13 Reasons Why You Should Definitely Vote for Donald Trumpby Brodie Wray, p.3

In Defense of Political Correctnessby Brandon Willmore, p.2

Kim Davis’s Inappropriate Appeal to Religionby Sierra Thomander, p.6

POLITICALREVIEW

BY

U

OCT

201

5

CONTENTS

Layout & Cover Art//KELSEY MARTINEZ

IN DEFENSE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESSby Brandon Willmore

13 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMPby Brodie Wray

POLITICAL AUTHENTICITY IN THE AGE OF TRUMPby Andrew Jensen

FINDING YOUR POLITICAL SOULMATEby Tatiana Flexman

NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S SOCIALISMby Madeline and Nicholas Caine

THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: SUPERSIZE MEby Sarah Martin

OUR LAWS OR YOUR BELIEFS: WHY BOTH EQUALITY MATTERby Kayla B. Bach

KIM DAVIS’ INAPPROPRIATE APPEAL TO RELIGIONby Sierra Thomander

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPINGAn international brief by Jon Isaacson

THE BATTLE FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIPby John Thompson

A PREVENTABLE TRAGEDYby Ethan Christensen

BRIDGING THE GAP: HOW THE REFUGEE CRISIS AFFECTS THE WORLDby Scott McClellan

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THE IRAN DEALby Jacob Murri

THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP—A VERY BIG DEAL by Daniel Jaramillo

HOLOCAUST AND ISISby Russell Fischer

0203

0504

06

070809

10

In Defense of Political Correctness by Brandon Willmore

There is a reason why many parents tend to be more tolerant of their daughters

playing with monster trucks than of their sons breaking out a Cabbage Patch doll. They perceive a ‘tom boy’ as preferable to a ‘fairy boy’ because, vocalized or not, recognized or not, these people tend to see femininity as inferior to masculinity. Doleful phrases like ‘fairy boy’ are both a result and a perpetuator of the idea that women are lesser than men.

The words we use impact lives in ways that we often do not foresee. This is why it is so important to actively listen to criticism as we attempt to make our rhetoric more uplifting and less dangerous to marginalized members of our society. It is beyond the scope of this article to individually explain why specific words or phrases have come to be considered politically incorrect. I instead intend to confront the notion that political correctness is a detriment to our country, our communication, and our freedom.

Political correctness is a simple concept. It refers to using terms that groups of peo-ple prefer to be known by when describing or referencing them. Political correctness is born of the idea that we can empower others by changing the way we speak about them. And it works!

The oft-heard refrain, that “we do not have time for political correctness” is a cop-out. It is an attempt to refuse responsibility for our actions. It is a rationalization that tells people that they are not accountable for the effects of their words. Critics of political correctness often argue that we should not cater to those who ‘choose to be offended.’ However, these critics are not taking into account that advocates of political correctness are oftentimes not the ones who are most offended or harmed by discourteous speech.

Jordan Lofthouse, a companion from my time as a Latter-day Saint missionary in Tokyo, and a fellow Idahoan, recently described to me what it was like growing up

gay and closeted in our community. Like in many parts of the country, the word “gay” was often used derogatorily. As he put it, “Growing up where everyone is LDS, you’re expected to live by certain norms. Even some of the nicest kids use the word ‘gay’ for something they think is stupid or ‘fag-got’ for people they don’t like. When you are closeted you take the words personally. You think ‘I am something stupid. I am something bad.’ It is hard to put into words how bad something can feel that isn’t even directed at you.” Jordan also made clear his disdain for the phrases that many religious use in place of ‘homosexual.’ He contin-ued, “I feel like the phrase ‘struggles with same-sex attraction’ can be just as harmful and hurtful because it’s not the feelings that I struggle with, it’s the stigma from family, friends, and church members.”

Today, Jordan is an adult who would be willing to confront those who use gay slurs. He is not looking to play victim. Instead, he is making an effort to protect the marginal-ized. He knows how harmful these phrases can be to those who are struggling to navi-gate stigmas associated with being gay.

Oftentimes it can be difficult to em-pathize with the ostracisms, both big and small, that others face—but, with a little extra effort to trust the marginalized, we can go a long way toward empowering all divisions of society. We should trust the children of immigrants when they tell us that the term “anchor babies” makes them feel as though they are less deserving of cit-izenship. We should trust the large segments of Native American society that have said Native American sports mascots contribute to degrading stereotypes. It does not matter if we have a black cousin, a gay friend, a Muslim neighbor, or if we ‘know a lot of Latinos.’ Our proximity to minority groups will never divest us of responsibility for our rhetoric.

Those who refuse to cater to requests for civil rhetoric so often refer to calls for political correctness as a gag on free speech. This could not be further from the truth. Political correctness is not about what someone can or cannot say; it is about what someone should or should not say. Our rhetoric matters. When we make efforts to be more compassionate, understanding, and respectful in our speech, we can help to elevate individuals and groups in ways that—in our various states of privilege—we may never have expected. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu

#snarkyKeep it

Follow us on

@byupolitics

@byupr

BYU Political Review

BYU Political Review

BYU Political Review 2

13 Reasons Why You Should Definitely Vote for Donald Trump by Brodie Wray

1. He knows exactly how many people are in the House of Repre-sentatives.

Well, at least he knows that there “is some stiff that knows every one of those [history] answers.”

Hopefully he picks some really good stiffs who know what the White House is used for, what the Senate does, and maybe how laws are made.

2. Mr. Trump understands the threat that ISIS poses.

“ISIS just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel. When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest. They don’t have to pay interest.”

How dare they not pay interest! He will handle the terrible, non-interest-paying ISIS (because apparently not paying interest is as noteworthy as murdering of Americans, torturing minorities, harming women, etc.).

3. He will revolutionize the things we really need to revolutionize in the U.S.

Like the handshake. Apparently, “the handshake is barbaric!” Between getting rid of the handshake and ensuring that ISIS pays interest on their hotel we will have made incredible progress at resolving bar-baric behavior both at home and abroad.

