consumers will be most of the time. Republicans generally hold government’s role in society at a much lower standard, and is another factor contributing to the current divide.

In today’s political landscape, Republicans seem to not have heed-

27

not have heeded the words of the elder Bush, who won the party’s nomination and served as president from 1988 to 1992. The fact is, political opinions about the environment have a long history.

Scientists in the early 19th century introduced the concept of the “greenhouse effect” whereby certain gases that are created by humans begin to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, with production and consumption of fossil fuels as main causes. By the 1960s, this concept started entering the minds of policymakers. A 1965 report from President Lyndon Johnson’s scientific advisory committee warned that carbon dioxide emissions could trap heat in the atmosphere. Though they had found that this was possible, the prospect itself remained a far-off threat that was deemed non-essential at the time, according to research from theguardian. com.

This began to change in the early 1980s. Environmental activism goes back generations, to Teddy Roosevelt’s establishment of national parks in the early 1900s and his focus on environmental issues. Closer to now, there were extremely bitter fights over pesticides and water pollution in the 1960s when a full-fledged environmental movement coalesced; such entities as Greenpeace had fought to save the whales and seas, as well as anti-nuclear power demonstrations having taken place since the 1950s.

Manmade climate change started to get into the headlines in the 1980s and capture the attention of the mainstream. When papers such as the New York Times started to fixate on

Although that in itself seemed to be progress, the implications of addressing climate change did not sit well with the energy industry. Researchers at firms such as Exxon studied climate change as early as the 1970s, according to an article by scientificamerican. com. Despite this investment in finding out crucial information, in the 1980s, the company cut funding for the research program, much to the disapproval of climate activists. They had felt companies such as Exxon were prioritizing profits over the safety of future generations as a result, according to insideclimatenews.org.

The most well-known example of a concerted effort to affect the conversation about climate change would occur in the 1990s. Exxon backed a massive public relations campaign that involved support for groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, who played a role in sowing doubt about the science behind climate change, according to a 2009 article by the New York Times. Exxon had said that its actions were meant to fund “legitimate scientific observations” in light of “differences on policy approaches,” and not to actually deny climate change itself. Environmentalists did not believe this story and were furious, calling for more attention to the matter. Eventually, The New York Times featured a story with the headline “Industrial Group Plans To Battle Climate Treaty,” ahead of talks in Kyoto in 1998.

One of the reasons corporations and conservatives had doubts about Kyoto had to do with the confusion of what nations would be expected to do specifically, and what enforcement arm would be used if necessary. Basically, they stated that polluters such as China had always been dishonest in reporting data and following the rules, and the National Review

28

started to fixate on c to learn about the p Bush and his Democ an aggressive appro to launch the intern Framework Conven accomplishment th ble victory in the ba deal, industrialized financial support fo of grants and loans t cility. Also, countrie vanced nations to h tion of energy.

Global Wa ....

noted that it would be foolish for the U.S. to cost itself trillions of in an industry where other nations would not follow suit.

One way or the other, after Kyoto, the debate was up for grabs, wit ing manmade climate change as an enormous threat, and conser that the threat is real but overstated. And the Right, when in powe regulations and foster such techniques as fracking, and drilling serve; the left, when it took over, reversed these policies, making back and forth depending on who was elected and which part co As the party of business, the Republicans have sought to make su manufacture energy to not face undue regulation, as their voters more likely in the thought that climate change was an overrated The Occurrence of an Important Paradigm Shift As the 2000 presidential election came around, climate change h tisan issue. An important political realignment occurred in West that had previously voted Republican only four times since 1932 nature of this race between George W. Bush and Al Gore, every sin for success. Bush won the state, with the victory credited to a con to portray Gore as an out-of-touch environmentalist who would e affecting many families throughout the tight-knit community. Go presidential election in the electoral college 271-266, narrowly m presidency after a controversial recount in Florida. This marks a that conservatives are likely to discount climate change: their co in sectors such as gas and oil, coupled with a loss of jobs that gen regulation of the energy industry.

Gore would go on to be known as a global leader in the fight to en rounding climate change, eventually releasing his well-known d Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. In or out of office, the former senato attention to the environment, and would go on to play a role in Jo campaign. He would endorse Biden as he felt his old political ally position the United States to address this particular issue in min After he was elected, Bush took less action than Gore had initially choosing to reject the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreemen ing that had been negotiated under former President Bill Clinton Eventually, Bush would face mounting pressure in the face of evi

climate change, its large readership started problem. In 1988, politicians on both sides, cratic opponent Michael Dukakis, promised oach to the issue. Once in office, Bush helped national framework for addressing it, the U.N. ntion on Climate Change. This was a massive hat was heralded by environmentalists, a tangiattle against climate change. Through this new d nations under the Convention would provide or action on climate change, including a system to be managed by the Global Environment Faes had agreed to share technology with less-adhelp their efforts regarding the cleaner produc-

Although that in itself seemed to be progress, the implications of addressing climate change did not sit well with the energy industry. Researchers at firms such as Exxon studied climate change as early as the 1970s, according to an article by scientificamerican.com. Despite this investment in finding out crucial information, in the 1980s, the company cut funding for the research program, much to the disapproval of climate activists.

