ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Healthcare Access and Recidivism in Boston

    Healthcare Access and Recidivism in Boston

    Recidivism refers to the likelihood of a formerly incarcerated person to reoffend. Factors such as housing, employment, and mental health can impact recidivism rates. Upon release, if a person does not have access to secure housing or mental health resources, the likelihood of them re-entering the prison system is high. Some states are experimenting with programs to help the transition from a carceral life to reduce the rate of recidivism. 

    Incarceration is a significant social determinant of health because imprisonment can create barriers for individuals once they are released. For example, over 80% of people who are released from prison do not have access to health insurance or lose their access due to their conviction. 

    Previous Policies

    In the past decades, various states have implemented programs intending to reduce prison recidivism rates. 

    • Maryland created educational programs and partnered with state agencies to provide medical services to individuals after they were released from prison. From 2000-2012, the state saw an 11% decrease in the rate of recidivism. State prison officials accredited the declining rate of reentry to their focus on the academic and health services provided.   
    • Michigan was one of the first states to create a re-entry initiative program. Coined the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (MPRI), the program focuses on housing, employment, mental health, and substance abuse services. The MPRI led to a 28% reduction in recidivism between 2000 and 2008.

    Current policies

    In Boston, Massachusetts Mayor Michelle Wu proposed a budget increase of 1.38 million for the Office of Returning Citizens (ORC). Before Mayor Wu’s proposal, the office operated on an annual budget of $500 thousand. The Office of Returning Citizens is in charge of assisting formerly incarcerated individuals through transitional housing, health services, employment opportunities, and record expungement. The ORC helps an average of 3,000 people per year from the state, local, and federal prisons, and has been steadily increasing its capacity since 2017.

    Arguments for supporting Boston’s ORC Budget Increase

    • Investing in re-entry programs has been cost-effective for other states. In Michigan, the MPRI has allowed the state to save over an estimated $1 billion in its efforts to reduce prison populations since 2000. 
    • As of 2020, over 54.4% of U.S citizens obtain health insurance through their employers. Thus, focusing on employment opportunities for people released from prison could increase their chances of having access to healthcare. 
    • Giving formerly incarcerated individuals supportive services such as healthcare, employment, and housing will allow them to have greater success in assimilating back into the community. Thereby reducing the likelihood of people returning to crime. 

    Arguments against investment in recidivism programs

    • Without changing policies that will make it easier for individuals with a convicted felony to obtain employment, the extent to which these programs can assist people is limited. 

    Currently there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of re-entry programs. As argued by David Muhlhausen, the former director of the National Institute of Justice, without randomized controlled trials, it is difficult for programs like the ones in Massachusetts and Michigan to be considered evidence-based.

  • Introduction to Birthright Citizenship in the American Immigration System

    Introduction to Birthright Citizenship in the American Immigration System

    Jus soli, or birthright citizenship, is the idea that those born in the U.S. are automatically considered citizens of the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship. While birthright citizenship is often attributed to the 14th Amendment , the policy has recently sparked debate in political and legal circles, in part due to Donald Trump’s promise to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for those born to unauthorized parents during his presidency. 

    The Birthright Citizenship Act, introduced into the House of Representatives in 2021, would amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act  to clarify who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in turn, who is eligible for citizenship. An individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when the United States government has the right to enforce its governing laws against a person. Under the Birthright Citizenship Act, automatic citizenship would only be granted to those who have a parent who is a: 

    1. U.S. citizen or national
    2. lawful resident residing in the U.S. 
    3. foreign national performing active service in the Armed Forces. 

    While the bill would not impact the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the potential enactment date, it would mean all future children born in the U.S. to parents of both unauthorized immigrants and immigrants in the U.S. on a temporary visa are not guaranteed citizenship.

    Major Legislation and Court Cases Relating to Birthright Citizenship

    • The 14th Amendment: The 14th amendment is a piece of Reconstructionist Era legislation which ensures due process and equal protection under the law as well as citizenship for all those “born or naturalized” in the U.S. The amendment granted citizenship to groups previously excluded from this right, most notably African Americans, but some argue that the precedent should not extend to children of undocumented immigrants, as, at the time of the amendment’s passage, there was little context for illegal immigration. 
    • United States v Wong Kim Ark: In this 1898 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the United States, despite the fact that his parents could not become citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, opponents of birthright citizenship argue this statute cannot apply to those with unauthorized parents because although Wong Kim’s parents were not citizens, they were documented. Opponents also point to the Slaughterhouse cases, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” was intended to exclude children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, regardless of their birthplace. 

    Arguments in Favor of Birthright Citizenship

    Advocates of existing birthright citizenship policy consider the practice to be a cornerstone of the United States as a nation of immigrants, and point to the practical and legal complications if birthright citizenship were to be restricted. One major difficulty is that many of those who gain citizenship due to their birthplace do not have citizenship to another nation and therefore cannot be deported as they lack the right of entry to their parents’ country of origin. As a result, many argue that altering birthright citizenship would create a legal crisis for those born into this situation and their family members. Additionally, following former President Trump’s promise to issue an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, many were quick to point to the 30 other countries who also offer citizenship to those born in their nation regardless of parent’s legal status. In countries without this practice, citizenship is often determined by descent and critics argue this is nearly impossible in a diverse nation like the U.S. Furthermore, critics of the act argue that current U.S. birthright citizenship policy enables children of unauthorized parents to receive the benefits of citizenship—including federal aid, civic rights, and legal protection—and they can use these resources to support the rest of their family networks. Above all, critics of the move to diminish this right view the policy as a staple of not only American immigration but American identity, as they argue birthright citizenship facilitates a sense of nationalism. 

    Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship

    Those who support the Birthright Citizenship Act argue that current birthright citizenship policy perpetuates illegal immigration, as some believe that unauothrized parents may use their child with automatic citizenship to gain legal status themselves. The derogatory term “anchor babies” refers to this notion, and proponents of this idea point to statistics such as the Migration Policy Institute’s  estimate that 4.1 million children had at least one undocumented parent in 2016. Additionally, opponents of existing birthright citizenship policy point to the net fiscal burden of unauthorized immigrants, which the NAS estimates to be $65,292 per immigrant. They argue that while unauthorized immigrants often have access and utilize public services like education, social care, and law enforcement, they do not have the same tax burdens that legal citizens do, and therefore citizens face higher taxes due to unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. 

    Conclusion

    A variation of this act has been introduced to numerous sessions of Congress beginning in 2007, and while the 2021 version is unlikely to pass, it is indicative of a larger debate surrounding citizenship and legal status in this country. Controversy continues to surround the question of birthright citizenship’s application to those born in U.S. territories or out of wedlock, and questioning the legitimacy of an opponent’s citizenship due to their birthplace remains a popular smear tactic.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Colombia Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Colombia Relations

    Fact Sheet

    Population: 51,500,708 

    Capital: Bogota

    System of Governance:  Presidential Representative Republic

    President: Gustavo Petro

    Majority Language: Spanish

    Majority Religion: Catholicism

    GDP Per Capita: $5,334.6 (2020)

    Global Freedom Score: 64 (partly free)

    GINI Index: 54.2 

    History of Colombia’s Relationship with the U.S.

    Relations between Colombia and the U.S. officially began in 1821, when the South American country was known as Gran Colombia and included the modern states of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama. Of specific interest to the U.S. was the Panama isthmus, the natural geographic location for a canal through Central America. The construction of a canal was critical to U.S. maritime trade, and when Gran Colombia refused an offer for the U.S. to build the canal, the U.S. supported Panama in successfully revolting against the Colombian government. After independence, the new Panamanian government convened a treaty with the U.S., allowing for the construction of the Panama Canal. This event impacted U.S.-Colombia relations for decades.

    While bilateral relations cooled, U.S. corporate activity in Colombia grew as large companies invested in the South American nation, many of whom employed exploitative labor practices. In 1928, over 2,000 Colombian workers on strike at the U.S. corporation United Fruit Company were killed by the Colombian military. The strikers were portrayed by U.S. officials and United Fruit Company representatives as reflecting a “subversive tendency,” and this stoked American fears of a broader communist movement in the region. The massacre occured after the U.S. government threatened to send in the Marine Corps if the strike continued, and the event sparked outrage at U.S. commercial interests in Colombia. 

    By the mid-20th century, the U.S. and Colombia were aligned militarily. Colombia fought alongside the Allies in WWII, and the country contributed many aspiring officers to the School of the Americas (SOA), which opened in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946. The SOA trained Latin Americans in American counterinsurgency tactics, and, despite evidence of inhumane acts attributed to graduates of the SOA, the school still operates today under a different name.

    In 1948, a period of instability dubbed “La Violencia” began in Colombia. This was a time of political violence that spiraled into mass indiscriminate warfare, leaving more than 200,000 Colombians dead before 1964. The two major resistance organizations during the latter stages of La Violencia were leftist groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). To diminish some of this violence and in line with the U.S.’s Cold War anti-communist strategy, American military advisors developed “Plan Lazo”, a counterinsurgency blueprint for the Colombian security forces. Foretelling future interventions, Plan Lazo focused overwhelmingly on military intervention, with scant resources for social reforms or administrative structures. It was deemed mostly unsuccessful in controlling the violence Colombia faced.

    President Richard Nixon’s declaration of a global War on Drugs in 1971 forever altered U.S.-Colombia relations. For this reason, this chapter of history is given its own section below. Since major strife in Colombia broke out in the mid-20th century, the U.S. has been invested in Colombian affairs. Today, Colombia is the U.S.’ most closely aligned regional partner, and the countries have enjoyed relatively friendly relations.

    Key US Foreign Policy Considerations

    Colombia is continuing to dig itself out of the multi-sided conflict that mired the country in violence for much of the past half-century. The violent actors included the previously mentioned leftist guerrilla groups (FARC and ELN), right-wing paramilitary groups – namely the United Self-Defenses of Colombia (AUC) – and powerful drug cartels. Colombia has made great progress in decreasing the levels of violence, seeing a steady decline in both the crime and homicide rates since 1990. In 2002, Álvaro Uribe Vélez was elected president on a promise to end the endemic violence, and his mix of aggressive enforcement and negotiation with the violent groups proved effective. The government and the AUC agreed to a ceasefire in 2003, and members of both FARC and the ELN agreed to put down their weapons soon after, though many continued their violent struggle.

    A recent victory was won in 2016, when after decades of negotiation, Colombia and the FARC militia announced a successful peace accord. In return for demobilizing, the deal protected FARC fighters who confessed to war crimes from criminal sentencing and also guaranteed former rebels seats in Colombia’s Congress. The accord was an indication that Colombia was on the road to stability, a major priority for multiple U.S. administrations. Colombia is a major regional partner for the U.S., due in large part to a long economic and security-based relationship. Since 2016, the U.S. has sent over $1 billion in direct and indirect support to ensure these internal security gains are preserved.

    Colombia is also an important regional partner due to the instability of its neighbor Venezuela. Colombia supports the declared presidency of Juan Guaidó, and there has been animosity towards Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, following the lead of U.S. policy. As a consequence of economic misery, over 2 million Venezuelans have crossed the border into Colombia, which is offering protected status and work permits to the refugees. In June 2022, President Biden announced $314 million in humanitarian, health, economic, and development assistance for Venezuelan refugees, much of which is directed towards Colombian efforts.

