Despite these conditions being good for the USA, they do little to nothing to solve this problem long term. It's limitations on enrichment of uranium, centrifuges, and research will all end in 10 to 15 years as will the inspections by the IAEA. By limiting that weaponizing powers but not their nuclear program as a whole, we are only delaying their quest to get nuclear bombs in exchange for us lifting sanctions that will flood their economy with 400 billion dollars. Do we really think Iran will have a change of heart about their desire for nuclear bombs and "death to America" in the next 10 years?

Trump/ Conservative hardliner

Middle East nuclear proliferation. In an unstable region known for constant violence and clashing between nations, the threat of a country such as Iran having nuclear weapons has forced other countries to begin their own nuclear programs in hopes to keep. While the Nuclear Deal will keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the next 10 to 15 years (this is the time that key restrictions will end), the uncertainty of how Iran will proceed when that time is up will have other countries such as Saudi Arabia racing to get ahead of the game in anticipation of the Iranians next move.

Sanctions. The Deal will flood the Iranian economy with 300-400 billion dollars due to sanctions being lifted. This influx of money could do wonders for the Iranian people or it could be used to help fund the Syrians in their civil war or fund Hezbollah (a group considered by the EU and the USA to be a terrorist group). With Iran’s known hostility towards us, the deal could come back to haunt us by hindering our policy in the region. Iran's future moves are unpredictable, are we willing to bet on a nation that we have had conflicts with for decades and whose Supreme Leader leads the people in "Death to America" chants to just forgive and forget?

I am all for free speech and civil rights, but I do not believe we should let people who intend to bring harm to others and radicalize other people to do the same. While there is a blurred line between where we should tolerate the intolerant or step in and stop them. The best place to start would be the radicalization of people trying to justifying killing other people with their religion. Freedom of religion is a prized civil right but when it becomes dangerous speech, it needs to be regulated to a degree. It is important to keep everyone safe and protect everyone's liberties as best as possible.

It is important to use the funds that would go to a wall that would only serve as a political symbol and a put a dent in our relationship with Mexico to focus on apprehending all illegal immigrants, almost half of which are already within our borders. The wall would do nothing but stir up controversy and divide our country over the issue.

Just building a wall will not cut it. It sounds good and gets people excited, but it is not very simple. A wall stretching for hundreds of miles will stil require 24 hour surveillance by Border Patrol, because illegal immigrants will find a way to get over, through, or around the wall. Logistically, replacing a fence with a presumably opaque wall will only hinder the surveillance aspect of border patrol. The reality is, a wall or fence can't track or apprehend anyone. Not only that, but 40% of illegal immigrants fly to the America then overstay their visas. A wall would do nothing to combat this aspect of illegal immigration.

I am absolutely for securing our borders and decreasing immigration. We should be able to properly vet and register immigrants to maximize their chances for success in America, give piece of mind to the American people already here, and have the immigrants perform tasks that all American citizens are required to do. With that being said, I disagree that the wall is the best solution. With the hundreds of miles of land that the wall would have to cover and the cost, there must be a more cost efficient and more effective way to secure our borders.

Trump's cabinet pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, has advocated for a mult-ipronged approach to border security. An example of this type of plan would be the Integrated Fixed Towers program introduced to Congress in 2016 by US Customs and Border Protection. The program uses towers mounted with many different cameras and sensors and is solar powered. The program proposes 52 towers and each would cost $145 million per tower. This program would allow human patrolmen to monitor hundreds of miles of rough terrain at once, making it very efficient in spotting any kind of activity. This type of strategy may not be as sexy, but it is preventative and actionable.

I am absolutely for securing our borders and decreasing immigration. We should be able to properly vet and register immigrants to maximize their chances for success in America, give piece of mind to the American people already here, and have the immigrants perform tasks that all American citizens are required to do. With that being said, I disagree that the wall is the best solution. With the hundreds of miles of land that the wall would have to cover and the cost, there must be a more cost efficient and more effective way to secure our borders.

Trump's cabinet pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, has advocated for a mult-ipronged approach to border security. An example of this type of plan would be the Integrated Fixed Towers program introduced to Congress in 2016 by US Customs and Border Protection. The program uses towers mounted with many different cameras and sensors and is solar powered. The program proposes 52 towers and each would cost $145 million per tower. This program would allow human patrolmen to monitor hundreds of miles of rough terrain at once, making it very efficient in spotting any kind of activity. This type of strategy may not be as sexy, but it is preventative and actionable.

The TPP is a deal that has a highlighted emphasis on tougher labor provisions, hoping to crack down on countries rampant with forced child labor and sweatshops. By forcing countries to adopt minimum wages, working hours, and occupational safety regulation we are taking an awesome step forward. This deal would make it more expensive for companies to more their operations overseas, promoting less outsourcing of American jobs. This deal would not hurt the little man, it would help him.

Being able to tap into these markets and export our products to these other countries through a free-trade market would be very beneficial to us. The TPP focuses a lot of labor conditions and workplace safety which would not affect us but it would cause the wages and money put into companies in over nations to increases, leveling the playing field for the United States by eliminating the cheap labor overseas. By eliminating the cheap labor that makes companies go abroad, we would be able to retain more jobs here at home.