Having immigrated to the United States from China in August of 2024, moving to the Bay Area was a tedious process for junior Brian Chou and his family due to strict immigration laws. Chou was also directly impacted by the immense cultural differences between Asia and America, particularly courtesies like asking for pronouns, as Mandarin does not have gendered pronouns.

“Our family invested a lot of money in order to let us come to America, and the process of immigration is really long and complicated,” Chou said. “People at Monta Vista are pretty nice to me, but in the U.S., there’s a bunch of culture shock — for example, the pronoun question that you just asked me — in China, there’s no questions like that.”

Noting the unbalanced immigration system he was affected by, Chou believes that policy changes that make the immigration process shorter are needed in order to facilitate a stronger environment for growth and assimilation into American society. 

“The process is hard because America wants to ensure that you have the ability to survive in the United States,” Chou said. “If the process can go faster and can give people more support when they first arrive in America, it’ll help them improve their English abilities and find jobs, rather than just prevent people from entering.”

Similarly to Chou, junior Lauren Moore believes that reforms to the system are imperative when it comes to long-standing issues that elongate the time and sacrifice needed in order to be a citizen. Moore highlights illegal immigrants, and says the creation of an efficient system that does not unfairly discriminate against those who immigrate to America for opportunities, despite their illegal status, would greatly benefit them.

“There are people that have lived in America for a very long time, and our country doesn’t necessarily have a common law where you can easily become a citizen if you’ve spent enough time in the country,” Moore said. “They still have to go through a long process, which might be too difficult, expensive or just outright unachievable for a lot of illegal immigrants that are coming for a better life.”

Senior Jack Zhang, who, similar to Chou, immigrated from China, agrees with Moore about accepting and providing opportunities for all immigrants. Zhang stresses the importance of welcoming immigrants into a society unaffected by racial binaries. However, he believes that innate biases from political candidates may negatively affect the rate at which policy changes towards immigrants can occur.

“I feel that, especially for Trump, his whole campaign is built upon racism,” Zhang said. “He’s really trying to cater towards those that think the same as him and think that America would be better off if it was just white people. He’s trying very hard to appeal to the people he knows will be the majority of the people voting for him, so he makes his campaign policies as blatantly racist as possible.”

However, junior Maxim Gutnik believes that both candidates in the national election are actively attempting to make efforts towards solving issues surrounding immigration, making the United States more accessible to everyone on a legal scale. Gutnik believes the United States has historically held a lenient position towards legal immigrants, and he believes it will continue this attitude within future administrations.

“I think both candidates are open to legal immigrants, while Kamala is trying to show a strength in her policies at the borders to show how the current administration is trying to tackle illegal immigration, while Trump is taking more of a proactive approach to that,” Gutnik said. “That raises the question of the difference in treatments of legal and illegal immigrants, and both parties can somewhat agree that illegal immigration is a big issue.”

Affordable housing

Living in the Bay Area, Moore believes that initiatives like Housekey+, a program to build permanent supportive housing for veterans and victims of substance abuse at risk for homelessness, have positively impacted the housing market and have given homeowners more rights. However, Moore explains that further policy change in real estate and in worker wages is needed in the housing market in order to make more residences affordable to potential homebuyers.

“Gavin Newsom has created great bills to go against increasing rent and tenant rights, but I do think there’s a way that we could improve it just by creating more estates and sustainable housing, as a lot of the housing here is not built to maximize space or living conditions,” Moore said. “Working on urban development to improve housing would lower costs, and raising the minimum wage would make rent a lot less than the entirety of a paycheck.”

Moore believes that Vice President Kamala Harris’ policies while in office at the White House and as Attorney General of California towards housing have shown to be the most effective towards housing affordability.

“Kamala Harris is very open towards sustainable housing and housing for the homeless, and her time in California showed that very well,” Moore said. “I know that if I go off of Donald Trump’s character, I doubt that he has plans to help with the housing market in general.”

Both Harris and Trump have released plans for the management and regulation of housing prices for their campaigns.

However, Chou says after immigrating to California, he was taken aback by the high prices of American homes. Chou is concerned that immigrants like himself may not be able to afford homes, especially due to the large differences in the prices of housing fees between the U.S. and Asia.

“I live in Cupertino in order to come to Monta Vista, and honestly, I think the prices are not affordable for immigrants to come and buy houses,” Chou said. “In China, a house is only around five to six hundred thousand dollars, and over here, it’s way more expensive, even though there’s a lot of benefits to rent or buy a house here.”

Gutnik echoes Moore and Chou’s ideas that more housing needs to be built in order to increase housing availability and lower home prices. He believes that more funding from state leadership in the election is necessary in order to fulfill housing needs and create policy changes, all while maintaining lower prices.

“I think the main problem is that there is not enough investment in the construction of housing,” Gutnik said. “Currently, there aren’t enough homes to go around. If more homes were to be built, then that would lower prices in general. The main issue is that we’re not being able to build enough homes quickly enough. That could definitely be a thing that Gavin Newsom could try to focus on.”

Despite the low availability of homes directly contributing to the high cost, Zhang also asserts that the surrounding school systems of many influential cities like Cupertino are also connected to the increasing lack of affordable housing. Zhang’s argument strikes a direct contrast to Gutnik, as he believes that political changes are not able to affect the current monopoly on homes.

“Mainly, people move here because the land is expensive,” Zhang said. “Nobody’s moving here because there’s a mega-mansion, it’s because the schools here are good. I don’t think the government can do much to fix these problems, because housing prices in a free market are not dependent on the ground. It’s a gated community without gates.”