They had felt companies such as Exxon were prioritizing profits over the safety of future generations as a result, according to insideclimatenews.org.

The most well-known example of a concerted effort to affect the conversation about climate change would occur in the 1990s. Exxon backed a massive public relations campaign that involved support for groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, who played a role in sowing doubt about the science behind climate change,

arming (2) dollars to do things

th liberals portrayrvatives suggesting er, did its best to cut of the Arctic Reg for a tennis match ontrolled Congress. ure companies who s began to skew problem.

had become a part Virginia, a state 2. Due to the close ngle state was vital ncerted campaign eliminate coal jobs, ore lost the 2000 missing out on the another reason onstituency work nerally results from

nact change surdocumentary “An or championed oe Biden’s 2020 y would help better nd. y mapped out, nt on global warmn. idence that seemed

to grow by the day. In his final years in office, he issued more rigid fuel-economy standards and set a target to slow carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, Bush set a U.S. goal of lessening the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent over 10 years, according to a TIME article.

“Many are concerned about the effect of climate change policies on our economy. I share these concerns, and I believe they can be sensibly reconciled,” said Bush in a speech held at the Rose Garden in April 2008.

The Shifting of Power The beginning of the Barack Obama presidency after eight years of Republican rule offered a good opportunity to pass meaningful legislation addressing climate change.

The political atmosphere during and after his election resulted in growing polarization and the rise of the Tea Party, an ultra-conservative group. The House passed legislation that would have capped companies’ emissions of various fuels, and required them to trade credits to avoid exceeding those levels. Obama’s bill also required a 17-percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Because of the circumstances at the time, this measure was never voted on in the Senate, as Democrats opted to instead focus on healthcare reform, ultimately resulting in the Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” a direction that was overwhelmingly approved by Democratic voters. Even when the opening presents itself, the issue of climate change tends to take a back seat whenever political choices are made.

Following losses in the 2010 midterms, any hope to pass further climate change legislation had been dashed. Obama instructed his agencies to instead issue new regulations as a response. During his presidency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued nearly 4,000 rules, according to a House Energy and Commerce Committee report. The Clean Power Plan, one of the most significant, would have established a capand-trade program in the power sector, at the state level. The “cap” referenced would be a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, a firm limit on pollution, and mandates that would get stricter over time. The “trade” part is a market for companies to buy and sell allowances that let them emit a particular amount: supply and demand would then set the price. Trading would give companies strong incentive to save money by cutting emissions in the most cost-effective ways. This angered many Republicans and later vowed to put an end to these regulations in the future if given the opportunity. The capand-trade strategy has been met with uneven results in a number of European nations, and its viability is still up for debate.

Following his improbable victory in the 2016 presidential election, Donald

29

berated the Democratic regulations that Republicans had always disliked. The most notable example was his choice to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which was signed back in April 2016. This agreement came with the promise that countries such as the U.S. would help less fortunate countries around the globe in the goal of maintaining a steady global temperature. Meanwhile, Trump would proclaim that it would hurt American businesses, deciding to not endorse the agreed upon plan. He then faced criticism over his actions concerning climate change, leading to a notable event in 2018. At climate talks in Poland, the United States joined Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait in declining to endorse a major UN study warning of the potential dangers of global warming.

“The United States has not endorsed the findings of the report,” the State Department said. For generations, Americans have long since criticized the credibility and impartiality of certain United Nations plans, it must be noted, in particular its bodies that focus on human rights around the globe. Either way, attention to environmental issues took a back seat once again with a Republican administration, following the usual pattern.

Following the 2020 election, new president Biden vowed to have a significantly different view on climate change. After taking office, he signed an executive order rejoining the Paris Accord. Despite this, he was still criticized by both political parties; conservatives that still don’t think the deal is a good one for the country, while liberals suggest the Paris plans do not go far enough to solve any real problems.

Biden has never fully supported the Progressive “Green New Deal,” which is named after FDR’s programs in the 1930s to institute massive reform and combat the Great Depression. The new plan of 2018 would eventually “meet 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” Biden also did not plan to outright ban fracking, but rather ban uses of the technique on federal land. This was met with some criticism, as some studies have suggested that fracking can have negative results

for th no We bil sti so cy wi “It ica Mo tio co th “I k me Alt be ar

Global War ....

The Unclear Future Regarding Climate Change Moreover, there have been parallels drawn between the fossil fuel industry and the cigarette industry of the past. As more and more information came out in the 1980s, the information regarding the health effects of daily smoking caused many in the industry to panic. If people were aware of the numerous consequences of smoking, it would then result in a percentage drop of people conducting the action in the first place, dropping revenue as a whole. They would go on to work tirelessly to prove that there was not a connection between smoking and greater risk of earlier death, but with it eventually being proven.