    Economically, Colombia is emerging as an important trade partner for U.S. companies facing decreasing margins in the historically lucrative Asia market. The U.S. is Colombia’s most important trade partner, and bilateral trade totaled $29.9 billion in 2020. In March 2022, President Biden designated Colombia as a major non-NATO ally, which gives Colombia access to new economic and security programs, including counterterrorism initiatives, a larger selection of American weapons, and cooperative research and development projects. 

    Spotlight: Drug Policy

    Colombia’s role as a drug supplier developed in the late 1970s. Marijuana production diversified into cocaine trafficking, with boats and airplanes taking most of the product to the United States. Two major cartels developed: the Medellín cartel led by the infamous Pablo Escobar and a rival group based in Cali. These cartels became massive political and criminal forces, contributing to the endemic violence that characterized Colombia for most of its recent history.

    Colombia became the focus of the U.S.’s War on Drugs, and the U.S. exported both military supplies and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents in an attempt to stem the flow of drugs. During the 1990s for example, the U.S. provided $1.6 billion in security assistance to the country.  

    This foreign involvement did not sit well with some in the Colombian government, and in response to the policies of Colombian leader Ernesto Samper, President Bill Clinton decertified Colombia as a partner in the drug war in the late 1990s. In 2000, however, the new administration of Andres Pastrana provided a reset in U.S.-Colombia drug policy, which led to the announcement of  “Plan Colombia”, a bilateral security strategy that aimed to end drug production and promote economic development. Eventually, Mexican cartels grew in power and took away much of the Colombian cartels’ influence and importance, leading to less violence and trafficking in Colombia. U.S. support for counternarcotics efforts continues today, however, with Colombia eradicating more than 130,000 hectares of coca and seizing nearly 580 tons of cocaine in 2020. 

    The election of left-wing President Gustavo Petro in June 2022 opens the possibility of a new approach to Colombia’s drug policy. Petro has been roundly critical of the U.S.-led war on drugs. During his campaign, Petro voiced his disagreements with current extradition policies and the large sums of investment into security spending. He has stated that his priority with the U.S. is addressing climate change, and that his administration will center their drug policy around environmental factors. Petro is Colombia’s first left-wing head of state, and his election could usher in a new stage in the long history of drug policy collaboration between the U.S. and Colombia.

  • Obesity and Sugar-Sweetened Drink Taxes Policies

    Obesity and Sugar-Sweetened Drink Taxes Policies

    Obesity Overview

    The World Health Organization (WHO) defines obesity as excessive fat accumulation compared to a healthy weight. Body mass index (BMI) is widely used to determine whether a person is overweight or obese. If an adult’s BMI score is 30 or higher, then he or she is classified as obese according to WHO’s definition. According to WHO statistics, the number of people who are obese has more than tripled since 1975. As of 2016, over 650 million people worldwide are facing obesity issues. 

    Prevalence of Self-Reported U.S Adult Obesity Rate. (Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System)

    Obesity is a severe problem for the whole world, and especially for the United States. The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistic shows that more than 30% of the U.S adults and 20% of the U.S children population are obese. A research study conducted by Simmonds et. al. suggested that if a kid is suffering from childhood obesity, he or she has a five times higher risk of becoming obese as an adult compared with those without childhood obesity. Their study also found that the obesity risk increases as the person gets older. Obesity has major implications for America’s health and economy.

    1. Obesity-related chronic diseases. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NHI) research shows that obese people are vulnerable to certain health issues including type II diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.  
    2. Obesity-related economic impact. The U.S government spends $190 billion on obesity-related healthcare since 2015, and the amount of money increases year by year. The expense of obesity-related absenteeism ranges between $3.38 billion and $6.38 billion annually in the U.S. 

    The Causes of Obesity

    Various factors can cause excess weight gain and fat accumulation in the human body, which makes obesity a complex health issue.

    • An unbalanced diet and overeating: Less than 10% of U.S children and adults meet the CDC recommended amount of daily vegetable intake. Instead, study shows that high-calorie, sugar-dense, and fat-dense foods are cheap and easy to access. These types of foods can be found in vending machines, supermarkets, restaurants, etc., and they take up a large proportion of the food market. On the other hand, families prefer to buy frozen foods and pre-packaged foods because they are affordable and easy to prepare. However, these types of foods are calorie-dense. When a person feels full from eating these types of foods, he or she eats far more calories than the healthy calorie intake level. 
    • Inadequate physical activity: The CDC recommended physical activity level for health benefits for an adult is 30-minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity five days a week (150 minutes in total) and at least two days per week for muscle-involved activities. However, according to the CDC physical activity level report from 2001 to 2005, less than 50% of U.S adults met the basic recommended physical activity level. The percentage of U.S adults who meet the basic physical activity level of CDC recommendation dramatically decreases year by year. The latest CDC physical activity level report shows that only one-quarter of U.S adults meet physical activity guidelines.
    • Social determinants of health (SDOH): Over 50% of U.S households are unable to access the park within their community or need to travel more than half a mile to the park. In addition, 40% of U.S households do not have access to full-service grocery stores within their community. People who live in such SDOHs may have a hard time making healthy food choices, which increases their risk of becoming obese. 

    Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB) and Consumption

    Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) are the main sources of added sugar in U.S household diets, which are large contributors to the obesity rate. The CDC defines SSB as “any liquids that are sweetened with various forms of added sugars like brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, lactose, malt syrup, maltose, molasses, raw sugar, and sucrose.” According to the National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Supplement (NHIS CCS), from 2010 to 2015, about six in ten U.S adults drank SSB one or more times per day. Although the prevalence of SSB intake differs in states, the consumption of SSB ranges from 44.5% to 76.4%.