4. He is very articulate about his political opponents.

“Obama is horrible, I will be great” His punctuation, is also. exemplary\

5. He would cut down on govern-ment expenses in the White House.

Instead of having a wife and a daughter to provide for, he would merge the two to save the taxpayers some money. As he put it, “If Evanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

Think about it, if he were dating his daughter that would be one less mouth to feed at the White House. We can all appreci-ate a leader who is willing to sacrifice to help the taxpayers.

6. He is extremely skilled at accu-rately representing his past.

Four of his businesses (which are limited liability corporations and part of a parent company) went bankrupt but, yes, techni-cally, Mr. Trump, you ‘never went bankrupt.

He could truthfully say in the debate that Jeb Bush was wrong; he never went bank-rupt. Well played, Mr. Trump. Well played.

7. He is very set in his ways and refuses to change his mind on the issues that matter.

He said, “I don’t ever want to be Presi-dent. I’m one hundred percent sure. Then a few years later, he said, “I am officially running for President of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again.”

It would be comforting to have someone so steadfast in charge of our country.

8. He could save the country all kinds of money on medical re-search.

As we learned in the most recent Re-publican debate, he is leading the field of medical research. Don’t elect him president, or he may have to delegate this job to oth-ers. If we elect him to run the country then he might not have enough time to argue with people, including an award-winning neurosurgeon, that vaccines cause autism. Okay, so there is no evidence for that, but like with the rest of his vague platform, we’ll just have to take it on his word that he knows what he is doing.

9. He has some great supporters.Tom Brady. Maybe Tom Brady will in-

spire a “Deflategate” of Trump’s ego…

10. He never stereotypes.Except when he says, “the [Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They are rapists.”

11. He will be better than our cur-rent President.

Trump “really thought Obama would be a great cheerleader.” Apparently, President Obama has not been effective at promoting the US’s presence in the global sphere. Don-

ald Trump thinks himself a great frontrun-ner in the Republican Cheerleader Race.

12. He knows when to address issues that have previously never been addressed.

As he put it, “if it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immi-gration.”

Yes, Americans have never talked about illegal immigration. It has never been discussed in the political realm and there is no academic research on it. Thank you, Mr. Trump for bringing this to our attention. What else will he revolutionarily address: taxes?

13. As if you need another reason… “Just look at that face.” And that hair…

Political Authenticity in the Age of Trump by Andrew Jensen

Even the most educated political fore-casters failed to predict the disruption

caused by the tempestuous arrival of The Donald on the 2016 presidential campaign. Wholly unanticipated by press and pundits alike, the billionaire’s campaign has trans-formed the GOP and Democratic nomi-nation contests. His enduring popularity in the face of gaffes and outrage from all sides raises the question: what do his supporters see in him? Besides his business acumen and policy stances (few, unrealistic, and con-tradictory as they may be), his most import-ant quality seems to be his willingness to say whatever is on his mind, damn the conse-quences. And millions love it. While some charge that the bravado is an act, it doesn’t matter if the reality star believes what he says, as long as his supporters perceive him to be sincere.

Trump has redefined the upcoming election as other candidates have rushed to emulate his dynamic and in-your-face style or risk irrelevance. Jeb Bush is attempting to become more joyful and shed the “low en-ergy” label Trump derisively bestowed him. Hillary Clinton’s strategists promise “there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious.” While the presumptive frontrunners struggle, outspoken candi-dates like Ben Carson, who once compared Obamacare to slavery, and Carly Fiorina, who scored points at the last debate making blatantly false remarks about Planned Parenthood, have skyrocketed in the GOP

3 BYU Political Review

polls. Similarly, self-professed socialist and unabashed progressive Bernie Sanders leads the more centrist Clinton in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Those that have failed to adapt have suffered. Similarly, self-pro-fessed socialist and unabashed progressive Bernie Sanders leads the more centrist Clinton in polls in Iowa and New Hamp-shire. Those that have failed to adapt have suffered. Former poll leader Scott Walker dropped out after flip-flopping on immigra-tion issues and seeming unsure and distant during the first two GOP debates.

Should authenticity be a primary concern of voters? While desirable, authenticity alone is less important than the character that honesty reveals. What do we learn about his character when Trump brags of his wealth, claims that immigrants are crim-inals and rapists, or disparages journalists and fellow candidates for their appearances? Of his controversial comments and stances, he expresses no remorse or even recognition of their harmful effects. He told Jimmy Fallon, “I think apologizing is a great thing. But you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime hopefully in the distant future, if I’m ever wrong.” How would he act differently if he were president? His comments and demeanor demonstrate that he has a hateful temperament and lack of empathy and humility. These qualities ought to disqualify him from being the leader and spokesman for the hundreds of millions of citizens in an increasingly diverse America.

It is possible to be authentic, while still being civil. Take Vice President Joe Biden, who is notorious for his memorable off-the-cuff remarks. Last month in an interview with Stephen Colbert, he revealed great depth and empathy as he discussed the loss of his son Beau. Though light on policy, the conversation demonstrated that the Vice President is a person who feels and grieves. While this may not inform voters’ decisions should he run for President, his authentic emotion gives voters reason to believe that he can empathize with loss, such as that which accompanies natural disasters, school shootings, disease, and war. The modern President has become, in many ways, a Mourner-in-Chief—a role that necessitates empathy. My intention is not to endorse a specific candidate, but rather to contrast positive authenticity to Trump’s much more negative style.

Discussing the qualities of Christ-like leadership, Joseph Smith wrote that people ought to lead “by persuasion, by long-suf-fering, by gentleness and meekness, and

by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.” While authenticity is found on the list, it is far from the only quality. Its presence in a candidate should not, by itself, earn our admiration or support. Rather, we ought to find and support candidates who care sin-cerely about all types of people, recognize their limitations, and strive to help and heal our nation, rather than divide it and sow hatred. Surely in the crop of twenty or so candidates from both parties, there is a man or women that has these qualities and holds political views similar to your own. Please just promise that whomever you choose to support, don’t make it the authentically unpresidential Donald Trump.