As a result, smoking dropped 42.6 percent in 1965 to 13.7 percent in 2018, according to the American Lung Association.

Many Americans still find themselves divided over this particular issue at hand, especially in our highly polarized atmosphere. According to a Gallup Poll, perspectives regarding climate change vary greatly depending on their registered party.

The rate at which people deem climate change’s effects to have already begun stand at 82%, 59%, and 29% for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans respectively. In the Rio Grande Valley, climate change if left unregarded could prove to have profound consequences in the coming decades. Dr. Christopher Gabler, an ecologist professor at University of Rio Grande Valley, and a PhD graduate of Rice University in 2012, mentioned some intresting remarks. He has published multiple scientific journals such as “Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas.”

He goes on to mention the potential changes that could occur in the region.

“We’re at that tipping point where we can investigate the transition from plants to no plants, which is going to be so important for the potential changes that might happen in this part of the

30

the world. “This is one of the areas where we’re seeing some of t pacts,” said Gabler.

Even though he mentioned plant life in the Valley possib on economies as well.

“If you are a fisherman, or a birdwatcher, or someone w you live near the coast and are worried about erosion, or if you you’re directly impacted by coastal wetland health,” said Gabler

He also mentioned that it could also have possible cons the border.

“Down the line, there’s absolutely the possibilty of poor uncertainity. This uncertainity could potentially cause massive on our border system like we’ve never seen before quite frankly

The fight against this could have ripple effects on jobs su rely on it for work. The potential changes could prove to be har careers.

Alejo Rodriguez, 37, a worker involved in the oil refiner bly ruin his financial situation by taking him out of work, and a worked in places such as Universal Plant Services and Turner I throughout the country.

“I understand that there’s people that are concerned ab people like me into consideration,” said Rodriguez.

He went on to state that there had to be a balance if ther “The reason I’m weary about people pushing things like wantin ties for me, and for someone without a college education, it’s so

He voted for Donald Trump twice and considered himse also said that there were many people he’s worked with that had rently growing, through casual observation.

The affects of climate change could have drastic change will tell what road will be taken, and how climate change will p

r the environment and cause earthquakes. He had stressed the desire to pursue action in regard to climate change, he majority of it coming from his infrastructure bill. Due to the tight lead in both Chambers of Congress, there was o room for error when it came to negotiations. The most notable public disapproval from swing voter Joe Manchin, a est Virginia Democrat, who has proven to an obstacle for the climate agenda. The bill is expected to have at least $500 llion allocated toward climate change, which would be the largest single investment towards the cause ever, but is ill to be determined if it will ultimately pass. The money will go towards things such as expanding access to rooftop olar and home electrification, expanding grants and loans to rural co-ops to boost clean energy and energy efficieny, and also giving out manufacturing credits to help grow domestic supply chains for solar, offshore, and onshore ind. t’s the number one issue facing humanity, and it’s the number one issue for me,” said Biden in late 2020 during a polital interview following the presidential debates. ost recently, he made an appearance at the COP26 global climate change convention in Glasgow as previously menoned which is held for various countries around the globe. There, he mentioned that he would reinvigorate global ommitments to fight climate change by pledging that the U.S. is “not only back at the table, but hopefully leading by he power of our example,” at the conference. know it hasn’t been the case, and that’s why my administration is working overtime to show that our climate commitent is action, not words,” Biden said. though his words showed desire for impactful legislation, without anything actually being passed, his words could egin to ring hollow to environmentalists. As the topic has polarized people for generations, the sides will continue to rgue about what is to be done and by whom.

rming (3)

the most rapid change and some of the most direct human im-

bly being affected, he also said the possible strain in could put

who’s employed in an industry that’s catered to ecotourism, or if u just like to eat seafood that’s wild caught in the Gulf of Mexico, r. sequences especially here since Valley residents live so close to

rer on average regions going through phases of deep economic e spikes of migration to our southern border, and cause havoc y,” said Gabler. uch as the oil refinery business, and the people who currently rmful for people like them, as it could throw a wrench to their

ry business for many years chimed in. He said it could possiaffecting his ability to feed his family. He also said that he has Industries for example, but has also been in other various places

bout climate change, but at the same time, you have to also take

re was indeed going to be a decrease in oil industry jobs. ng to stop fracking is because it would mean less job opportuniomething that is a necessity for me,” Rodriguez said. elf a one-issue voter, with his focus solely on the oil industry. He d the same view, and was a demographic that he felt was cur-

es regarding how we live our lives in the Rio Grande Valley. Time prove to be handled by the leaders of the future.

31

visit joebiden.com/racial-economic-equity to learn more

Build Back Better 32

Joe biden believes we can not build back a better without a major mobilzation of effort and resources to advance racial equity across American economy.