    Sugar-Sweetened Drink Taxes Policy

    A Sugar-Sweetened Drink Tax (SSDT) represents one policy strategy to reduce sugar consumption in communities. The tax targets suppliers that produce beverages (such as sports drinks, fruit drinks, tea, etc.) with added sugar (“a total sugar content of five grams or more per 100 milliliters”) and sell their products across state lines. Because SSDTs have only been introduced recently, this policy has not been widely implemented in the U.S. Several cities have levied SSDTs locally including Boulder, Navajo Nation, Cook County, Philadelphia, Seattle, Berkeley, Albany, Oakland, and San Francisco. In addition, SSDTs have been adopted by over forty other countries. 

    Cities Implemented SSDT Across the U.S. (Source: Healthy Food America)

    SSDTs effectively reduce sugar consumption by increasing the price and reducing the sale of SSBs. The rate of SSDT varies among cities. For example, the SSDT for cities in California is 1 cents per ounce, and it is 2 cents per ounce in Boulder. Such taxes on SSB products result in a 43% to 120%  price increase for consumers. The volume of SSB sales in cities that adopted SSDT decreased by 21 to 39 percent. 

    Challenges 

    Some critics have argued that SSDT was implemented prematurely, and inadequate data and poor policy design make it difficult to determine if the policies are actually effective. Further, some unintended consequences have been observed after implementing SSDT.

    1. SSDTs tend to be regressive taxes because low-income families spend a larger proportion of their income on groceries compared to high-income families. As a result, SSDTs have a disproportionate impact on lower-income households. 
    2. SSDT does not directly reduce the amount of sugar in drinks, and it does not necessarily reduce sugar consumption. Based on SSDT content, all per-unit SSDT is calculated using the volume of qualifying beverage rather than the sugar content. In other words, the tax for an eight-ounce iced tea (which contains two teaspoons of sugar) is equal to the tax rate for an eight-ounce soda (which contains seven teaspoons of sugar). 

    Benefits of SSDT

    Currently, cities that implemented SSDT are spending SSDT revenue ($135 million per year) to address their specific healthcare needs and improve low-income community health. These cities focus on increasing public awareness of healthy beverages and diabetes through social media and education campaigns. Specifically, Albany, CA, spends SSDT revenue for local healthcare and youth nutrition education. Boulder, CO, reaches out to local restaurants, markets, and drink producers to reduce misinformation regarding SSB. Seattle, WA, boosts access to nutritious food and water and educates people about nutrition and healthy beverage options. SDOH, including parks, leisure facilities, and sports fields, are addressed. In addition, SSDT revenue is also used to enhance the obesity-related healthcare system.

  • Failures and Successes of NATO

    Failures and Successes of NATO

    Introduction

    NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military and political alliance founded in 1949 and dedicated to ensuring the security and freedom of its members. As the Cold War took shape and the Soviet Union threatened European governments, the founding countries of NATO determined that a transatlantic alliance was necessary to both deter Soviet aggression and promote political integration rather than militarism. In the decades since, NATO has grown in structure and members into the organization it is today. The primary political council of NATO is the North Atlantic Council (NAC), and it is chaired by NATO’s Secretary General. Each member has a seat on this council and all decisions are made by consensus, so that any decision made by NATO reflects the will of all members. If a decision reached under the NAC or a political subcommittee has military implications, the Military Committee is responsible for giving expert advice to the NAC and for organizing and carrying out NATO’s military operations. 

    The United States is the largest financial contributor to NATO and a key member of the alliance. The alliance promotes democratic ideas and peaceful conflict resolution around the world. Countries looking to join must have a functioning democratic government and a commitment to peacefully resolve conflict. With a large network of members and resources, NATO aims to hold its members to a standard of democracy and intervenes to defuse conflicts before they happen. However, there is continuous debate over how to handle NATO member states experiencing democratic backsliding. In addition, conflict is deterred by the collective defense aspect of NATO, where an attack on one member is an attack on all members. Despite its shortcomings and the challenges it faces, it is often considered to be one of the most successful international alliances in history.

    There are currently thirty members of NATO and several countries are aspiring to join. Other countries are engaged in working partnerships with the alliance, while not being members.

    Source: Statista

    A Brief History

    • 1949: As communism spread across Europe, and the Soviet’s influence increased, the United States’ desire for a security treaty with Western Europe outside of the UN’s Security Council (where the USSR held veto power) led to the creation of NATO.
    • 1955: In response to West Germany joining NATO, the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern European countries formed the Warsaw Pact.
    • 1991: The Soviet Union collapsed, leading to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council was created as a platform for cooperation between old Warsaw Pact members and NATO.
    • 1995: NATO became involved in its first ever crisis response operation, leading the Implementation Force, a peace enforcement force during the Bosnian War.
    • 2001: 9/11 resulted in NATO invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first, and only, time. Article 5 states that “an attack against one… shall be considered an attack against them all.” NATO launched several counter-terrorism initiatives and deployed military forces to Afghanistan.
    • 2003: NATO takes control of the International Security Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a UN-mandated security force responsible for ensuring the Afghan government’s authority.
    • 2014: NATO suspends most relations with Russia over their illegal annexation of Crimea.

    Successes

    1. The Cold War: During the Cold War, NATO’s efforts were centered around three goals: controlling the Soviet Union, dissuading militant nationalism and communism across Europe, and establishing greater European political unity. The alliance played a major role in maintaining the tense peace of the Cold War and ensuring the war remained ‘cold’. With the end of the war, NATO worked to further maintain peace. They established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and, in 1997, NATO encouraged bilateral discussion between the United States and Russia through the Founding Act.
    2. Modern Day Protection: Today, NATO continues to provide a level of protection for its members. Since its founding, a NATO member has only been attacked and evoked Article 5 once (the United States after 9/11). Member countries are afforded collective security, just as NATO originally sought to do. Additionally, NATO has created a global network of more than 40 countries and other partners around the globe—ranging from the African Union to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This network provides NATO support in its crisis management operations, ranging from aid operations such as its delivery of relief supplies after the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake to counter-terrorism operations in the Mediterranean and the coast of Somalia.
    3. The Ukraine War: NATO has publicly denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine and NATO member countries and allies have provided substantial aid to Ukraine. The United States has contributed roughly $54 billion to Ukraine. Other countries have provided humanitarian aid and support for the more than 5 million refugees of the war. The Ukraine war has reaffirmed the importance of NATO, and even spurred Finland and Sweden to increase their efforts to join the alliance. These countries’ membership would strengthen the alliance militarily through increased air and submarine capabilities, allowing for NATO to further dissuade Russian aggression.