Gun control

Despite the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which grants American citizens the right to keep and bear arms without infringement, often being used as justification for the U.S.’s rampant gun culture, Zhang disagrees with the sentiment. According to Zhang, guns nowadays are being prioritized as weapons to use against other citizens. He asserts that the government needs to implement stronger measures as protection against gun ownership, as current regulations appear lacking. 

“Even though the GOP is trying to make more policies that restrict movement who can own a gun and how guns are regulated, I feel that it is too loose, and we still have a lot of people running around who shouldn’t have owned guns,” Zhang said. “I think some stronger regulations would definitely be more in depth, like background checks and making sure that the black market for guns is more regulated.”

Chou echoes Zhang’s ideas. He cites his own experiences living in China, where guns are strictly illegal and there are harsh gun control laws. According to Chou, these ideas influenced the way he views guns and their place in America. Chou advocates for a total ban on guns rather than increased regulations.

“I do not think that Americans should have the right to bear arms,” Chou said. “I think that your rights are based on the fact that you don’t interfere on other people’s rights, and if you have a gun, you might threaten other people’s individual lives.”

Moore agrees with Chou’s ideas, and adds that it’s vital to consider the historical context behind the Second Amendment when using it as justification for certain actions, describing guns used back then as far less deadly and accurate. She believes that while certain kinds of guns, like hunting rifles, are acceptable, semi automatics are unnecessary for any American.

“Semi-automatics are not a type of weapon that you would need,” Moore said. “I think rifles and small handguns are fine, but mass shootings and stuff are normally carried out by semi-automatics, which are something that should not have to be in a domestic place. In general, gun control, even for those small firearms and types of rifles, should also be increased with a lot more than just a background check, but even maybe having to get character witnesses to vouch for your ability to handle a gun.”

Because Harris and Trump are both gun owners, Moore doesn’t fully agree with either of their ideologies, describing her own as very radical. However, she can see more validity in Harris’s policies, which fight for increased regulations surrounding gun ownership. 

“Kamala Harris definitely follows my views a little bit more,” Moore said. “But otherwise, I do believe that both of them want to follow the Constitution and want to allow people to own guns. But I really do believe in way stricter gun control.”

Gutnik agrees with Moore’s desire for stricter background checks, though he describes a possible solution as increased training with an instructor, akin to a driver’s license. However, opposing Moore, Gutnik argues that access to firearms shouldn’t be limited due to the problem arising from the people obtaining guns, rather than the guns themselves. Ultimately, according to Gutnik, he agrees with Trump’s policies over Harris’.

“I would side with Trump, because I do not believe in the full outright ban of firearms or the ban of almost all of them,” Gutnik said. “The issue is, if you remove all firearms from a country where there are more firearms than people, people will obtain them in illegal ways, causing there to be no defense against criminals that obtained them. You should be able to have the right to apply to have a firearm, but not every person should have one, or should be able to have one. It should be people that are willing to follow the laws and regulations placed upon them.”

Abortion

Trigger warning: This feature mentions sexual abuse and rape.

Zhang disagrees with ongoing disillusionment towards abortion, which was heightened and mainly influenced by the 2022 overturning of national right to abortion through Roe v. Wade. He believes that religion has played a role in governmental attitudes towards abortion, enforcing policies that he believes goes directly against a woman’s right to have agency.

“I can definitely see why they are getting banned, especially in the very right-wing Christian mindset that all life is equal and precious so we should not kill,” Zhang said. “But I feel like for many women, the act of having a baby, especially when they are not ready for it, is more damaging to both the woman and the baby. I feel that abortion should still be a choice and definitely something that shouldn’t be removed.”

In severe cases such as rape and incest, Zhang values the role of abortion as part of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and believes that it is part of a larger idea that women should be able to control the circumstances that they are subjected to.

“I feel that abortion should definitely still be kept around, because if you get raped, you are not going to want to have a stranger’s child,” Zhang said. “If you do get raped, these circumstances are not under your control, and having a baby — especially when you are not ready — is very, very destructive to your life.”

Chou remarks on the significant differences between attitudes towards abortion in China and in the United States, and agrees with Zhang’s idea that abortion should be easily obtainable and offered to women. In China, all women have access to abortion — an ideal shared by Harris, which Chou supports.

“It’s their own body,” Chou said.“I came from China, and they have their own health decisions. This is a personal decision, and everyone should have the right to make that choice.”

Similar to Chou, Moore believes that reproductive rights are part of human autonomy, and is a choice that lies within an individual, not within a government. Moore asserts her idea that a woman’s choice is more important than one of the fetus, as the woman is impacted the greatest during and after pregnancy.

In addition to these beliefs, Moore disapproves of the idea that states should have the right to govern the bodies of its citizens, especially in terms of reproductive rights, as she maintains that laws banning it will have little to no effect on citizens.

“It’s the same way that you can sign a DNR and choose to receive or give blood,” Moore said. “It’s something that could affect other people, but I think that it mainly affects women. I think that statewide bans really hurt both sides. It creates an opportunity for people to go and have unsafe abortions, or even to abandon the baby and cause an increase in the foster system. They also force people that might have the money to leave the state and get an abortion.”

Contrary to Zhang, Chou and Moore’s idea that abortion should be readily available to women, Gutnik believes that it should be a last resort for women. However, he agrees with the notion that it should be accessible to women in cases of illegal issues.

“It should be the very last approach that a woman has to take, and I think that there are many other ways of not becoming pregnant,” Gutnik said. “Abortion should be the very last part of it if it endangers the mother in any way, or it’s involved in rape or some illegal activity. I take the approach of it being a state issue, and how the people of a state should vote on that issue.”