The fall of Detroit did not happen overnight; it has been a decades-long process that has included white flight to the suburbs and the collapse of the auto industry, which the city heavily relied upon as a source of profit. On top of all of this, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was found guilty of 24 charges Feb. 2013, which included: racketeering, extortion, attempted extortion, bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and filing falsified tax returns.

On Nov. 7, 2013, Steven Rhodes, the bankruptcy judge assigned to Detroit’s case, approved the plan suggested by the city, which aims for the city to subtract $7 billion from its total owed debt of $18 million. Some of this $7 billion would come from retirement pensions of city workers, such as police officers and firefighters. These individuals have also faced a 90 percent cut from their health benefits. However, Mr. Orr, the bankruptcy lawyer assigned to Detroit’s case by Michigan, was able to save the Detroit Institution of Arts’ (DIA) collection from being sold.

The latest step for Detroit has been the creation of the committee on Detroit’s Recovery and Michigan’s Future today, which is part of the Michigan House of Representatives. This committee is charged with rebuilding Detroit and allocating funds to the re-development of the city.

The Fair Sentencing Act was passed by Congress in 2010, aiming to decrease the sentencing disparity between offenses of crack and powder cocaine. As a result of this act being passed, Obama commuted the sentences of 22 individuals, who, as a White House staffer said in an interview with “The Huffington Post,” would have already finished serving their sentence if they had been fairly sentenced.

One individual faced life imprisonment for conspiring to distribute and possess cocaine base but received commutation and was released April 15. Another individual who was granted a pardon served five years in 1969 for misappropriating bank funds.

Another factor in awarding individuals with clemency is the Clemency Project. This project is composed of lawyers and advocates who work pro-bono to provide assistance to federal prisoners who they believe would have completed serving their time if the sentence had been fairly given. This organization was created January 2014 after Deputy Attorney General James Cole requested legal professionals to help these individuals. In the last round of individuals granted clemency, four of them received aid and representation from the Clemency Project.

Cynthia Roseberry, the manager of the Clemency Project, said that this organization ”continues to submit petitions at an increasing pace and looks forward to more regular grants by the President.”

For more information on the presidential history of awarding clemency and pardons, see the Justice Department’s website.

Crimea has a history of being controlled by neighboring forces due to its arable land and advantageous position on the Black Sea. Russia originally annexed the region in 1783. It achieved independence for a brief period after the 1917 October Revolution but soon became part of the Soviet Union in 1921 and an administrative territory of the USSR in 1945. Nikita Khrushchev forfeited the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954; however, the region maintained close ties with Russia. Ukraine continued to allow Russia to operate military bases in the Crimea. In 2014, 60 percent of Crimeans spoke Russian. In “Crimea: Path to the Homeland,” Putin maintains that he would not have invaded the peninsula if Crimeans had not demanded it. He also claims that Russia is not currently stimulating a pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine.

In April 2014, pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine declared independence and assumed control of sections of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. More than 6,000 people have died since the fighting began.

Ceasefire deals were struck Sept. 5 and on Sept. 19, but both failed to hold in the face of persistent fighting. The most recent cease-fire agreement began Feb. 15 and called for an immediate armistice in sections of Donetsk and Luhansk, a withdrawal of major weapons on both sides and an establishment of a ceasefire line that will be supervised by The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. However, the agreement maintains the existing status of the Ukrainian border until the end of 2015, allowing Russia to continue to supply separatists with reinforcements. It is clear that Russia desires autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk; some officials speculate that Russia’s aim is to achieve autonomy in Eastern Ukraine while maintaining membership in Ukraine’s Parliament. This would allow pro-Russian seats to disrupt Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO and the European Union.

In response to the annexation and the continued fighting in eastern Ukraine, President Obama issued an executive order in December that bans US exports to Crimea and disallows US funding for Crimean businesses. The European Union enacted similar sanctions.

Crimea’s economy is largely in disarray. The territory is still dependent on Ukraine for its electricity, food and other amenities. Between Western sanctions and the insurgence in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine is experiencing a shortage of supplies and a fall in tourism. Russia replaced the Ukrainian hryvnia with the Russian ruble causing a rise in the price of goods for Crimean consumers.

In September, amidst the chaos of the Russian takeover, the United Russia party won a majority of votes in Crimea’s first election since the annexation. Russia continues to strengthen Crimea’s defenses and recently declared its right to allocate nuclear weapons to the Crimea.

As of yet, President Obama has only approved economic sanctions on Russia and Crimea; he has stood beside Chancellor Merkel of Germany and other European nations who oppose sending arms to eastern Ukraine. This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution urging President Obama to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to help end the fighting.

“When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half,” said President Obama Nov. 2014.

The first of President Obama’s actions regarding immigration is a move to strengthen border security. This includes an increase in patrol resources and a centralization of command. Advocates hope that this move will increase the likelihood that anyone attempting to cross illegally into the United States will be both caught and deported.

The second aim of the presidential action is changing who will be deported. Enforcement will target national security threats rather than families, students or otherwise non-threatening immigrants. An attempt to increase the number and availability of visas for recently graduated students will supplement this reform. This move gives 4.3 million unauthorized immigrants protection from deportation while leaving approximately 5 million at risk to be deported.

However, the protection from deportation is not part of any kind of process allowing for attaining citizenship.

The third aim of the President’s immigration reform is accountability. One aspect of this is the implementation of criminal and national security background checks. This will result in unauthorized immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for more than five years being mandated to pay taxes. Also, these individuals will be safe from deportation for three additional years. This exchange of taxes for deportation immunity is expected to produce approximately $2.8 billion in payroll taxes for the U.S. government.

The Department of Homeland Security was unintentionally swept into these debates.

On March 3, Congress passed a bill that will fund the department through September. The bill does not come with a requirement for the Obama administration to end the executive actions regarding immigration as originally proposed. The failure of the House of Representatives to pass this bill would have resulted in a failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans originally planned to use the funding as a tool to coerce the Obama administration to postpone the executive actions regarding immigration reform. However, as time ran out, House Republicans relented.

None of this is to say that the Obama administration’s immigration reforms will be implemented without question.

In fact, a federal judge in Texas has already taken legal action to stop the protection of certain unauthorized immigrants from deportation. The administration could request a dismissal of the Texas judge’s decision, which may lead to additional action by the court.

An argument in support of the President’s executive actions include the executive power that the office gives him. Additionally, the administration has made it clear that these actions are only necessary as a result of Congress’ failure to take action on the country’s immigration problem itself.

Critics of the administration’s action on immigration argue that Obama is exploiting the power given to him by Congress in a way that defies lawmakers. Additionally, they argue that taking away the threat of deportation for so many unauthorized immigrants could be seen as a kind of reward for what they deem bad behavior. Other critics worry that this executive action that seems to defy Congress and its power will only serve to discourage cooperation in the future.