    Failures

    1. Funding Issues: In 2006, NATO Defense Ministers agreed to a commitment that 2% of their countries’ GDP would be allocated towards defense spending. However, the majority of NATO members do not meet this goal. Currently, the United States accounts for over two-thirds of the alliance’s defense spending.
    2. Afghanistan: After 9/11, NATO was a considerable presence in Afghanistan, and their forces were crucial in their support of the Afghan government. When President Donald Trump signed an agreement with the Taliban in 2020, both NATO and American troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan. What followed was an immediate fall in the Afghan government at the hands of the Taliban. Despite the two decades NATO spent in Afghanistan, no long term solution was reached, and without their presence, the nation’s former government could not survive.
    3. Right-Wing Nationalism: With the spread of right-wing nationalism across Europe, discontent with international institutions like NATO and the EU grows. If right-wing nationalist movements continue to increase in popularity across Europe, there could be increased calls for countries to leave institutions like NATO. The challenge NATO faces now is how to combat and address their criticism, and how to unify a divided Europe.
    4. Russian Aggression: Despite supposed verbal promises to Russia that it would not expand to the east, NATO has admitted several former Warsaw Pact members since the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, with NATO members bordering Russia and the promise of further expansion, Russia feels increasingly threatened. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO has been cited as a significant reason for Vladmir Putin’s invasion of the country.

    The Future of NATO

    As the war in Ukraine continues, NATO is more relevant now than it has been in decades. NATO plays a role in distributing military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and the alliance will be influential in the outcome of the war. NATO serves as a means of collective defense and security against Russia and the increasing threat to international order that they represent. With debates over how NATO can best assist Ukraine, and how to best avoid conflicts such as this in the future, NATO will have to revisit its current deterrence strategy in the upcoming years. Also at play is the growing role of China on the world stage. NATO must consider that the world does not revolve solely around the Euro-Atlantic region, and address questions about its role outside this region and across the globe. NATO continues to be essential towards not only the security of its members including the United States, but to the world.

  • The Pell Federal Grant Program Expansion

    The Pell Federal Grant Program Expansion

    The Rising Cost of College

    In the 21st century, the cost of higher education has more than doubled and is growing annually at a rate of 6.8% a year. With inflation and the economic effects of Covid-19, a survey of over 10,000 college students found that 56% of students can no longer afford tuition. With college affordability being a highly contested topic at all levels of government, there are many arguments surrounding federal aid amounts and eligibility. Currently, Americans cumulatively owe approximately $1.75 trillion in student loans, with federal loans accounting for nearly 93% of that total. 

    The Pell Federal Grant Program

    The Pell Federal Grant Program is the largest federal grant program for undergraduate students. These grants do not need to be repaid, and students must fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Financial Aid (FAFSA®) form in order to assess need. The amount awarded depends on family contribution, cost of attendance, status as part-time or full-time student, and plans of attending for a full year or less. 

    In March 2022, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that increased the maximum and minimum Pell Grant award amount. The bill expanded a maximum award from $6,495 to $6,895, and a minimum award of $650 to $690 for the 2022-2023 school year. This increase is less than Biden’s original Build Back Better Plan, which did not pass in Congress. This plan would have included a Pell Grant maximum increase to $7,045.

    The Case For Expansion

    One argument for expansion of the Pell Federal Grant Program is that there are instances of unmet need for low-income students. This occurs when grants are added to a student’s expected family contribution (EFC), yet still fall short of the institution’s cost of attendance (COA). Many low-income students are hindered from attending college since they need to find additional means of paying (loans, earnings, etc.), contributing to the racial and socioeconomic gaps within higher education. 78% of students from the highest quintile of socioeconomic status seek a 4-year degree, while only 42% of students from the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status pursue a 4-year degree. This additional aid can also help increase the rate of college completion for low-income students, as these grants can be used on basic need essentials such as housing, food, and healthcare giving these students the chance to focus solely on their education.

    The Case Against Expansion

    One argument against further expanding the program is that policies driving down college costs and different alternatives may be more effective than putting more money into the Pell Grant Program. In the 2020 fiscal year, expenditure on the Federal Pell Grant was over 29 billion dollars. A more market-based approach by policymakers may be more efficient in making college more affordable. This could be seen in additional funding going towards lowering college tuition costs through regulating for-profit colleges, creating a private lending market to drive down tuition prices, and other similar measures as opposed to expanding the Pell Grant Program.

  • Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan and Iraqi Nationals

    Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan and Iraqi Nationals

    What is the Special Immigrant program for Afghans and Iraqis? 

    The Special Immigrant Visa program for Afghan and Iraqi nationals is a set of two visa programs: SI visas, for Iraqi and Afghan translators, and SQ visas, for Iraqis and Afghans employed on behalf of the United States government or the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There have been a total of 3,996 immigrants that have obtained SI visas and 105,477 immigrants that have obtained SQ visas.

    The SI visa program was first signed into law in 2006 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the issuing of up to 50 visas per year to those who qualify (called principals). 

    Who qualifies for this program? 

