Another case of utter exaggeration, the west, the devil, claiming angelic innocence: "Flood [Iran's] economy with $400 million." There are two things wrong with this statement.

1) This would only be true if the U.S. was actually uholding its agreement to stop blocking Iranian access Tehran's money in foreign banks. However, “Today in all Western countries and in all those countries that are under their influence, our banking transactions have been blocked. We have a problem bringing our wealth — which has been kept in their banks — back to the country. We have a problem conducting different financial transactions that require the assistance of banks. … The US Department of the Treasury acts in a way … that big companies, agencies and banks do not dare to approach the Islamic Republic and have business transactions with it.” (March 2016, Khamenei).

2) The U.S. proclaims peace in the middle east, but in practice you too are chanting "Death to Iran." After whole-heartedly complying with the Nuclear Deal's regulations, U.S. sanctions are being lifted GRADUALLY not immediately. Further, stunting Iran's encomic growth.

America will pay for its deciet.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hardliner

Crazy Trump's one- and only -good idea has been to do away with the "very bad" JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Rouhani has made a fool of our great Nation, playing right into the hands of the imperialist West.

We have shut down thousands of centrifuges, exported almost our ENTIRE stockpile of enriched uranium, disabled the heavy water plant that would have produced plutonium, given up some more sovereignty and dignity by opening our supply chain to scrutiny from international inspectors, and so on and so forth!

What has the U.S. given Iran in return? The GRADUAL lifting of western sanctions! While, as confirmed by the Obama administration and most independent experts, Tehran has diminished our nuclear resources so that it will take at least 12 months to create an atomic weapon if we choose to the U.S. is dragging its feet to fulfill their end of the agreement.

We struggled to attract big investments because many multinational banks and companies are fearful of U.S. prosecution or fines. So the U.S. claims to remove economic pressure, but in practice, the government has set up a precedence of serious legal and monetary ramifications for businesses who deal with our state. The U.S. gov is well aware of this precedence they have established, and yet are in no way attempting to reverse it.

In fact, the U.S. House is actively upholding this precedence. In June of 2016, the House passed two measures that would block the sale of dozens of airplanes (totalling almost $25 billion) from Boeing to Iran.

We should tolerant intolerance.... to an extent. In a democratic society freedom of speech is guaranteed. It is a basic Civil Liberty that everyone seems to agree should be ensured. However, were violent or extreme speech is concerned we start singing a different tune. Why? Fear. We do not want violence to be incited, and we don't want what we deem as the good moral values of our nation to be corrupted. However, it is precisely because of these reasons extremist speech should receive equal protection under the law.

Why?

Putting public restrictions on extremists speech does not curtail its “underlying ideology and goals.” Instead it forces certain members of society to only express their views “underground” in private settings. This contributes to feelings of alienation and disaffection: “identified factors in the road to radicalisation and terrorist violence.”

Moreover, by silencing national discourse the State loses a way to meaningfully engage “with those most at risk of being radicalised by exposure to extremist material”

Finally, when the state takes repressive action against minority groups utilizing free speech it fuels the illusion “that clashing with authority is a ‘testament to truth,’” in other words it lends credence to extremist views.

So as it turns out, to prevent violence, and radicalization we need open discourse of extremist views.

Concerning religion, it is important to note while extremist speech should receive equal protection under, the physical implementation of violent values is punishable by democratic law, because it impedes the rights of another. For example, it is legal to utilize one's freedom of speech to express patriarchal views about women’s sexuality. However, physically abusing a female relative because of her choice to become sexualy active, for instance, is illegal.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2017/ 01/18/more-speech-not-less/

We have physical barriers already. Are they effective?

The Secure Fence Act was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. Majority of the fencing was built in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California before he left office, and the remnants were completed after President Obama took office in 2009. Coinciding with the fence construction the population of illegal immigrants decreased for several years, however this perceived success of the wall is “largely a residue of the Great Recession, which dried up job opportunities for would-be migrants and created a perception that finding employment in the United States is now quite hard.” According the National Research Council (in 2011), “Rising [border] enforcement does not seem to have played a significant role in lowering the likelihood of undocumented migration.”

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ systems/mexico-wall.htm; http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) )

So the physical barriers has not deterred illegal migration, but what it has done is kept undocumented migrants here. In the 1960’s approximately 60% of illegal immigrants returned home within a year; today that percentage has fallen below 10%. The fence has made crossing the southwestern border more costly and dangerous, incentivising immigrants to stay longer to amortize the expense. Furthermore, of America’s increased population of permanently settled undocumented immigrants a much higher proportion are whole families with U.S.-born children. The long-term fiscal impact of this increase in permanent illegal immigrants is “larger outlays for education, healthcare, and other services.”