Finding Your Political Soulmate by Tatiana Flexman

Figuring out who you should vote for in elections can be stressful; especially for

the upcoming presidential election. Both Democrats and Republicans have a handful of candidates to choose from, with Repub-licans having upwards of a dozen options. Outside of the sheer number of candi-dates, you have to understand how each of them matches your own political standards. You have to know their stance on social, economic, foreign, and healthcare issues. How can you sort through the candidates to find the person to represent you best as the future President of the United States? First, you have to understand your own political ideology. Second, you need to know where they stand. You can eliminate candidates quickly by understanding both what you want your president to do and what the can-didates can do to fulfill those criteria.

Understanding where you fit into the political spectrum is essential to choosing a candidate. If you haven’t thought about where you stand on prominent political issues you are unable to make an informed electoral decision. Knowing where you stand on the issues requires a bit of research. This process will take some time, but it is valuable as an American to know what is going on in your country. Start by checking out a few news sources. Find the top political stories for the day and read through them. At the bare minimum understand what the issue is, where the parties stand on the issue, and po-tential solutions to the problem. Since media is usually biased towards one side or another

(liberal or conservative) it is a good idea to look for articles on the same issue from multiple news sources. The information that is in both a conservative-leaning and a lib-eral-leaning article is a good basis for what the issue actually is. From here, you need to decide how you stand on the issue. Figure out whether or not you agree more with the liberal or conservative stances on the issue. You may be a mix of both or you may not agree with either. You don’t need to fit in perfectly with a party to find the candidate who will best represent you.

It is also important that you understand your stance on core issues. The political scene is constantly changing, but there are topics that are always at the forefront. For example immigration and tax reform are issues that are regularly discussed in politics. Whether or not they are the key political discussions at the time of an election, it is important to know how you feel about them because they will help form your political foundation. Other important issues to include are social welfare programs, the im-portance of the Constitution, religious free-dom, the right to free speech, etc.

After understanding where you stand on political issues it’s time to research where candidates stand on the same issues. Start by understanding the candidates’ political platforms. Most presidential candidates will have a website where you can go to read about them, what they stand for, etc. Other good sources for a basic foundation are Ballotpedia and OnTheIssues. Both of these sites provide a basic outline for the political platforms of each presidential candidate. Now that you know where the candidates stand you can eliminate the ones that do not fit your expectations for president. The next step is to watch the news. Read articles about your top five candidates from both liberal and conservative sites to gain a better understanding of where they stand on the issues you consider most important. From here you can use the news, debates, cam-paign websites, etc. to narrow down your top five candidates to the person who best represents you ideologically as the President of the United States.

Choosing a candidate to vote for is a daunting task for a majority of Americans. It doesn’t need to be. You do not need an outstanding knowledge of politics to be ca-pable of figuring out who will best represent you in office. All you need to know is where you stand on the issues and who stands closest to you.

BYU Political Review 4

Not Your Grandfather’s Socialismby Madeline and Nicholas Caine

Recent polls indicate increasing support for Bernie Sanders. This is generally rec-

ognized with bemusement, and acknowledg-ing that while he may be experiencing some early popularity, he is “unelectable.” Why? Because he’s a self-described democratic so-cialist. As we gear up for election season, the economy becomes even more of a talking point for Americans, and one thing is clear: in this country, socialism is still a dirty word.

However, it’s not socialism itself that is the obstacle in question, but rather our understanding of socialism. In the US, most opinions of socialism are based, at least in part, on the ideological struggles of the Cold War; for many people the word “socialism” immediately conjures up ideas of a Stalinist, dystopian, state-owned hell, where coun-trymen are killed or whisked off to frozen labor camps for suggesting that the supreme dictator doesn’t look as good in khaki as he thinks he does. And although socialism has been linked to such regimes in the past, this pejorative isn’t a necessary part of defining it.

In a simplified sense, socialism just means sharing. In political speak, it’s a system by which a society shares some of its resources to finance programs meant to benefit the community as a whole. To understand how socialism is implemented in more modern times, we only need to look to examples of present-day social-democracies like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Economically and socially, these countries are highly suc-cessful and are consistently ranked in the top 10 countries with the happiest populations. The abundance of pickled fish, ice, or funny animals surely helps, but certainly the social systems have a role to play as well.

It is understandable that Americans, even those who genuinely would like to solve social problems facing the country, are a little scared by the idea of a socialist welfare state. Americans tend to hate the idea of “big government.” However, having a strong government is the only way to implement game-changing social programs. And it’s not as though the American government is powerless now – our leaders can take us to war with alarming ease. But when it comes to aiding the most vulnerable members of our society, many would rather keep our government weak. In defense of Americans, they certainly are very charitable. In 2004, 11 percent of Americans said they donated to

private charities, compared to just 4 percent of Europeans. That is wonderful and com-mendable, but is it efficient? How charitable would Americans have to be to match the social benefits of the European welfare state? Private charities and churches do a lot of good, but they simply do not have the power to do what a government can. In 2014, France spent about 33 percent of its GDP on public social expenditures, while the US spent less than 20 percent. During the last decade, welfare spending in France brought down the poverty rate more than 25%, in comparison to the menial 10% decrease in the United States.

Americans often address subjects in a very polar way; Republican versus Democrat, liberal versus conservative, capitalism versus socialism. Most can see the problem in this; when the universe is infinite, why lump everything into two options? These inno-vative ideas are not a threat to our dreams as a nation—they could be the means of achieving them. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Super Size Meby Sarah Martin

Let’s pretend for a moment that Canada is McDonalds, that red and gold beacon of

French fries, toxins, and delicious ice cream cones. America walks in, smelling a bit like entitlement and partisanship, and orders a Big Mac meal on the menu. Canada replies, “Would you like to Super Size that?” America is both shocked and awed, but is torn apart inwardly by conflicting desires. She really wants those extra fries, but knows that she probably won’t be able to undo the damage to her waistline.

