OCR Text |
Show OPIHION 4r1,-- 210)f'1 h citi Estish i 0 rr) iAil CO st:ers u I m Y view with CNN. "We're the only country in the , 1 BY ABBY DOMAN abbydomanDSN Donald Trump's recent declaration to end birthright citizenship is based on inaccurate information and negative stereotypes of immigrants. Birthright citizenship refers to the belief that anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen. This was added to the constitution in 1868 with the 14th Amendment; it reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." and those Trump who agree with his beannouncement lieve that there is an improper interpretation of this amendment that is causing an influx of illegal immigrants and their "anchor babies," or children whose parents intentionally gave birth to them within the U.S. for the purpose of gaining citizenship. "How ridiculous," Trump said in an inter world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the US for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end." First of all, the U.S. is far from being the only country with birthright citizenship. In fact, over 30 nations recognize the policy, and for good reason. There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. in large numbers just to give birth. The trek to the U.S. is often difficult, those who come are fleeing from their own difficult situations. Immigrants are thinking of the "right now" instead of their "in 21 years," since a child cannot sponsor a parent for citizenship for at least 21 years," Noferi said. Ending birthright citizenship would also have catastrophic worldwide consequences. Millions of people would be rendered stateless, resulting in an 'immediate UN crisis, reporter Bryan Schatz said in a 2015 Mother Jones article. Those born in a country know nothing other than what they are surrounded by. They'd feel foreign in their parent's country. Children born in the U.S. today are just as much citizens as the children of those who came over in the Mayflower. N. ee' ' Fn - g ' The ending of birthright citizenship would 66 red-tap- the melting pot of the world. The statue of liberty holds the saying "give me your tired, con- - e firmation of citizenship, which would specifically persons born All also affect the lives of students at DS LI. It has been seen that repeal- ing birthright citizenship citizenship would force or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in wherein they and signifi- your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." We should not we cannot turn our back on the citizens of the world seeking refuge. Seeking better lives for their children. Seeking the bright light at the end of the tunnel. And we definitely cannot let this motion pass by unnoticed. One thing that both sides agree on, though, is that immigration policy needs to be reformed. "It's fine if GOP candidates want to push for - cantly cially impact citizens of color. can dispro- For payers, you portionately affect poor could expect reside. to pay for a and historinew federal 14th Amendment margincally alized people agency that 99 as well as the evaluates the citizenship development of the children within the of every U.S.-bor- n baby and other logistical chalnation that repeals birthlenges, economists argue. right citizenship. The U.S. is known as Ending birthright - tighter restrictions on immigration and stronger enforcement of existing laws," the Denver Post writes in a 2015 article. "That's the responsible way to reduce birthright citizenship. But it is both futile and counterproductive to go after a right conferring citizenship on people who have spent as much of their lives in this country as the rest of us." '44 4 4), ,F ,4,41',1 Li rr TOR0.000.,,,IRIMP.M.P,.r?,,.-P9MMO,OW- 11:"' AC1.40111 , () ir4 11111- -4 Ihwamm. r-- , ---i- n Send letters to the 0 editor to DixieSundixie. edu. Letters to the editor are accepted and may be published in the newspaper andor dixiesunnews. i,, l't i g 1 well-writte- -,, I 1 4 liA Lj L,,,A its readers. Dixie Sun News does not edit comments. However, an editor will not post any comments that are libelous or vulgar. T 1., - ( ' ', ; ,, A, ; t L,-,:- , i t 1 1.1 L, i,,A I i f II ,. ,- - -1 r r--- ;' r-- '1, ,,1 f -, t,- t i: 1,.1 -,,. -, ri -,A r"7,' : ::: T '''''' r"--- - ---- (''''' , f ' i ', i L- ' ,,,, ,4 - -- 7 - . ,. , , t- 1 1 BY JOE RAYMOND Guest Columnist Since its legalization for recreational usage in multiple states, marijuana has attracted billions of dollars of capital investment. The pot stock boom is in full swing, with marijuana companies grabbing the attention of investors around the world. Billions of dollars are flowing into the industry, and investors are being rewarded for jumping on board. Tilray (ticker TLRY), a Canadian cannabis company, has been the face of the boom. The company went public in July of this year at about $23 per share. A few months later, the shares traded above $214 before falling back to around $100 in October. Had you invested $500 in Tilray in July, you would have had about $4,652 by the middle of September (and about $2,170 today). There is no doubt that the marijuana (both medicinal and recreational) industry is growing. Fortunes are going to be made (and lost) in the coming years. But are marijuana stocks a good investment? To answer this question, we must first differentiate investing from speculating. Ben Graham, the "Dean of Wall Street" says in The Intelligent Investor: "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Company assets and earnings determine value to investors, while speculators often gamble on future price fluctuations based on past price movements. In this article, we will focus i, 4 ET-- FC11 whili.vopyr n. courages a lively discussion on its website among L '71 1 '11 , corn. The guidelines for letters are as follows: Submissions should be no longer than 250 words and must be Writers must include name, phone number and email address. Students should also include year in school, hometown and major. Letters are subject to editing for length, style and grammar. Letters consisting of inaccurate, libelous or highly offensive content will not be published. Letters should be submitted to dixiesundixiaedu in the body of the email, not an attachment. Letters become property of Dixie Sun News and may be published in any format. Dixie Sun News en- ,, t on the investment merits of marijuana companies. So, like any stock, the fundamentals of the company must be examined to determine the long-tersuccess of the stock. At its September peak, Tilray was valued at more than $19.6 billion, while its 2017 revenue was only $21 million and the company lost $8 million. Compare this to L Brands Company (owner of Victoria's Secret and Bath and Body Works) which is valued at about $13.2 billion, with 2017 revenue of $12.6 billion and income of $983 million. Would yoU rather pay $19 billion for a company with sales of $21 million and negative net income, or pay $13 billion for a company with $12 billion in revenue and just under a billion dollars in income? This example is not to say that Tilray won't succeed, but rather to.point out that there are many built in assumptions (and rampant speculation) with the stock. Prudent investors have a hard time even considering m Tilray due to its expensive price in relation to its earning power and future business prospects. This isn't the first time we've seen speculation in a new market. Let's examine three examples. First, let's look at cars. The automobile was brand-nein the early 1900s, and there were hundreds of auto manufacturers. Despite the obvious bright outlook of the auto industry, most of these companies failed. By the late 1920s, there were only three large car manufacturers in the U.S. (General Motors, Ford and w Chrysler). Next, let's look at the internet. In 1999, a company named eToys.com went public. The stock shot up quickly and reached a valuation of $7.7 billion while only having $35 million in revenue and recording a $73 million loss. The valuation of eToys was the norm when it came to internet companies in the late 90s. By 2002, most of these companies had gone bankrupt. Third, and most recent, we have the Bitcoin craze of 2018. Rampant speculation led Bitcoin to a high of over $ 19,000 before falling back to the current price around $6,500. These examples aren't meant to deter you from the marijuana industry, but rather to challenge investors to exercise prudence and rationality when examining pot stocks. In the above three examples, brand new technologies were introduced to society; cars, the intemet and Bitcoin have all changed the world. Despite this, their arrival brought rampant speculation in financial markets and caused many investors d to lose their hard-earne- savings. Remaining grounded in the fundamentals of the business will help you determine the merits of investment, and avoiding speculative situations will protect you from euphoric bubbles and their inevitable bursts. |