If the first wall was not effective, why do we want another?

Irrational fear that all immigrants are criminals

Though the illegal immigrant population has exploded in recent years, crime rates in America have decreased significantly. If most immigrants are violent criminals shouldn't these two events be mutually exclusive?

Evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are law abiding-- excuse the oxymoron. “According to a 2000 prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.” These “low crime rates” amongst undocumented young men “are invariably lower… than their native-born counterparts.” “Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.”

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Follow this link to learn more about the facts behind the myths surrounding undocumented immigrants impact on American Society

https://www.aclu.org/other/immigration-myths-and-facts

You mistakenly list TPP countries as evidence to support the claim that jobs will be outsourced to countries with lower wages because of TPP. However, one of the main aspects of TPP is enforcing higher labor and environmental standards in partner countries. This will level the playing field for U.S. workers, by make “offshoring” less advantageous for U.S. businesses.

Moreover, “transnational corporations” are not the only beneficiaries of this plan. TPP helps small businesses and consumers too. For instance, consider this: out of the over 300,000 businesses that export their goods or services, 98% of them are small-medium enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. TPP will make exports and business negotiations with our trading partners in the Asian region easier, while lower-priced imports and the gains in productivity arising from increased competition will benefit consumers.

On “giving a helping hand”: Antrim step back for a second, you are not seeing the big picture. China’s increasing military and economic dominance in southeast Asia, a region that “account[s] for 44 percent of total U.S. goods exports and 85 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports, is a threat to American economic interests. Why? China is notorious for its low labor and environmental standards. Countries with such standards are the main cause of outsourcing. By forging a trade deal (TPP) that calls for higher labor and environmental standards, amongst other regulations that will make business across borders easier American workers and manufactures will be able to compete on a more level playing field. By “giving a helping hand,” the U.S. is indeed helping itself.

http://www.cfr.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership-us-trade-policy/p36422

Has America’s openness to globalization gone too far? In recent years America has experienced a sharp decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. Many attribute this to the liberalization of trade policies. For instance, in “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment” The National Bureau of Economic Research states that “employment losses are larger in industries where the threat of tariff hikes declined the most.” More specifically, industries that saw a reduction in import-tariff uncertainty, due to the liberalization of trade policies, subsequently experienced a “‘fundamental shift’ in manufacturing trends”: “anemic job creation and exaggerated job destruction.” (https://www.usitc.gov/researchandanalysis/documents/Pierce%20and%20Schott%20-%20The%20Surprisingly%20Swift%20Decline%20of%20U.S.%20Manufacturing%20Employment_0.pdf).

This phenomenon and the increase in corporate “offshoring” have left many politicians with a rotten perspective of trade deals like the TPP or TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

However, while the decline in U.S. manufacturing can be partly attributed to the growth of Asian imports, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers points out trade agreements themselves have little to do with it: “technological innovation plays a much larger role.” The rapid technological advancements seen in recent decades have brought us into an Age of Abundance. For businesses the question is no longer whether they can efficiently produce goods, but whether they can effectively design products that will stand out to consumers amongst the plethora of other brand choices. Consequently, there has been an increase in “right-brain” jobs, while more “left-brain” oriented tasks, such as manufacturing, are being automated or outsourced. (A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink)

While we cannot stunt the growth of technology, trade agreements such as TPP can help U.S. workers, businesses, and consumers by embracing globalization.

Workers: By enforcing labor and environmental standards the TPP will level the playing field for U.S. workers.

On the other hand, if the U.S. allows China to continue building economic and military dominance in southeast Asia, we risk losing more jobs to outsourcing and a decrease in exports.

Businesses: “Trade, and exports in particular, play a major role in supporting U.S. growth and employment… U.S. exports are directly responsible for 11.7 million jobs.” Of the 300,000 businesses exporting their goods or services, 98 percent are small-and medium-sized enterprises. By promoting competitive and transparent business laws, and streamlining customs and regulations TPP will make such business across borders easier.

Consumers: “The Lower-priced imports and the gains in productivity arising from increased competition will benefit consumers.”

One of the TTP's main goals is to streamline customs and regulations. This will set a "rule of law" for businesses to adhere to during international negotiations. Such provisions will increase trusts were foreign business relations are concerned, making for a smooth transition into the globalized world we are all living in. There is a concern that making it easier for business to make international negotiation will contribute to outsourcing, harming U.S. workers, and exacerbate wealth inequality. However, consider the TPP's move to enforce labor and environmental standards. Such provisions will level the playing field for U.S. workers.