Current News


Why Should You Care About U.S. Politics?


Sydney Bilek '24

There is a lot going on in the world, but it does not affect you…right? Wrong!


While our federal government may seem distant from our everyday lives, the votes they make and beliefs they hold determine our future and set new precedents. Whether or not you plan to vote one day, it is key to start understanding these issues now and their history to make informed decisions later.


This new column to The Falconaire will serve to present snapshots of current happenings in our own government and around the world, and will recur each issue. I will also provide my personal opinion as to why I think you should care about these issues, and what they mean for you.


This issue will focus on the U.S. federal government, and what has gone on within our own country and its responses to global events.


Congress’ Bipartisan Border Bill

On Tuesday, February 6th, 2024, a bipartisan bill titled the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, aiming to combat the issues at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as to grant aid to Ukraine and Israel, was killed in the Senate with a vote of 49-50, 11 votes short of the 60 it needed to pass. The bill would have spent $118 billion, and the breakdown is as follows:


Source: The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations


Since President Joe Biden came into office in January of 2021, 6.3 million migrants have been detained for crossing into the U.S. illegally between points of entry, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, per the BBC. 2.4 million of these migrants have been allowed into the country, as they wait for court dates, where they can make a case for seeking asylum. This has overwhelmed the system so much that getting a court date can take years.


This bill aimed to change the current system at the border which “catches and releases” migrants and instead would detain and deport those who would cross illegally. The bill was proposed by Republican Senator James Lankford, who brokered the deal with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema. The bill also would mandate a complete shutdown of the border when migrant crossings would reach a one-week average threshold of 5,000 a day or exceed 8,500 in a single day. It would also introduce reforms to fast-track decisions on asylum cases, limit humanitarian parole, expand authority to remove migrants from the U.S., implement stricter consequences for illegal crossings, and designate $650 million to build and reinforce miles of border wall.


The reason for the bill not being passed largely rests on the lack of Republican support for the bill, with only four Republicans voting in favor of it. Despite helping to develop the package, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell backtracked and revoked his support for the bill. This comes after former President Donald Trump made a statement criticizing the bill and calling those who would vote for it “fools” on his social media platform Truth Social. Despite not being in office, Trump still holds great influence over many Republicans, while McConnell’s is dwindling in the Senate. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who opposed the bill, stated that it would not solve the problem and that it “was designed not to secure the border. Instead, [the] bill codified Joe Biden’s open borders.”


Some Democrats also voted against the bill along with Independent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the bill because of the military aid being given to Israel, citing that 27,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed in the conflict.


Sources: The BBC, NBC News, and The Hill


Why Should You Care?

This bill marks one of the most significant attempts to acknowledge and solve the issues at the border, and if passed would have been the biggest immigration overhaul since President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. With tension between Republicans and Democrats only rising in recent years, this bill was the first in decades for some sort of agreement on the matter. But in the end, these tensions were what caused it to die. This causes the need for more conversation on the failures of the federal government to come to an agreement across party lines to better the lives of not only American citizens, but the conditions and procedures in which migrants have to go through to legally come to America for a better life.

The U.S.-Mexico border. Pictured here is the separation of the state of California (left) from Tijuana, Mexico (right). (The National Guard Bureau/Public Domain)

Congress’ Foreign Aid Spending Bill

With spending for Ukraine and Israel was shut down in the senate with the border bill, Congress then moved towards a final vote in the senate on a separate emergency spending package. At a price tag of $95.3 billion, this bill would provide $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine, $14.1 billion in aid to Israel, $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance, $4.8 billion to regional partners in the Indo-Pacific, and $2.4 billion towards the operations in the Red Sea. 22 Republican Senators voted with nearly all Democrats 70-29 to pass the package. It was then sent to the House, where it was swiftly rejected by House Republican leaders who refused to put it on the floor for a vote due to a lack of border policy or funding.


House Republicans who support the bill have stated their willingness to work with Speaker Mike Johnson on reconsidering the bill, but they are hesitant to go against leadership. Democrats are also in talks to use a discharge petition, which, if signed by 218 House members, can force the bill to a vote, though none of this has led to any progress on the matter.


Now with an upcoming two-week House recess, eight centrist Republican and Democratic lawmakers are trying to push forward yet another modified foreign aid spending bill for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the Red Sea, which would total to about $66 billion. The bill, titled the Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act, lacks any humanitarian aid, but includes new border security policies. These policies would automatically reject migrants who legally or illegally cross the border without paperwork for one year (with humanitarian exceptions), block the use of federal funds to transfer migrants between different locations and detention centers unless it is to travel to court for their immigration case, and would implement a policy from the Trump-era that would send migrants and asylum seekers back to Mexico while awaiting their court hearings (this requires cooperation from the Mexican government, which is not likely at this time). This has not yet been taken up or addressed by the House.


Sources: The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Axois (1) (2), and NPR


Why Should You Care?

Security at the border as well as foreign aid to other countries are now becoming incredibly linked together, and progress on one is seeming to rely on the other. With this year being an election year, candidates are running on policies relating to these issues, and it is possible many of these policy decisions could be decided in the election if Congress cannot come to an agreement. These actions are also being blocked by focusing on preventing a government shutdown, as funding for agencies has been a priority. Whether development on these issues will come soon is uncertain.

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Impeachment

On February 13th, 2024, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the Republican-led House of Representatives by a single vote margin (214-213). This comes after the first unsuccessful vote, 214-216, a week prior, due to Republican Majority Leader Steve Scalis not being present and another representative changing their vote to “nay,” in order to file a motion for the House to reconsider. Now whether Mayorkas will be stripped of his position is up to the Senate, and while they are obligated to consider the charges, Senate leaders have been showing little interest in spending much time on the matter.