At this point in the article, you have most of the information you need about the Keystone XL Pipeline. A greasy (literally) opportunity for America to benefit the econ-omy and create jobs all while contributing to global warming. Politicians have now adopt-ed this issue into their platforms and it has fallen prey to partisan politics. The GOP is working hard to convince the State Depart-ment to sign off, but the Obama Administra-tion is stalling the decision.

Here are some of the facts.What it is: The Keystone XL Pipeline is the proposed fourth phase in a project to connect Hardisty, Canada to Steele City, Nebraska with 1,179 miles of pipe. The proj-ect would cost $8 billion dollars and could

carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day. It’s actually a private project, but the State Department has to okay it because it crosses the national border. The argument for it: “Why, yes. I would like to buy more low quality food for less money.”We are going to continue to use oil and we would rather get it from Canada than from Saudi Arabia. This is also an undeniable opportunity to create jobs—an estimat-ed 42,100 jobs, with about 12,000 held by residents of the four project states. The State Department estimates that the project itself would generate $2 billion in earnings throughout the U.S.

The environmental impact would occur even if the project were stopped or halted. Crude oil is being extracted at an increasing rate both by the U.S. and by Canada. Both nations are experiencing a boom in uncon-ventional oil production and in energy. Our involvement or lack thereof will not halt others from using the resource, and if we plan on participating, we need the infrastruc-ture to handle the increase. The pipeline is actually a more environmentally conscious alternative to transporting the oil by rail, which is the more common method at this point and would result in far fewer spills. The argument against it: “Get away from my waistline, McDonalds temptress.”

The oil we are extracting from the sands is not just any oil, it’s crude oil-sands. The environmental impact is much larger because the amount of energy needed to extract it is much higher. The amount of oil traveling each day would ad an extra 1.3 million to 27.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, the equivalent of putting an extra 250,000 to 5.5 million cars on the road. Amazingly enough, that’s a marginal number compared to total yearly emissions which are in the billions of metric tons, but is still an unnecessary amount.

There are energy alternatives. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, the list goes on and on. With the money that’s being invested in the Keystone XL Pipeline, major advances could be made in other areas that would not harm the environment. The issue concerns more than just us, we have to think about future generations. The Point: You get to decide. Is the en-vironmental impact worth the economic boost? Would the environmental impact be halted if the pipeline was rejected? Should this issue be a deciding factor in the next election? Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

5 BYU Political Review

Our Laws or Your Beliefs: Why Both Equality Matterby Kayla B. Bach

There are some choices no one should have to make. One of those choices

is between a job and a belief system. Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was recently forced to make this choice after the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Davis, who is a devout Christian, refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the announcement of the decision. Her actions temporarily landed her in jail and generated an immense amount of discussion. This situation raised an interesting question: is it acceptable for a sworn public official to refuse to uphold laws that conflict with his or her own religious beliefs?

The question seems to answer itself. After all, the job of a public official is to uphold the law and carry out policies and programs cor-rectly. If all individuals that are selected to act as public officials decide to make decisions based upon their own belief systems, then they can hardly be called impartial.

Those with strong religious convictions are therefore left with 3 options.

1. Avoid becoming a public official. This is an unfortunate option, since a truly balanced system will include many different kinds of Americans, all of whom wish to help protect liberty, justice, and the law.

2. Accept the reality of the job. Re-member, government is not a religion or a business. There is a difference between failing to carry out what the law dictates versus pro-testing the law on your own time. Still, forcing public officials to go against their belief systems seems highly unethical and extremely un-American.

3. Seek to have someone else step in. This is what Kim Davis decided to do when she returned from jail. Deputy clerks issued the marriage licenses so that she would not have to violate her personal beliefs.

Keeping the above three choices in mind, I would encourage officials everywhere to choose option three. It is important to note that those who work in various roles in our government are still individuals, and though their jobs require them to carry out the law, the law still protects their right to think, speak, and act for themselves. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this issue is especial-ly important to me. In my home state of California, “Right to Die” legislation was just signed into law. If I decided to become a medical doctor, this would be one part of my

job that I would be unwilling to do myself. I interpret the LDS doctrine of “enduring to the end” as a specific warning against situa-tions such as this. While we have not yet had a California Kim Davis regarding this new law, I am sure it is only a matter of time.

As our country continues to grow more diverse, there will be more and more religions that need accommodating. Religious freedom is meant to be universally exercised and pro-tected throughout our country, and how we react to our changing demographics will show how serious we are about doing just that. Republicans claim to be leading the charge in this area, with many individuals jumping to defend the actions that Kim Davis has taken. While I am also a Republican, I find their approach to be destructive to the ultimate goal. This is an issue that should not be about Democrats against Republicans, or individuals versus officials. It should be about everyone coming together to protect the rights of all.

The rights of one are not more important than the other, and it is important to keep that in mind as we approach new issues and perspectives as a society. Laws are meant to protect our beliefs, not erode them. Choosing to enter public service as an official should not change this. After all, “We the People” refers to everyone. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu

Kim Davis’s Inappropriate Appeal to Religionby Sierra Thomander

Watch out, Kardashian; there is a new Kim in town. Rowan County, Ken-

tucky Clerk Kim Davis may not be married to Kanye West, but she has successfully stretched her 15 minutes of fame into months of headlines, garnering attention from news outlets across the political spectrum. Fol-lowing the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, all states must now recognize same-sex marriages. Kim Davis has wielded her Christian faith, claiming that she refuses “under God’s authority” to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Many argue that Davis is just exercising religious freedom with this moral objection. However, her moral objection extends to her whole of-fice. She banned her six deputies from issuing the licenses even though five deputies were willing. This is where Davis loses her religious appeal.

Why do Davis’s actions undermine her appeal to religion? Start with the source and authority: Jesus Christ. From healing on the Sabbath to proclaiming divinity, Christ, like

Davis, made an uproar, but the reasons for the uproar differ. From the Pharisees to the Romans, Christ acted not to influence the so-ciety but to teach the individual. He acted by persuasion rather than coercion. As a Chris-tian, Davis should choose her own moral path. But Christ never tried to coerce others to follow that path, and as a follower of Christ, neither should Kim Davis. Davis has done her moral duty by fleeing the situation and speaking out. The other clerks cannot sin for her by signing the certificates. Davis can save herself and no one else. Being a brother’s keeper does not mean being his master.