    SQ visas were issued through two Special Immigrant Visa programs for Iraqi nationals and Afghan nationals. The requirements to qualify are almost the same for both programs. The program for Iraqi nationals was signed into law with the NDAA of 2008, and for Afghan nationals the following year as part of the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The deadline to apply for the Iraqi program was in September, 2014, but the Afghan program will accept applications until December 31, 2023. The remainder of this brief will refer to the Afghan program, as it is the only active program of the two.

     To qualify for these programs, one must:

    • Be a national of Iraq or Afghanistan, 
    • Have been employed for one year by the U.S. government or allied missions
    • Have received a letter of recommendation, and
    • Have experienced or be experiencing an “ongoing serious threat” as a result of the previous employment by the United States

    What is the process to obtain this visa?

    In order to obtain an SQ visa as an Afghan, the USCIS lists five steps:

    1. Apply for Chief of Mission (COM) Approval: This step requires certain documents, including verification of employment by the U.S. government, a letter of recommendation (LoR) from a direct senior supervisor, evidence of Afghan nationality, and a statement of threats received as a result of employment by the United States.
    2. File a Petition with the USCIS: This step requires submitting an I-360 Form, the COM approval, the previous LoR, and a passport copy (and a translation if not in English).
    3. Prepare for Visa Application: After receiving confirmation from the National Visa Center via email, the applicant must fill out more forms in order for the center to process the visa and schedule a visa interview.
    4. Visa Interview: The applicant must attend a personal interview, conducted in English, with all family members applying for visas. Interviews used to be conducted at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, but the embassy suspended operations on August 31, 2021, so any remaining applicants must apply at an embassy or consulate in another country. 
    5. Arrival in the United States: From this point on, the process resembles that of refugees entering the United States. Afghan SIV recipients are eligible for the benefits refugees receive, and are resettled in a similar manner.

    The process looks mostly the same for an SI visa applicant, except they do not need to complete the COM approval step. 

    What does this program look like now?

    There are many obstacles to applying for SIV status now that the United States has withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban has taken control of the country. Because interviews can no longer be processed in Kabul, many individuals are traveling to other countries like Pakistan in order to apply. Despite the effort it takes to apply, many have nothing to show for it, as over 1,300 SIV applicants were denied from October to December of last year, often for lack of documentation, failure to prove service to the U.S. government, or derogatory information associated with the principal. There are currently 50,000 SIV applications being evaluated, but only 16,515 still remaining slots unless Congress approves more. Applicants also experience lengthy wait times.

    The Biden administration recently attempted to ease requirements for SIV applicants, including allowing those who have worked as civil servants or paid for public services under the Taliban regime controlling Afghanistan, either prior to 2001 or after August 15, 2021, to be issued visas. Yet, requirements still remain vague. For example, if an applicant’s LoR was written by a non-U.S. citizen, they are asked to have the letter cosigned by a U.S. citizen, despite that not being listed as a requirement. This added complication makes it harder for SIV applicants to receive visas.

    After the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August of 2021, 76,000 Afghans were brought to the United States through Operation Allies Welcome, with over half of those holding or qualifying for SIV status. President Biden issued an order defining Afghanistan as a temporary protected status (TPS) country, which prevents an Afghan national from being removed from the United States and allows them to access employment authorization. However, this does not provide a pathway to legal permanent residence, and the TPS designation is set to expire in November 2023. This leaves half of those brought to the United States without a guarantee of permanent residence outside of applying for asylum, a program with a grant rate of about 14% for the year 2021.  

    What changes could be made to the SIV program for Afghans?

    One possible solution to the limitations of the SIV Afghan program is to pass an adjustment act, which would allow Afghans that do not qualify for SIV status to apply for permanent status after a year of residing in the United States. This kind of program has been implemented previously for refugees from Vietnam, Cuba, and Iraq. The Biden Administration called on congress for a program like this to be included with a recent bill focused on providing aid to Ukraine, but the bill passed without such a program.

    Supporters of an “Afghan Adjustment Act” say this program will alleviate the previously mentioned backlog of applications within the SIV program as well as the over one million case backlog in the asylum system, while providing our Afghan partners with a guarantee of permanent status. They also cite the many levels of screening and security vetting that all Afghan immigrants go through prior to entering the United States as proof that it is safe to implement this program. 

    Critics of an Afghan adjustment act express concern over gaps in the vetting process. One critical lawmaker cited reports from the Department of Defense Inspector General, which state that thousands of Afghans were not screened completely using all of the department’s data prior to arrival in the United States. The lawmaker calls on the Biden Administration to address possible issues with vetting prior to enacting a large readjustment program. A response to mitigate this criticism is that Afghans seeking to adjust their status would be required to undergo additional screening.

  • AI Technology Usage in Weapons Systems

    AI Technology Usage in Weapons Systems

    Whoever becomes the leader in [artificial intelligence] will become the ruler of the world” – President Vladimir Putin 2018

    The ever-changing dynamic of international security is adapting quickly to new developments in technology. The nuclear bomb, space travel, and chemical weapons drastically changed the state of warfare globally. Now, artificial intelligence is transforming the way we use and conceptualize weaponry and global militaries; just one of the products of the digital age in the 21st century. 

    Presently, global leaders are automizing weapons systems to both advance antiquated weapon technology and thwart new security threats in the age of globalization and digitalization. The quote above by Russian president Vladimir Putin illustrates the cyberspace-race nature of automized weapons systems and the importance of keeping in touch with the future of automized technology. Current leaders in automized weaponry include China, the United States, Russia, and Israel. 

    Key terms and Definitions

    Artificial intelligence, commonly known as AI, refers to the way computers process large volumes of information, recognize patterns in that data, and make predictions based on the information given. Though the word “intelligence” gives way to many social connotations, it is important to recognize that artificial intelligence is simply a way of synthesizing large amounts of data. Much like traditional forms of data synthesis, data sets limit the prediction output, leaving room for faulty or poorly-informed predictions. 