Mayorkas’ is being impeached over his handling of the U.S.- Mexico border, and is faced with two articles of impeachment, which charge him with “willfully and systematically” refusing to enforce existing immigration laws and of breaching public trust by lying to Congress by saying the border was secure. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green (R-TN) detailed the reasons for this decision. Green states that Mayorkas disregarded various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, such as directing the release of millions of migrants into the country, abusing the statute allowing for parole only on a case-by-case and temporary basis, and directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to not detain most of those who came in illegally, including criminals. He also claims that he violated his statutory duty to control the border and that he knowingly made false statements to Congress, citing that when under oath he claimed to have operational control of the border, as defined by the Secure Fence Act, only to say later that he never made such a claim and testified that “the border is no less secure than it was previously.” Green also claimed that Mayorkas obstructed congressional oversight by forcing the Homeland Security Committee to issue two subpoenas for documents, which are still unfulfilled.


Not a single Democrat has issued a push for Mayorkas’ impeachment and say that the charges amount to a policy dispute, not “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the bar for impeachment as laid out in the Constitution. Republicans have laid the blame on the border on Mayorkas, stating that the Biden administration has gotten rid of the Trump administration's policies that deter migrants and have instead implemented policies that have attracted them. They also defend the decision for impeachment as they feel the ability to impeach as granted by the Constitution is a remedy for much more expansive failures.


Despite there not being much talk as to how to handle this in the Senate, they have various actions that they can take. They could either convene to start an impeachment trial, or vote either to dismiss or to table the two articles. This would require all Democrats to vote against the impeachment, which is possible given they have a majority in the Senate. If they cannot dismiss the trial or table the articles, they could vote to create a trial committee to investigate the charges.


Sources: AP News (1) (2) (3), PBS News, The New York Times


Why Should You Care?

This impeachment is yet another historic moment in our recent history. It has been almost 150 years since the last time the house voted to remove a Cabinet secretary. In 1876, the House voted to impeach President Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, over a kickback scheme in government contracts. Belknap resigned before the Senate could vote to remove him. While it is currently not looking likely that Mayorkas would become the first Cabinet member to be removed from office, the House using their power of impeachment is beginning to be used more frequently in recent times. Whether or not you agree that this was the right decision or is a political dispute that has no basis is yours to decide.



The Death of Alexei Navalny

Photo Caption: Navalny at a rally in Moscow, Russia in 2011. (Photo taken by Russain photographer Mitya Aleshkovsky, use permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Photo has been cropped)creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en 

Russian lawyer, opposition leader, anti-corruption activist, and Vladimir Putin’s greatest domestic opponent Alexei Navalny died on February 16, 2024 at age 47 while incarcerated at the IK-3 penal colony which is located north of the Arctic Circle in Kharp in the Yamalo-Nenets region, which is about 1,200 miles northeast of Moscow. His death was announced by the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District, which stated that after taking a walk, he felt unwell and lost consciousness. They additionally stated that medical staff at the institution immediately responded and an ambulance team was called,but resuscitation failed. While no official cause of death has been provided, Navalny’s mother and lawyer have been told that he died of “sudden death syndrome,” which is a broad term for different cardiac syndromes that cause sudden cardiac arrest and death.



Navalny had been criminally convicted five separate times, and was recognized as a political prisoner since 2021 by the Human Rights Centre Memorial. His most recent conviction found him guilty in August of 2023 of financing and inciting “extremist activities” through his Anti-Corruption Foundation, which is now defunct. He was also found guilty of “rehabilitation Nazi ideology.”  He was first moved to the IK-3 “special regime” colony, also known as “Polar Wolf,” in December of 2023. It is considered one of the toughest prisons in Russia.

Navalny’s supporters and associates do not believe he just lost consciousness, but rather was murdered and have urged for Putin to be held accountable. Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, has stated that she cannot be sure if her husband was dead because “Putin and his government... lie incessantly,” but that if it was true, that she “want[s] Putin, his entire entourage, Putin’s friends, his government to know that they will bear responsibility for what they did to [her] country, to [her] family, [and] to [her] husband.” His chief of staff, Leonid Volkov, stated that “If this (news of Navalny's death) is true, then it's not 'Navalny died', but 'Putin killed Navalny'.”


Many Western leaders also condemn Putin for Navalny’s death, including President Joe Biden, who made a statement that while “we don't know exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that the death of Navalny was a consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did.” Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, made a statement that the reaction from the West was “absolutely rabid.” Putin himself has not made any statements regarding Navalny.


Biden has since met with Navalny’s wife and daughter in San Francisco, California, and has stated that the U.S. will impose over 500 sanctions on Russia because of his death. This is the largest amount of penalties imposed against Russia at a single time since the war broke out between Russia and Ukraine in 2022.


Sources: Reuters (1) (2), NPR, and The Guardian


Why Should You Care?

While Alexei Navalny’s fight for anti-corruption in Russia does not affect the lives of those in the U.S., he was the largest opposition leader there, and served as hope for many young urban Russians for there to be an alternative future without Putin, who are suffering under him. Putin has served as Russia’s leader longer than anyone since Josef Stalin, and it is looking that he will serve until at least 2030. The U.S. has one of the most critical and important relationships with Russia in the world, and tensions have grown with the war in Ukraine. Russia’s actions influence our policy and who we support, as well as have devastating effects on those who live there and around the world. Navalny tried his best to change that.