Additionally, no one is forcing Davis to be the clerk. Were Davis forced to act against her religious beliefs, her refusal would be credible. However, her clerkship is voluntary. Though the loss of her job may seem a harsh conse-quence. Christians are expected to sacrifice in this life in hope for the next. As for what she forfeits in this life, sacrificing her clerkship is a meager offering compared to actual martyr-dom. Freedom to practice one’s religion does not mean freedom from all the consequences.

However, despite Kim Davis’ waning fame, she may still have Kim Kardashian beat in one regard. Kim K. only has three marriag-es while Davis is on her fourth. Kim Davis, Biblically speaking, has not upheld the sanc-tity of marriage. Should clerks, who strongly believe that marriage is until death, deny heterosexual divorcees marriage licenses? With around half of first marriages ending in divorce, most people would call this ridicu-lous. Davis, however, like these hypothetical clerks, uses her interpretation of the Bible to defend her choice. When Christians decide through popular opinion what aspects of the Bible are acceptable to denounce while less convenient aspects like divorce are ignored, is it really Christianity?

Truly, America is a champion of religious rights. The Bill of Rights begins with freedom of religion. Davis has every right to express her opinions about same-sex marriage, and she has the liberty of practicing her religion. Yet Davis uses Christianity in a way that denies Christ’s life and teachings and impos-es on others. Christians cannot cherry-pick what Biblical teachings on marriage they use in denying civil services—it’s all or noth-ing. Convenience was never the message of Christ. America must separate religious free-dom from religious consequence. And while it might mean America associates “Kim” with another season of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, so be it. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu

BYU Political Review 6

While You Were Sleeping by Jon Isaacson

With so much going on in the world, it can be hard to follow and remember

everything that is happening. Maybe you have a report for a class or project and you are just looking for a summary. Maybe you want to impress a boy or a girl with your as-tounding knowledge of international affairs. Below are highlights of recent world events and issues that will help you do that.

Middle East Syria: In 2011, a civil war broke out in Syria. People are divided between efforts to re-move President Bashir Al-Assad or to keep him in power. The U.S. and other coun-tries supported, and still support, the rebel groups seeking change. Amid the chaos, chemical weapons have been used against civilians and rebels, which has raised inter-national concerns over instability within the country. Destabilization has also allowed a terrorist-insurgent group—ISIS—to flourish in Syria and Iraq. The conflict has resulted in a mass migration toward Europe and other countries. Most recently, Russia announced that it would begin airstrikes on ISIS and support pro-Al-Assad troops.

EuropeGreece: Greece faces severe financial and economic problems due its debt crisis. The indebted country owes 358 billion dollars to lenders such as the International Monetary Fund, the European Bank, and other Euro-pean countries. Lenders refused to provide more money unless Greece agreed to strict budgetary restrictions meant to reduce its debt. Greece repeatedly rejected such restric-tions until it reached a compromise in July, which includes strict regulations on govern-ment spending and large tax increases.

Ukraine: In late 2013, after widespread demonstrations in Kiev to remove President Yanukovych from office, Russian troops moved into Eastern Ukraine and Crimea—the island to the south— alledgedly in order to protect ethnic Russians. In addition, ethnic Russians living in Eastern Ukraine are seeking to join Russia. Russia officially became involved and has supported efforts by pro-Russian military groups. NATO and its allies have denounced the Russian intervention and have provided the rebels with weapons and other military supplies. Although ceasefire agreements have been signed and have expired, no peace accords have been reached.

AsiaChina: This summer the Chinese stock market dropped significantly, causing the Chinese government to respond by lowering interest rates and freezing trade to stem the effects of the crash. This government in-volvement prompted fear about the stability of the Chinese economy in markets around the world. Investors are now wary of the condition of the Chinese market and how interconnected it is with the U.S. economy. More recently, the U.S. has followed the source of several cyberattacks to China. Chi-na has vowed to crack down on transnation-al hacking stemming from China, but the U.S. remains cautious that attacks may have originated from the Chinese government itself. Another area of international concern includes China failing to meet global energy standards on pollution and greenhouse gases.

AfricaNigeria: Boko Haram is an Islamic ter-ror organization in Eastern Nigeria. The organization is known for destroying towns and villages for the purpose of creating an Islamic state and fighting the corruption within Nigeria. In 2014, the organization gained recognition when it abducted 276 schoolgirls, prompting leaders, businesses, and organizations to “help bring back our girls.” The group remains active in bomb-ings and assassinations, but is believed to no longer hold any territory.

Latin AmericaGuatemala: Most recently, Guatemalan Pres-ident Otto Perez-Molina was impeached on accounts of corruption. Perez-Molina was charged and convicted of accepting bribes to reduce tariffs and taxes on imported products. Molina’s vice-president, Roxanna Baldetti, and popular presidential candidate, Manuel Baldizon, were also impeached in the scandal. Balidzon has quit the current presidential race due to possible involve-ment in the scandal. The country is continu-ing to develop despite a civil war that has continued throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. One of the largest threats to the country is the spread of corruption among government officials.

Cuba: President Obama took a new foreign policy stance by restoring relations with Cuba. Relations with Cuba were severed in 1961 before the Cuban Missile Crisis and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. Since then, the U.S. has imposed travel bans and trade embargos on the country. Various presidents

have attempted to loosen or tighten these policies. Most recently, Cuba-U.S. relations were restored with the openings of embas-sies in both countries on July 20, 2015.

The Battle For Birthright Citizenship by John Thompson

For many, illegal immigration has become the issue of eternal complaint. It is a

matter that commands constant attention and acts as fuel for political rallying cries. Yet, even with all this attention, a solu-tion always seems to be just out of reach. The effort to solve America’s immigration problems is nothing new. It is a policy conundrum that has languished over the years due to the lack of any uniting, viable, and common sense solutions. Fortunately for America, the rather chaotic and unpre-dictable summer of Republican presidential campaigning has brought renewed focus to the issue and has even offered one interest-ing solution: end birthright citizenship.

