Hilary and Trump Debates

Hillary and Trump were asked questions about five foreign policy challenges and explained their views.Multiple questions surrounding the issue of international policy and foreign affairs were posed by the two contestants. As per this point of debate, immigration was a critical issue. The candidates were asked how they would coordinate immigration to avert civil wars and crises that would possibly be inevitable (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). The next international policy point focused on external trade policies. Notably, during deliberations, the Trans-Pacific Alliance came to light. The debates touched on whether the nation should continue with the membership or terminate it under known grounds. The subject of ISIS formed an important part of the foreign relation segment. The candidates were asked how they would come to terms with the threat, which the Islamic groups based in Iran and Syria posed to the United States (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). The host staged a question concerning the strategies the winning candidate would employ to eliminate the threat for good. In addition, the candidates were asked how they would co-ordinate the nuclear deal with Iran and how the deal would help prevent possible future attacks. The North Korea subject also came up following this portion of debate. Finally, the subject of Iraq invasion was covered as per the debate questions.Differences between the two candidates on the five foreign policy issues you explained above if anyIn terms of the above-mentioned areas, the candidates were noted to differ more than being similar. For instance, on the subject of immigration by foreign citizens, Trump was wholly against foreign immigration especially from Mexican Citizens. He proposed that a wall would be built around the United States-Mexico border. In addition, Trump emphasized that all immigrants would be deported with immediate effect (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). In light of this idea, he proposed to increase the number of ICE officers, end birthright citizenship and increase the prevailing wage against H1-B visas. Summarily, it can be noted that Trump was strongly against foreign immigration into the states because, according to him, the foreigners served to deplete resources originally meant for American citizens, for example, employment.Hillary on the other hand had a different stance on the subject of immigration. She supported the DREAM act and the act of legalizing the illegal immigrants, which included teaching English, paying fines and toughening penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. The said would help keep the immigration population in the States legal as possible. In terms of the Iran nuclear deals, Trump noted that he would reject the nuclear deal proposed by Iran and would be willing to renegotiate the same under different terms. Hillary, on the other hand noted that while she was the secretary of state, she laid down the groundwork toward agreeing and siding with the nuclear deal proposed. According to her, such an act would end all possibilities of a nuclear attack (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). Trump was also noted to be against the TPP involvement in foreign trade. He noted that if America was to continue with the partnership, the terms had to be re-negotiated to make them conducive to the United States. Hillary was open to accept the partnership under the existing terms. In terms of the above-mentioned five subjects, the candidates were found to differ mostly on these three major standpoints.Similarities between the two candidates on the five foreign policy issues you explained above if anyIn terms of ISIS, both candidates believed that an attack would be more plausible relative to a negotiation. The methods of attacks were however different. Clinton preferred a boots on ground approach where troops are deployed into the county and faced the threat directly. Trump on the other hand, called for a tactic, which would eliminate ISIS’ principle funding which were mainly the oil fields and quarries. Despite their different ways of implementation, both candidates were seen to have an attack-based way of dealing with the problem. Notably, both candidates also initially believed that invading Iraq would be a beneficial solution against the war. Later on, both candidates noted that invasion would not bring the best of results. Trump opposed the war on the grounds of it being costly. Clinton called for withdrawal and voted against increase in the number of troops in Iraq (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). The grounds for this apparent change in stance remained unclear although it is believed that she also saw the threat to the economy, which was the probable war.Which of the answers of the two candidates is realist or Liberal and why?Hillary’s response toward the TPP partnership can be concluded as realist. This is because she accepted the terms, which were put forward by the partnership and was willing to abide by them. According to her, the United States had conducted trade relations peacefully while being members of the partnership. Trump on the other hand, had a more liberal view of the partnership. As already stated above, he was wholly against the partnership and was willing to engage in it as long as the terms are revised and fixed in order to favor the United States wholly (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). This act is judged as liberal since the United States had never severed a partnership with such a large trade-oriented body. Doing so allowed him to learn the implications, which would occur following the undertaking. The act is labelled as liberal since it made him open to new ideas such as renegotiating the terms, which would keep the partnership going.Schools of thoughtTrump’s view of foreign relations gravely match that of Jeffersonians school of thought. According to the insight, they are mostly involved in avoiding war and foreign entanglements. Trump displayed the thought by rejecting the nuclear deals with Iran and the entanglement with the TPP trade partnership. His act of reducing foreign immigration also helped avoid foreign entanglements particularly from neighboring states. The Jeffersonians School also firmly believes in having a robust national defense. Trump illustrated this by voting to have a “wall” built between the America and Mexico border as a metaphor for increasing national defense against foreign immigrants, who posed a threat to the state and the economy. Lastly, Jeffersonian school also warrants a decisive action against any threat toward the United States. Trump’s vote to eradicate the sources of funding for ISIS through destruction of the oil fields well illustrated this.Clinton’s idealisms can be classified to be that of the Wilsonian school. According to insight, the Wilsonian school is obsessed with wanting the United States to build a world order while at the same time being liberal towards human rights, practices and international law. Clinton illustrated this by voting for the legalization of illegal immigrants and supporting various programs such as teaching them English (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). Unlike Trump, Clinton was opposed to building a “wall” around Mexico-America boarder. She believed in the importance of foreign relations. The statement conforms with the school’s thought on preserving human rights and adhering to the international law.What U.S foreign Policy School of Thought should the U.S government use to deal with the threat of ISIS and why?The insight shared above has revealed that the best approach toward dealing with ISIS would be the Jeffersonian approach. The United States purposes to avoid war and physical confrontations with ISIS given the economic pitfall it would cause. The best approach would entail avoiding war and foreign entanglements with the region (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). In the event, however, that ISIS proved to be an even greater threat than imagined, United States should fight back with immediate effect. National defense is the key concept, emphasized as per the school’s thought. Threats are only eliminated in the event that they pose an even bigger threat than what was previously imagined.Do you think that U.S foreign policy will change under Trump’s presidency? Give justifications for your answerAccording to the insight collected from the debate, foreign relations would likely see a hefty change under Trump’s presidential rule (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). This is in the event that he goes on to implement what he vowed based on the held presidential debate. For instance, immigration will likely see a net declination. It would be theoretically hard for an individual to acquire U.S citizenship. In addition to this, the number of Mexican immigrants would likely see a net decline based on the ‘wall’, in the event the wall is built. In addition, the relations between Mexico and U.S.A would be heavily affected by the rule. In addition, Trump’s foreign policy focused on coercing the countries that had previously benefitted from U.S.A protection pay up, lest the protection be withdrawn (First & Third Presidential Debates, 2016). Such included Japan and China. Trumps rule would likely lead to poor relations between America and the states affected. Finally, if the negotiation with the TPP failed, United States might not benefit from foreign trade from other countries, which it initially benefitted from; as a result, the foreign relations might also be subjected to a decline in terms of trade. In essence, the foreign policy if executed will drastically change in light of Trump’s rule.ReferencesFirst & Third Presidential Debates (2016). Presidential Debate Schedule