THE JUSTICE ● fORUM ● TUESDAY, September 12, 2017
11
Criticize President Trump’s decision regarding DACA By Elias rosenfeld JUSTICE staff writer
In President Donald Trump’s more than 230 days in the White House, he has enacted policies with which I have aggressively disagreed; from its stance on the American Health Care Act to climate change, this administration has rolled back Obama-era policies that would have positively affected this nation in the long-term. However, there has been no policy as inhumane, unjust and unfair as Trump’s decision on Sept. 5 to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that has shielded 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came here as children, from deportation, according to a Sept. 5 New York Times article. The program also enabled them, after strict background checks, to receive a two-year work authorization card that provided for thousands not only the ability to work but also the ability to apply for driver’s licenses and mortgages and, for many, the ability to purchase a car for the first time. DACA was not established by simple merit, it was the long-term effort of advocates and Dreamers against a hostile Obama administration that had been deporting more undocumented immigrants than any other U.S. administration in history, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Dreamers is a term given to undocumented immigrants who came here at a young age. The DREAM Act — for which they’re named — has failed to pass in Congress throughout multiple efforts in the last 16 years. In 2012, a group of Dreamers conducted a sit down in an Obama campaign office in Denver and demanded protection for an immigrant group that has the overwhelming support of a supermajority of Americans, according to a June 13, 2012 Huffington Post article. In this, DACA was born, because most Americans understand that it is morally unfair to punish a child for the actions of their parents, but most importantly, it is not in the interest of our nation to deport thousands of young individuals that are American in all aspects of life, except on paper. Dreamers are hardworking individuals ingrained in all fabrics of American life. DACA was never meant to be permanent; it served as a temporary protection at a time when Congress was playing political football with the lives of over 800,000 young people. In 2012, the Senate Gang of Eight— a bipartisan group of eight U.S. Senators, including Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) — passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act that would
BEN JARRETT/the Justice
increase border security while providing a pathway for undocumented individuals. It passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but it was never even given the chance of a vote in the House, according to a June 24, 2015 article from the Center for American Progress. As a result, President Barack Obama issued DACA, because Congress failed to do its job and serve the viewpoints of the American constituency. Over these last five years that DACA has existed, Dreamers have proven their contributions as beneficial members of American society. The deportation of DACA recipients would see billions in waste to our nation’s GDP, an extreme educational brain drain to students we have educated as a country for years and a reduction in our ability to be a global competitor. According to a Sept. 7 article in Fortune, DACA recipients are employed in all of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies, which is why we have seen entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook speak out on such an issue. However, the more significant drawback is the moral injustice that such deportations would bring. We would literally be sending children back to nations they barely know and expelling them from the only country they know as home. Though the average age of a DACA recipient is 25,
according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, children of undocumented immigrants are still affected. Ask yourself, would you hold a six-year-old child accountable for an immigration status? I myself understand this paralyzing fear because I am one of the 800,000 DACA recipients in this nation. I came to the U.S. from Caracas, Venezuela at the age of six with my mother and sister to flee the violence and political turmoil in my home country. My mother came here legally, under an L1 Managerial Visa that would have eventually enabled us to achieve a permanent resident status. Unfortunately, I never got this chance. When I was 11, my mother died of kidney cancer. In losing my mother, I lost my status without even knowing it. I discovered I was undocumented when, while applying for a learner’s permit in eighth grade, I was rejected for lacking a social security number. Being that I had considered myself American, this was an embarrassing moment. Yet, luckily for me, Obama issued DACA several months after, finally allowing me to to apply to get a driver’s license as well as specific scholarships and internships. It also enabled me to purchase my first car and finally legally work and contribute to my community. These upcoming six months are arguably
the most important and significant months for Dreamers. We have a golden opportunity to use this dark period to accomplish a permanent legislative solution that Congress has failed to pass in 16 years of trying. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have introduced a wide array of bills set to protect Dreamers. The Bridge, DREAM, Recognizing America’s Children and the American Hope Act are all current legislation in both the House and Senate to protect Dreamers. Even more important, this legislation has strong bipartisan support with key Republican leaders such as Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis,) and Senators Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), John Mccain (R-Ariz.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) expressing support for legislation aimed at protecting Dreamers. The most paralyzing of fears have begun to actualize for immigrant youth communities, but now is not the time to despair, rather to fight back in an effective political manner that will finally yield us permanent solutions. Dreamers should not fear deportation based on who is sitting in the White House. Jus as DACA was achieved, we will continue to be unafraid, fighting back by sharing our stories to show what we already know: We only seek to contribute to the only nation we call home, the United States.
Condemn the often unethical practices of medical personnel Nia
lyn purpose
From a young age, we are taught to trust people in positions of authority. However, there have been countless occasions in which the people that need help the most were only further hurt by those meant to help them. With the recent hurricanes plaguing the southern United States, I was reminded of those with more deadly outcomes. With the recent Hurricane Harvey, some hospitals had to be evacuated, yet the patients were well accounted for, according to an Aug. 30 Washington Post article. The same, however, cannot be said of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. According to FEMA, over 1,300 lives were lost to Hurricane Katrina. Among those were 35 from St. Rita’s nursing home and 45 from Memorial Medical Center, according to a Sept. 7, 2005 New York Times article and an Aug. 25, 2009 New York Times article, respectively. In these situations, not only did the center come under question for their policies, but blame also fell on the doctors for their proposed preparedness. According to the Sept. 7, 2005 New York Times article, St. Rita’s was one of five major nursing homes in the region
of St. Bernard’s Parish and their evacuation plan depended upon that of another nursing home. Oddly, no calls were made to emergency services, and the only signs that precautionary measures were taken were dressers propped against windows and wheelchairs parked near the door. A similar story unfolded at Memorial Medical Center; here, doctors had to determine which patients were worth evacuating.