Led by real-estate mogul Donald Trump, a number of candidates have voiced their concern or opposition to birth right citizen-ship. Quotes such as “It doesn’t make sense” (Ted Cruz and Ben Carson), it needs to be “re-examined” (Chris Christie), and “it’s the biggest magnet for illegal immigration” (Trump) have echoed forth as a call to fix what these candidates consider a glaring error in national policy. Supporters of birthright citizenship feel that current policy encourages illegal immigration. The thought process assumes the following scenario: A woman or couple will illegally attempt to enter the United States. Upon successful entry they will then seek to have children and establish what has been referred to as an “anchor baby”. Due to being born within U.S. borders this baby will be a U.S. citizen and will therefore, in theory, make it easier for the family to remain in the U.S. There are only a couple flaws with this logic and its proposed solution: first, the fix would re-quire overcoming the U.S. Constitution and, second, recent data does not support the idea that birthright citizenship has incentiv-ized illegal immigration.

Birthright citizenship is a product of the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there-of, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. It’s a simple equation: birth on U.S. soil + birth under U.S. rule = citizenship. In order to affect a

7 BYU Political Review

policy change, a constitutional amendment that either nullified, repealed, or modified the 14th Amendment would be neces-sary. It’s a challenging endeavor, especially since 57% of Americans favor keeping the founding document as it is. Changing the U.S. Constitution is not done lightly and it is unlikely to be the path that birthright citizenship opponents take.

In an attempt to circumnavigate the amendment process, some, such as Repre-sentative King (R-IA), have suggested that an act of Congress could solve the issue. This legislative idea centers on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof ”. King believes that Congress, which is granted the ability to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization”, has the power to statutorily decide jurisdiction. It’s an interesting idea. The only flaw is that it flies in the face of current legal practice. Current legal policy in regard to birthright citizenship is based on geographic jurisdiction which has been upheld in court. In 1898 the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark established birthright citizenship based on geographic jurisdiction by granting citizen-ship to a Chinese-American who had been born on American soil. It is reasonable to assume that any legislative challenge would face court action.

Not only do alterations to birthright citizenship policies face a difficult legal battle, but they also face a difficult numbers battle. Recent data from the Pew Research Center indicates that birth-right citizenship is not the main incentive for illegal immigra-tion. The study found that births to illegal immigrants in the U.S. are actually declining. From 2007 to 2013 these births declined from 370,000 to 295,000. In addition to a decline in births, research found that children of illegal immigrants are arriving with their parents. They are not being born on U.S. soil, but traveling to it. In 2008 there were roughly 755,000 illegal foreign born children living with their parents in the U.S. compared to the 360,000 or so children that were born to illegal immigrants. All of this data points to a growing trend, that the future children who will benefit from birthright citizenship will be those born to long-term, illegal residents of the U.S. If birthright citizenship is truly an incentive for illegal immigration then research should show births increasing among recently arrived illegal immigrants. Instead the exact opposite is occurring. Births are declin-ing and with it any validity that birthright citizenship is a major magnet for illegal

immigration. The simple truth is that U.S. immi-

gration reform faces a challenging road ahead. America is a nation of immigrants and needs immigration, but it also needs productive and lawful citizens. It is time for Americans to put aside their differing opinions and work to find a solution. The correct answer will not be based in extreme views, such as general amnesty or ending birthright citizenship. It will come as liberals and conservatives show a willingness to reach across the aisle and work with each other to find new, common sense solutions.

A Preventable Tragedy? by Ethan Christensen

Tragedy struck in Mecca on Septem-ber 24, when the crowds of Muslim

pilgrims participating in one of the last rites of the Hajj became so dense that trampling and crushing ensued. The Saudi government released an official death count of 769, but the tallies from the victims’ countries of origin show more than 1,636 dead. Hundreds more were injured and over one thousand are still missing. The fami-lies of the missing cry out, “How did this happen?”

The first thing to understand is why there were so many people in one spot. In LDS culture, it is not uncommon to make a ‘pilgrimage’ to church history sites like Palmyra or Nauvoo. These trips are volun-tary, and many members never go. In Islam, however, a pilgrimage to Medina and Mecca is one of the five central pillars of the faith; all Muslims physically and financially capa-ble are expected to participate at least once. Given that there are more than one billion followers of Islam in the world today, how big is the Hajj? If you have ever attend-ed a session of General Conference, it is something like that. Only the crowds are approximately 20 times larger; it’s almost 100 degrees Fahrenheit; you have to walk everywhere, and it lasts for five days. The estimated two million participants this year came from approximately every country, and collectively spoke hundreds of differ-ent languages. In some ways, the Hajj has become a symbol of the intermixing of tradition and modernity that characterizes Islam and the Middle East.

This was not the first time that disaster has struck the Hajj. Crushing events have occurred five other times, with the first occurring in 1987 following clashes between

anti-American Iranian protesters and Saudi security forces. Another terrible event occurred in 1979, when militants laid siege to the Grand Mosque of Mecca after the end of the Hajj. Rarely, however, have there been so many casualties. The Saudi mon-archy has invested billions of dollars into pedestrian infrastructure projects to make the pilgrimage safer for everyone, but this has not entirely eliminated all risks.

The densities of the crowds during the Hajj also pose additional concerns. Gath-erings that large are catalysts of contagious diseases such as Tuberculosis and Ebola. Non-contagious ailments like heat stroke and dehydration are a constant threat for those not accustomed to the climate. The event is also considered a high risk target for radical groups such as the Islamic State. The Saudis have gone to great efforts to protect against future political hijacking of the religious rite by employing tens of thou-sands of security personnel and hundreds

of cameras to police the event. What was the cause of this tragedy? We

still don’t know for sure. While the inves-tigation is ongoing, it seems that a closure on a crucial street caused confusion and the crowd began to turn back on itself. Iran, home to the largest contingent of casualties, has fiercely denounced Saudi negligence, while the Saudis claim that they did their best and that the pilgrims failed to follow instructions. Whatever the investigation finds, it cannot bring back those who died that day, but it may be able to help in pre-venting such a tragedy from reoccurring in the future.

