While it’s true the modern political climate in the United States is heavily divided along party lines, Pennsylvania Senators Dave McCormick (R) and John Fetterman (D) have been bucking the trend by providing an encouraging example of bipartisanship.The two senators recently released a video urging an end to the government shutdown, which is beginning to take a toll on average Americans. The collaboration features Fetterman saying, “Even though we are in a different party, we both want to talk about why we believe it’s so important to reopen this government.”
McCormick shares this sentiment in the video by saying, “23 days, 12 votes, Senator Fetterman and I have both voted to open up the government. We agree on that 100%. It’s really starting to hurt Pennsylvania.”
Some of the folks who are now beginning to feel the pinch from the shutdown include air traffic controllers and border patrol agents who are working to secure the border and keep the country safe. Resources set aside for two million SNAP users are starting to run low, which means those who use the service to support their families during tough economic times could go without the resources they need to get by.
By acknowledging this reality, both senators are demonstrating a commitment that goes beyond party allegiance and addresses their constituents’ concerns and needs.
Both senators have also been deeply involved in efforts to pass bills that would alleviate the suffering caused by the shutdown. They voted in favor of a measure to pay certain federal workers during the deadlock. Unfortunately, these measures did not pass in the Senate.
Many are hoping that the bipartisanship on display between McCormick and Fetterman will rub off on others in the Senate and help heal some of the division that is ripping the country apart and preventing an agreement that will get the government up and running.
Conservatives and even a handful of Democrats are hopeful that seeing these two work together for the betterment of their constituents will lead others to see that collaboration between individuals with different political ideologies is possible when politicians, elected to represent the people, put the needs of others above their own.While there are many different areas of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats concerning the shutdown, providing healthcare for illegal aliens is one of the biggest hurdles to cross. President Donald Trump has made it clear he will not compromise on this issue.
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a major victory for his immigration agenda on Monday, clearing the way for ICE to carry out “mass deportation” operations in Los Angeles.
The justices stayed lower court rulings that had found U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated the Constitution by factoring in race, ethnicity, language, and location when deciding whom to question about legal status.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that while ethnicity cannot serve as the sole basis for enforcement actions, it may be considered as a “relevant factor” when weighed alongside others.
“Under this court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” he wrote.
The decision marks a major victory for the administration, which had argued that lower courts were overstepping by curbing its ability to execute Trump’s mass deportation strategy.
Los Angeles emerged as the focal point of the crackdown in early June, when federal authorities deployed additional manpower to carry out arrests, sparking riots across the city.
Trump answered by federalizing and deploying National Guard troops and U.S. Marines, a move that triggered a fresh round of legal challenges over the scope of presidential war and policing powers that are still working their way through the courts.
The ICE tactics case cuts to the core of when and how immigration officers can approach potential suspects.
Judge Maame Frimpong, a Biden appointee in Los Angeles, cited news reports in finding that ICE and deputized federal agents were targeting people simply for speaking Spanish or spending time at car washes. She ruled that such factors do not meet the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” required for a lawful stop and issued an injunction blocking arrests she said would violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her order, criticizing ICE for being overly secretive about what it considers legitimate grounds for a stop. Judges said the evidence available — much of it from news accounts — failed to justify the agency’s practices.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued to the Supreme Court that the lower court rulings created confusion, leaving ICE officers uncertain about what actions they could lawfully take and fearful of being penalized.
He stressed that agents need leeway to operate, particularly in Los Angeles, which has the largest concentration of undocumented immigrants in the country.