    Automation refers to the process of making systems function automatically, or without human intervention. Automation varies in range from no autonomy, partial autonomy, and full autonomy. 

    Artificial intelligence plays a key role in automation as the predictive nature of artificial intelligence allows machines to interpret information as they function, leading to more efficient autonomy and less reliance on human intervention. 

    Implementations of an AI-automated Military

    AI development is contentious among U.S decision makers, with questions around the ethical and moral implications of AI, or a fully autonomous weapon This has significantly stunted growth in the AI defense sector, causing political analysts to caution against slow development. 

    The hesitation to implement AI-automation in the military has some merits. There is significant skepticism about the reliability of this technology. Gaps in data sets threaten output dependability. Additionally, blind trust in AI undermines the importance of human rationality. Human rationale generally prevails in wartime decision-making due to war’s complexities. For example, in 1983, a Russian officer, when presented with a warning that the U.S had launched a nuclear attack, decided not to move forward with retaliation. The warning was a computer malfunction, and the Russian officer ultimately saved the world from nuclear disaster. 

    However, AI-powered weapons can significantly change the state of combat. Having semi or fully autonomous weapons decreases armed casualties and the need for a large standing army. Furthermore, global actors like China and Russia are placing significant emphasis on AI weapons proliferation, threatening U.S security. 

    The government has been slow to utilize more sophisticated AI-driven weaponry. This led to the 2021 conclusion by the National Security Commission that the U.S is ill-prepared for future AI combat. To address this, President Biden appointed Margaret Palmieri as the new deputy chief digital and artificial intelligence officer to spearhead the movement toward AI defense systems. Additionally, the administration created the National Artificial Intelligence Resource Research Task Force which focuses on increasing access to this technology to promote innovation and incentivize engineers, researchers, and data scientists to join the defense sector. However, this comes with limitations. The United States will need to ensure access to more defense data, especially data held by private companies. Additionally, incentivizing data talent is an obstacle as STEM talent flocks to start-ups and private companies due to the promise of money and unregulated research. 

    In 2020, the United States defense sector set aside $4 billion for AI research and automated technology. This number is trivial compared to overall defense spending, which was $100 billion in 2020 for general weapons research and development. However, it is important to keep in mind that the cost of AI technologies is decreasing rapidly as hardware becomes more affordable in the private sphere.

    Weapons Automation Among Global Actors

    France is developing an ethics committee to oversee the development of novel automated weapons systems. This committee will work with the Ministry of Defense to ensure the systems implemented are reliable and safe. Similarly, Germany is taking a multilateral approach to AI integration. The government is dedicated to seeing AI technology used ethically and sustainably in private and military sectors. 

    Israel currently leads the Western world in technological development and has a symbiotic relationship with the United States in terms of weapons development, research, and funding. The most notable achievement in Israeli defense is the Iron Dome missile defense system. This automated system immediately detects and shoots down adversary artillery to prevent threats to civilians. This system operates with little human oversight, meaning there is no chain of command for initiating the defense response. 

    China holds much of the world’s attention on automated weapons systems. The majority of China’s AI systems are used in the surveillance sector to monitor movement and social activity through biometric data. In terms of automated defense systems, China is currently developing new forms of weaponry as opposed to automating existing technology. Most notable is the implementation of swarming technology, or the use of many small, fully autonomous drones to surround enemies. 

    Russia, with Chinese aid, is currently developing AI weaponry to bolster security ambitions. This technology, however, is largely absent from the current conflict in Ukraine where forces are using traditional war tactics. Instead, a large portion of Russian antagony has consisted of deepfake media and misinformation campaigns. For instance, during the lead-up to the 2016 U.S Presidential elections, Russia made use of troll farms on Facebook to sow discord in key swing districts. Furthermore, Russia used similar tactics to foster pro-Russian sentiment in eastern parts of Ukraine to bolster rebel forces in Donbas. While misinformation is certainly a war tactic, these actions stray away from typical AI-powered weaponry. 

    More on Global Actors and AI-Weaponry:

    More on the Implications of AI Automation

  • The Global War on Terror: Successes and Failures – A Case of Al-Qaeda

    The Global War on Terror: Successes and Failures – A Case of Al-Qaeda

    Introduction

    The United States’ longest war came to an end with the August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Taliban’s swift and hostile takeover of Afghanistan’s government following the U.S. withdrawal left the country once again in the hands of the Taliban. The Taliban takeover is a significant development in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and raises questions about the unforseen consequences of the war against terrorism. 

    The GWOT is an international, American-led coalition campaign launched in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland. Following the attacks, then-President George W. Bush launched a comprehensive plan to eliminate and disrupt all terrorist organizations around the globe. He stated, “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” 

    The U.S. employed every instrument of national power including diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, and financial and military tools to disrupt and defeat not just Al-Qaeda but to extend the fight to other militant groups around the world. Nations around the globe joined the U.S. in the battle against global terror. The GWOT led to the disruption of violent extremist organizations, the elimination of terrorist safe havens, the disruption of terrorist financing, the advancement and transformation of global security, and the elimination of the immediate terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Simultaneously, the GWOT also fueled radicalization and laid the foundation for the rise of extremist groups with similar ideological sympathies that can spread violence.

    Successes of the GWOT

    Military and intelligence operations including offensive strategies and covert operations proved successful in the fight against terrorism. These operations have been shown to deter transnational terrorist groups from conducting logistically complex attacks in the face of limited resources as a consequence of U.S. and international led-military forces. U.S. military action succeeded in ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in December 2001. While Al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies once controlled 95% of Afghanistan, U.S. military campaigns succeeded in seizing large swaths of Al-Qaeda-held territory including its center of gravity near the Afghan-Pakistan border in Afghanistan and reduced its ability to carry out large-scale terrorist attacks. This impacted Osama Bin Laden’s immediate communications with the organization. This disconnect eventually reduced Al-Qaeda’s ability to plan until 2004 when Osama Bin Laden reconnected with Al-Qaeda after years of hiding. 