2 million participants

1,636 dead1,000

missingHundreds

injured

BYU Political Review 8

Bridging the Gaps: How the Refugee Crisis Affects the Worldby Scott McClellan

In mid-July, I was in Budapest with a study abroad group. Between the sweltering sun

and the sticky air, there seemed to be no ref-uge from the heat. We were staying in a hotel near the main train station, the Budapest Keleti pályaudvar. While walking through the station, however, I noticed something I hadn’t seen in any other train stations I had been through in all the years I had lived in Europe. There were masses of people every-where – hiding under overpasses, crouching in tunnels, some even piled on top of each other. These people did not look ethnically Hungarian. At the time, I could not, nor did I really want to assume where they were from, but in the weeks that followed, these would be the people making headlines across the world. They were refugees.

There is an important differentiation between two terms that are often used interchangeably in regular conversation: “immigrant” and “refugee”. An immigrant is someone who voluntarily chooses to move to a new country where citizenship may or may not be waiting for him or her. In any case, immigration is voluntary. Refugees, on the other hand, have little choice. Refugees flee a country because of war, genocide, famine, drought, disease, or any of a host of problems that we in the first world generally do not have the misfortune of suffering.

This particular refugee crisis began after countries like Syria, Libya, and Eritrea began experiencing extreme civil unrest, war, and violence. Some European Union countries, such as Germany and Italy, have extensive social welfare programs and offer attractive options for people who are suffering. Given these robust safety nets, refugees have great incentive to relocate themselves and their families to Europe, and will often do so by any means possible.

These journeys have become tragic. Ship-wrecks have killed thousands of refugees crossing the Mediterranean on overcrowd-ed ships. Upon arrival in Europe, many refugees face complications, as countries like Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia have reacted negatively to the massive influx of refu-gees. These Eastern European nations do not have extensive welfare programs, and struggle to support the many migrants who must travel through in order to reach Austria and Germany. Hungarian leaders, like Prime

Minister Viktor Orbán, stirred controversy after stating that his country would not be allowing any refugees to cross its borders en route to other countries. This sparked mas-sive riots across Budapest, Vienna, and other parts of Europe by those demanding open borders that allow refugees to pass through. The train station that I had been staying across from only a few weeks became the most prominent site of unrest between police officers and refugees.

This crisis is only the most recent inci-dent to illustrate unresolved cultural issues in Europe. Many governments fear that they lack the ability to support these refugees, es-pecially as the economy has stalled since the recession of 2008. Another, sadder reason for the fierce opposition to migration may be racism and Islamophobia. Since most of the incoming refugees are non-white Muslims, many Europeans fear that allowing so many refugees into their countries will degrade the European way of life.

This crisis is ongoing and is unlikely to be resolved quickly, despite new commit-ments from Germany and others to accept more migrants. The European refugee crisis demonstrates that it is our duty to help the poor and disadvantaged, especially those fleeing their homelands for their lives. Fear must not prevent us from aiding those in crisis. Hungary and other nations may have set a bad precedent in this regard, but it does not make the fight any less worth fighting, whether here in the United States or in Europe.Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

Stop Complaining About the Iran Dealby Jacob Murri

When Iran, the P5+1, and the EU in Vienna signed a historic nuclear

accord on July 14th, it was met with insistent outrage. Those who were unfamiliar with the agreement during its arduous 20-month negotiation suddenly spoke up, and they were not happy. They argued that it was a step in the wrong direction to make peace with Iran, that the deal would destabilize the Middle East. Presidential candidates insisted that they would disband it immediately if they entered office.

Although many reasonable people are opposed to the Iran deal, the reasons for resisting it are not great. It isn’t perfect, but it doesn’t have to be. It is our best option: it effectively prevents Iran from creating a nuclear weapon. We have no other options

as reasonable and inexpensive. The deal provides ways to verify that Iran

is not producing nuclear weapons. Under the deal, Iran must decrease the number of centrifuges in its nuclear facilities by 68%, decrease its enriched uranium stockpile by 98%, and eliminate its plutonium stores entirely. Iran will not be allowed to enrich its uranium past the 3.67% level for nuclear energy production—a far cry from the 90% level needed for weapons. Finding a good way to enforce and verify the deal is very important. As President Obama has so often said, the deal is not based upon trust, but upon an invasive monitoring regime.

Iran will be strictly and impartially held to the agreement by International Atomic En-ergy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, who will be allowed to inspect nuclear production sites fully and regularly. Economic sanctions can “snap back” within 65 days if Iran violates the agreement in any way.

Without the deal, Iran has no incentives to scale its nuclear program back. Right now, Iran only needs approximately three months to refine enough plutonium or uranium to produce a weapon. But the deal pushes this date all the way to at least 2035. Our sanctions can cripple their economy and give us leverage, but only a negotiated agreement that relies on carefully planned inspections can stop Iran entirely.

Although the deal’s opponents have suggested that we could renegotiate the deal, use military force, or even maintain the status quo, these options are neither realistic nor effective. Some say we should just “come up with a better deal.” How-ever, the current deal is the product of many long months of negotiation, delayed deadlines, and desperation. America’s allies have promised to stick to it, so Iran is no longer desperate. Given the two years it took to negotiate the deal, and the three months required for Iran to begin creation of a nuclear weapon, what makes anyone thinkwe are best off starting over again?

Another common point of opposition to the nuclear deal is that we shouldn’t be negotiating with Iran in the first place. If so, there is only one way to restrict Iran’s nucle-ar program—military force. But this option is surely inferior. We would be spending out-rageous amounts of money and risking the lives of American soldiers and pilots when we already have a deal that accomplishes the same purpose.

Of course, the deal is not a permanent solution; but neither are any of the pro-posed alternatives, which are all decidedly

9 BYU Political Review

much less permanent. What matters is that this deal is the best way to protect the world from a nuclear Iran.