“
Issues of doctors neglecting patient well-being is nothing new. Over 48 hours after Katrina initially made landfall, doctors decided to divide patients into groups. Group one was the first to be evacuated, group two was the second and group three was the last. Individuals in group one were immediately taken to meet rescue boats, while group two was placed in a corridor waiting for helicopters and group three was moved to the corner of the second floor lobby. Group three primarily consisted of individuals with “Do Not Resuscitate” orders or those that were terminally ill. One patient was even euthanized using morphine, according to the same Aug. 9 article. Though the doctors involved may justify their
decisions on the basis that they need to prioritize those who have the greatest chance of living, who are they to choose who receives help? Doctors are supposed to ensure the health and wellbeing of patients in their care, and deciding who gets to live and who does not is beyond that description. Issues of doctors neglecting patient well-being is nothing new. A historic example of medical neglect and outright malpractice is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” According to the Center for Disease Control, the “study” began in 1932 when the Public Health Service began working with the Tuskegee Institute to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. The individuals involved were told that they would be receiving treatments for “bad blood.” Of the 600 men studied, 399 had syphilis — none of whom received treatment for their ailment — and 201 did not. In exchange for their participation in the study, the men received free meals and medical exams. Even with the invention of penicillin, the men in the study still did not receive any actual medical treatment. When the Associated Press covered this revelation in 1972, when the study had finally ended, seven men had died of syphilis, and 150 had died of heart complications. Additionally, all of the doctors involved had already retired, according to July 25 Time article. Subsequently, a panel appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Health and Science Affairs found that none of the men had received adequate information to give consent nor were the details of the study revealed to them in totality. The experiment lasted for 40 years, and according to a June 17, 2016 article in
the Atlantic, it even contributed to the disparity in life expectancy between Black and white men in the 1980s. This is due to the lack of trust that members of the Black community developed after the AP article was published. This experiment led to the establishment of the Belmont report, which serves to protect the liberties of individuals involved in research. It summarizes the basic ethical principles used when conducting research involving human participants. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it: establishes boundaries between research and medical practice, assesses the role of riskbenefit criteria, sets appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects and establishes a definition of informed consent. Though the report was put in place to protect people from the possible misuse of power by individuals in the field of medicine, this continues to be a problem. According to a March 22 ABC News article, this is a continuing problem within the medical field. More than 100 students at the University of Toronto’s medical school were interviewed for their opinions on ethical dilemmas. Of these students, half said that they were placed in a situation where an instructor encouraged them to act unethically and 61 percent even admitted to seeing doctors act unethically. It almost seems that prospective doctors are being groomed to go against the very oath they take to protect their patients. There needs to be a serious adjustment made to the medical field and how doctors are trained to react to difficult situations. The mistakes of the past have not been a deterrent or a motivation for those in the field to adjust their practices.
The opinions expressed on this page are those of each article’s respective author and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Justice.
Write to us
The Justice welcomes letters to the editor responding to published material. Please submit letters through our Web site at www.thejustice.org. Anonymous submissions cannot be accepted. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and may be edited for space, style, grammar, spelling, libel and clarity, and must relate to material published in the Justice. Letters from offcampus sources should include location. The Justice does not print letters to the editor and op-ed submissions that have been submitted to other publications. Op-ed submissions of general interest to the University community— that do not respond explicitly to articles printed in the Justice — are also welcome and should be limited to 800 words. All submissions are due Friday at 12 p.m.
Fine Print
The opinions stated in the editorial(s) under the masthead on the opposing page represent the opinion of a majority of the voting members of the editorial board; all other articles, columns, comics and advertisements do not necessarily. For the Brandeis Talks Back feature on the last page of the newspaper, staff interview four randomly selected students each week and print only those four answers. The Justice is the independent student newspaper of Brandeis University. Operated, written, produced and published entirely by students, the Justice includes news, features, arts, opinion and sports articles of interest to approximately 3,500 undergraduates, 900 graduate students, 500 faculty and 1,000 administrative staff. The Justice is published every Tuesday of the academic year with the exception of examination and vacation periods. Advertising deadlines: All insertion orders and advertising copy must be received by the Justice no later than 5 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the date of publication. All advertising copy is subject to approval of the editor in chief and the managing and advertising editors.
The Staff
For information on joining the Justice, write to editor@ thejustice.org.
Editorial Assistants
Arts: Emily Blumenthal, Kent Dinlenc, Brooke Granovsky,
Photography: Yvette Sei
Emily See, Anna Stern, Isabelle Truong
Features: Victor Feldman
Photography: Ydalia Colon, Talya Guenzburger,
Layout: Morgan Mayback
Adam Pann, Heather Schiller*, Anna Sherman, Joyce Yu Copy: Erica Breyman, Sara Fulton, Nicole Kim,
Staff
Monica Krishna, Angela Li, Siobhan McKenna,
News: Junsheng He, Liat Shapiro, Spencer Taft,
Rachel Moore, Billy Wilson*
Arianna Unger*, Maurice Windley
Layout: Jenna Nimaroff, Mayaan Rose
Features: Christine Kim, Leah Leybzon, Leigh Salomon
Illustrations: Ben Jarrett, Roman Loper, Aaron Marks,
Forum: Ben Feshbach*, Tafara Gava, Somar Hadid,
Julianna Scionti, Peri Meyers
Andrew Jacobson*, Maddox Kay*, Shubhan Nagendra, Elias Rosenfeld*, Ravi Simon, Judah Weinerman Sports: Gabriel Goldstein*, Samantha Proctor, Evan Robins
* denotes a senior staff member.