This is my blog.

    In response to one of the colleagues blog post, I would like to disagree with the bottom line saying "Trump's policy will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain access to any sorts of visas" for a few reasons. First, while I agree with the fact that not every foreign national is criminal, I think there are far more criminals who are already American citizens. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country have always been hard-working people who devote their skills in many undesirable, physically-demanding jobs such as food processing facilities. My opinion is that there should be no reason to ward off people crossing the border illegally for that reason.

While perusing this article from New York Times, which leaves a good food for thought about the importance of the African-American mayoralty of Atlanta, GA, it got me thinking how the Atlanta's African-American mayoralty has contributed to the city with their sophisticated urban development plans as the city has become whiter due to its long-term gentrification for the past decades and that the city has had it for a long period of time. However, we all know every federal official has its term limits, which allegedly would bar the current Atlanta mayor from seeking a fourth year of term, and it increases the possibility of the next white mayor, Mary Norwood, to be elected. According to the article, the current polls predict that Ms. Norwood is extremely likely to be elected as the next Atlanta mayor, but experts say that Ms. Norwood is never the kind of person who judges people solely based on race, but on the content of their character, and personality. The article also argues th

This editorial from New York Times criticizes the White House's resolution on reaping the benefits from oil extraction in the Arctics, one of the protected refuges that has been restricted by the Barack Obama's administration. That being said, based on what I've read, I do certainly agree with the editorial on the sense that it might potentially harm its environment and can be a big concern for most environmentalists. It also states that some of the most preserved lands could be at stake. https://nyti.ms/2zlEHit

While this opinion titled "How Long Until We Debate Real Gun Laws?" from the New York Times discusses how the US government hasn't taken actions on the gun control issues yet a myriad of people have been killed during modern times of America, I agree with most of what the editorial has stated and that it is the time for both NRA(National Rifle Association) and the US Congress to take this issue serious. After having watched some Las Vegas mass shooting videos myself, it really jumped out of me that such a dangerous type of weapon or device can still be purchased legally. I didn't know the type of device called "bump stock", a device that accelerates the rate of fire of any semi-automatic guns matching that of fully-automatic ones, was legal until I read articles where they said such device was actually legal. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/opinion/editorials/how-long-debate-real-gun-control.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&a

I find this article in particular to be interesting to read because it primarily argues that whether or not the University of California, Berkeley has to let the right-wing speakers to come since this university has long been a battlefield where the both right-wing and left-wing speakers pick a fight over the national debate or their political views according to the faculty members. The article starts by telling that the mathematics class for graduate students being canceled because the room where the class was supposed to be held will be used for the right-wing speakers while its students just want to study. It's worth reading because it remind us of how certain universities and colleges such as Berkeley have been picked as speech venues by right-wing speakers and how they disrupt its innocent students who aren't even willing to be part of this. https://nyti.ms/2jTE8d4

Hi, everyone.