To supplement the order, President Trump tweeted:

“Our Border Laws are very weak while those of Mexico & Canada are very strong. Congress must change these Obama era, and other, laws NOW! The Democrats stand in our way – they want people to pour into our country unchecked….CRIME!”

Because the National Guard’s specific duties at the border are not clear, critics have raised questions as to the prudence of the president’s decision, calling the plan a waste of military resources.

The president made sure to include in his memo that his predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have implemented similar measures.

The Bush administration’s two-year-long deployment of troops to the border in 2006 cost around $1.2 billion and, plagued by ineffective communication and lack of preparation time, was mostly a failure.

The Obama administration’s deployment of troops to the border from July 2010 to Sept. 2011 cost around $110 million and was aimed at reducing human trafficking and drug smuggling, many deemed the operation unsuccessful.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown of California pledged to send roughly 400 troops to the state’s border with Mexico. However, Brown qualified his participation on the grounds that the enforcement is not tied to immigration. Instead, the governor wants the troops to focus on controlling transitional gangs, as well as firearm and drug smuggling.

Trump, not willing to compromise, tweeted, “Looks like Jerry Brown and California are not looking for safety and security along their very porous Border. He cannot come to terms for the National Guard to patrol and protect the Border. The high crime rate will only get higher. Much wanted Wall in San Diego already started!”

The Republican governors of the three other border states, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, have readily embraced the plan.

Defense Secretary James Mattis said in an April 6 memo that the federal government will provide up to 4,000 troops at the border until Sept. 30. After that, increases in duration of deployments or the numbers of troops at the border will be decided on a state governors on a case-by-case basis.

Photo courtesy of Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

“Hollywood is crawling with foreigners and outsides, and if we kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and Mixed Martial Arts, which are not the arts,” Streep said, met by thunderous applause.

In this editorial, Streep was criticized for contributing to a stereotype that “Hollywood stars are arrogant, hypocritical and out of touch.” This is a fair point to make. Saying that without cinema there would be nothing to watch but football and MMA is an unnecessary inclusion, and it certainly sounds elitist. Implicit in this comment is that whatever Streep and her colleagues are doing is more important than, say, an MMA athlete.

As divisive and pointless as this is, I can’t help but be annoyed that her much more important point, that President Trump’s (although she never refers to him by name) stance on immigration is highly damaging, was overshadowed by this throwaway comment about sports. In the days following, commentary about her acceptance speech was dominated by this flippant inclusion in what I can only suspect was a tactic to divert attention away from her political critique.

This should really come as no surprise. Right-wing media outlets can’t be expected to take seriously the liberal Mother Theresa who is Meryl Streep, nor the oasis of wealthy Democrats that is Hollywood. But criticisms of Streep’s comments about sports do take away from the other aspects of her speech, and it should be recognized as a political maneuver.

That all being said, Streep does have a point that sports are not the arts. This is not to say that sports are not culture; they most certainly are, considering that, as this editorial pointed out, football events attract millions and millions more viewers than award shows. Anything that attracts that much attention and contributes to a shared cultural consciousness on that scale must be recognized as culture.

Yet, to take issue with the comment that sports are not the arts seems misguided. Sure, one can emphasize that MMA has the word “arts” in it. And there is something to be said about the way sports uses the human body as a kind of canvass. That because there is a degree of intense athleticism necessary to have a career in professional sports, the human body does need to reach a certain level of perfection, and this can seem artful.

But if art encourages us to think differently about ourselves, about the world, or if art invites us to make observations about the human condition or experience, I neglect to see how a football game or an MMA fight measures up to painting, sculpting or filmmaking.

Recognizing that I’m coming from a particular bias here, as a student of the humanities, it is not my intention to seem exclusionary or elitist. Rather I hope to problematize and add to a discussion about what is at stake when we broaden our sense of what can be called “art.”

If football or MMA is a particular passion or pastime to you, I want you to be able to enjoy it. It would be judgmental of me to assert that everyone must value, say, postmodern French cinema, and that this is even better than sports.

People should enjoy what they enjoy, yet at the same time be critical of how they engage in culture.

Shipwrecks of this sort occur regularly in the Mediterranean. Last year almost 5,000 people died trying to get to Europe by way of smugglers, and more people attempt to make the trek regularly. Some of these people were fleeing political subjugation and violence. Many had officially been declared refugees by the United Nations but decided that the wait for safe and legal transport would take too long. In 2014, about 67,000 refugees were Syrians escaping from their country’s civil war and indiscriminate violence. Others were fleeing from the totalitarian regime in Eritrea, the war in Mali and the conflict in Libya.

Currently, many migrants are attempting to escape poverty, and their aim is to be hired in Europe. A survivor from the recent wreck is a Bangladeshi man; if he were to get a job in Europe doing the same work that he performed in his home country, his wages would increase by 400 percent.

However, crossing the mediterranean costs about $10,000. Many migrants pay as much as possible then use labor to pay the rest of the travel costs, making them human trafficking victims by definition. This labor often includes manning the ship or navigating despite the fact that most of these people have no sailing experience.

The number of persons migrating to this area has increased dramatically due to the eruptions of violence in Libya and the government’s responses to these actions. When Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya, the government had an agreement with Italy, which stated that ships of refugees would be turned back to Libya. After the coup d’etat that took Gaddafi out of power, this deal dissolved, as immigration was not as high of a priority for the succeeding government. Now as more people are trying to leave Libya, the problem has both gotten larger and out of control. Additionally, the number of refugees from Syria has risen dramatically.

The trip from the African coast to Italy is about 70 miles. However, the ships that the smugglers use are more like shoddy rafts, and they are overloaded with people. When traveling, the goal of the ships is not always to make it to the coast. Rather, migrants hope to be seen and rescued by another boat, which is obligated to help the ship under international law. However, migrants cannot always catch the attention of a rescuing ship, and they often end up capsizing.

The Italian government had been working under its own policy to rescue migrant ships under operation “Mare Nostrum.” However, the European Union’s immigration agency, Frontex, replaced Mare Nostrum last fall. Since then, the budget and personnel for this work have been significantly reduced. Frontex policy has been to stop making great rescue efforts, arguing that this would make migrants less likely to make the journey.

The European Commission has been working on a strategy to deal with the issue. According to a statement it released, it plans to focus on improving conditions in the countries people are leaving.

“The only way to truly change the reality is to address the situation at its roots. For as long as there is war and hardship in our neighborhood near and far, people will continue to seek a safe haven on European shores. And as long as countries of origin and transit do not take action to prevent these desperate trips, people will continue to put their lives at risk.”

On Apr. 20, the Joint Foreign and Home Affairs Council released a ten point action plan concerning migration. Many of these points were more focused on immediate action in the area. These points included:

1. Increasing funding to organizations, like Frontex, so that more intervention is possible
2. Destroying the vessels used by smugglers
3.  Increasing communication between the immigration and homeland organizations EUROPOL,     FRONTEX, EASO and EUROJUST
4. Increasing the number of people who can process asylum applications in Italy and Greece
5. Having states fingerprint and identify immigrants
6. Work on relocation options
7. A project from the EU that will focus on resettlement and protection of migrants
8. Establishing a return program for irregular immigrants (those who were smuggled in)
9.  Working with countries surrounding Libya to prevent dangerous migration
10. Deploying officers in “key third countries” to gather intelligence and strengthen role of EU delegations in those countries.

These points were created to handle the situation in the present as well as to find a permanent and lasting solution for the migration crisis. However, this is likely to challenge an international body like the UN as it aims to control and modify actions in different countries, especially since a definitive governing body is not present in all of these countries.

“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.