We have the opportunity to make this deal, and in fact, I believe we have a mandate to do so, since it provides a non-violent resolution to a major geopolitical issue. The Iran deal is everything our foreign policy should be: civil, carefully considered, and socially inexpensive.

The deal is a win-win affair: Iran gets sanctions relief, and we get to restrict them from creating a nuclear weapon. This deal protects everyone. No other option is as realistic or carefully considered. We need to stop complaining about the Iran deal, and forsake rash decisions and violence in favor of diligent negotiation and careful compro-mise. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership—A Very Big Deal by Daniel Jaramillo

When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, his administration promised a “pivot to Asia.” After six and a half years, that pivot looks more like an awkward twist that will potentially end up as a flop. Luckily for him, the United States recently met with 11 coun-tries that border the Pacific Rim to finalize the largest trade deal of our generation: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The details of the 30-chapter text have yet to be fully revealed, but many of the economic benefits have already been calculated. The results are shocking. Apparently, the greatest trade agreement of our time yields very modest economic returns for the United States. Instead, this agreement will play a geo-stra-tegic role in repositioning the U.S. to better promote her interests in Asia.

By way of introduction, the TPP is an ambitious proposal for a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen countries on both sides of the Pacific. In the west, members include the United States, Can-ada, Chile, Mexico, and Peru. The parties in the east consist of Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Viet-nam, and Japan. Together these countries account for 40% of Global GDP and make up one-third of world trade. Should the deal be successfully implemented, the TPP could bolster economic growth and increase global income by an estimated $295 billion a year, $78 billion of that being accrued

to the United States—a modest 0.4% of GDP. That said, gaining little is preferable to gaining nothing especially when the global economic engine isn’t running as fast as it used to. The weird thing is: Asia’s biggest economy, China, isn’t part of the fun.

Although the TPP is primarily an economic negotiation, it has the potential of being so much more. It will promote innovation, economic growth and develop-ment, and help in creating and retaining job growth. In addition, it serves to place the Asia-Pacific region on the track to further trade liberalization under the helm of U.S. leadership. Successfully negotiating and im-plementing the TPP therefore has less to do with the immediate (and relatively low) gains it offers, than with the potential influence the U.S. could enjoy due to increased trade with countries in Asia and in North and South America.

Unlike other trade agreements, this is a new-generation negotiation aimed to reposi-tion the U.S. economy, and shift the balance of geopolitical power from the Far East back to the West. It provides the U.S. with a new sense of purpose and direction, which is needed in order to meet the challenge of China’s economic ascendance. The TPP also contests the fashionable notion that America is in decline.

If it survives Congress within the next 90 days, a successful TPP could promote U.S. leadership by creating a new template for conducting international trade and invest-ment negotiations on both bilateral and multilateral scales. It also has the potential of being a framework to build upon for a comprehensive free trade area in the Asia-Pacific. This is a big deal. No wonder America wants it, and isn’t going to let China have any part of it.Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

Holocaust and ISIS by Russel Fischer

I had always heard the figure “6 million Jews” thrown around, but it wasn’t until

this summer that I really internalized what that meant. In Europe I witnessed the aged and decrepit remains of the Nazi war machine, which was hell-bent on enforcing its ideology. Throughout the European con-tinent I saw the strewn fragments of the rest of the world’s efforts to put a stop to the war. Feeling the scarred concrete walls of the German’s artillery bunkers on the coasts of Northern France, and wading through the same waves at Omaha beach as our own

troops did 70 years ago in order to get to land left me with such a palpable, impressive feeling. As I exited the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland I had to ask myself a question: could this happen again?

In the years leading up to the holocaust, Germany was not a nation of nonsensical miscreants to be disregarded and scoffed at. It was a country the United States looked to-ward as an exemplar in science, engineering, philosophy, and literature. How is it possi-ble that this highly-regarded people could transform their country into a warmonger-ing state capable of starting a conflict which would cost 60 million lives? The scope and strength of the Nazi’s atrocities against humanity are absolutely unprecedented and almost unbelievable. I had the thought that perhaps my entire trip, and in a way the Holocaust would almost have been in vain if I didn’t walk away from that experience with some sort of moral takeaway. My first thought was that disrespecting others’ differ-ences is unacceptable, which was perhaps a good start, but it needed to be taken further. One purpose of this article is to take this idea a step further and promote proactive intolerance of tyrants and extremist groups that push their agendas through widespread violence and bigotry.

My thoughts immediately turned to current events. I asked myself, “Is there anything happening right now that is even close to the level of disregard for human life which the Nazis had?” Then my thoughts turned to the dozens of executions which ISIS and their affiliates had posted on the internet. Western journalists, and religious and ethnic minorities are among those most targeted by ISIS. Similar to ISIS, Germany targeted religious (Jewish) and ethnic minorities (gypsies), as well as social advocates (union leaders). The Nazi regime swayed neutral spectators with propaganda disseminated through media. While studying in England I saw multiple news reports of British young women visiting schools to persuade ordinary British Muslim girls not to accept ISIS’s online propaganda. The list of similarities goes on, but so does the list of dissimilarities. ISIS doesn’t rely on a strong central leader, and it doesn’t have a legally recognized country to call its own.

Regardless of these differences, if we fail to react to the ISIS threat quickly enough, just as we failed to react quickly enough to Nazi Germany, we may find ourselves responsible for a tragedy of holocaust-like proportions. Read the full article at politicalreview.byu.edu.

BYU Political Review 10

MEET THE STAFF

Andrew JensenInternational Relations

Brandon WillmoreInternational Relations

Brodie WrayPolitical Science

Daniel JamarilloInternational Relations/Chinese

Ethan ChristensenInternational Relations

Jon IsaacsonInternational Relations/Statistics

John ThomsonPolitical Science

Kelsey MartinezAdvertising

Russell FischerPhilosophy/Economics

Sarah MartinJournalism

Scott McClellanInternational Relations/German

Tatiana FlexmanPolitical Science