    Targeted killings proved effective in dismantling terrorist groups that followed a hierarchical bureaucratic structure. However, Al-Qaeda was still able to conduct attacks despite leadership decapitation. Thus, while leadership decapitation was a major blow to the terrorist organization, the bureaucratization of Al-Qaeda allowed the group to formulate contingencies for a leadership turnover. However, the GWOT succeeded in eliminating key terrorist leaders of Al-Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden. 

    Additionally, the U.S. made domestic advancements by developing more efficient technology and law enforcement processes and establishing the Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security to prevent further attacks on the U.S. homeland.

    Failures of the GWOT

    According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, nearly 20 years after the 9/11 attacks, the financial costs of the GWOT stand at $8 trillion and the death toll stands at 900,000 people. Casualties include U.S. military members, allied fighters, opposition fighters, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, and civilians. Of the total number killed, 287,000 are categorized as civilians, 207,000 as members of the national military and police forces, and another 301,000 as opposition fighters. 

    In the aftermath of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Iraq was destabilized without an effective bureaucratic system to provide basic goods and services to its citizens. The absence of adequate law enforcement and military forces to secure Iraqi borders, and the absence of extensive monitoring led to the country being infiltrated by former jihadist foreign fighters. 

    Following the Iraqi invasion, the provisional government led a de-Baathification process to rid the government and military of Ba’ath influence. The Ba’ath political party had previously led the country and top officials perpetrated human rights violations, but many had joined the party because it was the only way to gain many roles in the government sector. The de-Baathification gave rise to grievances that extremist groups started to exploit. Former Iraqi soldiers with no jobs were susceptible to radicalization. Grievances in the Sunni regions remained strong as there was little progress made with regards to reconstruction while security forces targeted former Ba’ath party members through unjust anti-terrorism laws. The use of unjust anti-terrorism laws, lack of security and services, and the length of displacement of these communities all led to an environment that extremist groups such as the Islamic State could exploit. All these conditions fueled radicalization and laid the foundations for the rise of other extremist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq. 

    GWOT moving forward

    Moving forward, the U.S. will likely continue to carry out special operations in regions that witness the rise of jihadi groups, to disrupt and eliminate terrorist organizations, disrupt terrorist financing, and prevent radicalization. U.S. military doctrine retains the essential elements to plan and execute successful operations against conventional and irregular opponents. Recently, the U.S. successfully executed a covert operation that killed the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) leader Abu Ibrahim al–Hashimi al-Qurayshi. This operation demonstrates a high degree of sophistication in U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. 

    Most importantly, the U.S. is incorporating countering violent extremism into the U.S. National Security Strategy to prevent the radicalization of individuals as radicalization and recruitment remain threat multipliers. Thus, preventing radicalization remains essential to countering extremism, especially in internally displaced camps where extremist propaganda is widely being spread. 

  • What is the Hyde Amendment?

    What is the Hyde Amendment?

    Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. It is important to differentiate between an illegal and a legal abortion. A legal induced abortion is defined by the CDC as a procedure performed by a licensed medical professional performed within the states regulation as means to terminate a pregnancy. On the other hand, an illegal, unsafe abortion is defined as a procedure as means to termine a pregnancy often performed by individuals who are not properly trained or in conditions that are not in minimal compliance with medical standards. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was passed which states that federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to pay for an abortion unless the person’s life is at risk or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 

    Abortions have been taking place in the United States from as early as the 1600s. Although reproductive care was widely unregulated around this time, midwives and other skills professionals performed these abortions. In the 19th century, physicians led a successful movement to criminalize abortion nationally. The abortion reform movement blossomed in the 1960s, and 11 states legalized abortion. In 1973, Roe v. Wade (recently overturned as of June 2022) established the legal, constitutional right to abortion nationwide.

    Why do people get abortions?

    There are a myriad of reasons why people seek (or need) to receive an abortion. While there are some that seek abortions due to medical reasons or health anomalies, there are others that seek abortions because the pregnancy was unintended. Other reasons for looking to get an abortion include being unable to financially support a child, disruption of work or school, absence of a partner, previous responsibilities, personal or fetus’s health, etc. 

    What role does healthcare insurance play in abortion?

    Healthcare insurance covering abortion services, like many other healthcare options, are dependent on state legislation, as well as on other programs such as Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance and other private insurance programs. Medicaid is a federal-state program that provides coverage for millions of people living under the poverty line, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and those with disabilities. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment was introduced and in 2010 reinforced by President Obama which limited the use of federal funds for abortion services. Employers provide health insurance to employees in two ways.

    1. Fully-funded programs refer to those where the employer purchases a health insurance program on behalf of the employees and is in charge of paying a monthly premium to the insurer.
    2. Self-funded insurance plans are those where the employer assumes financial risk and functions as the insurer of employees. 

    Fully-funded programs are regulated by both federal and state governments whereas self-funded plans are only regulated by the federal government. Some states, like Oregon and New York, have mandated that health insurance plans cover abortion while other states, like Alabama and Arkansas, barely make exceptions for cases of life, rape and incest. 

    Hyde Amendment 

    The Hyde Amendment limits the use of federal funds for abortion. Shortly after the national legalization of abortion via Roe v. Wade, federal funds were originally available to cover abortion services for those depending on federally funded healthcare programs such as Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest federal-state funded program that provides healthcare to millions of vulnerable Americans, and 1 in 5 Americans receive care under Medicaid.

    Arguments For and Against the Hyde Amendment

    Perspectives on the Hyde Amendment tend to fall along pro-abortion or anti-abortion lines. Those that oppose abortion on principle tend to favor any policy which limits legal access to abortion. Those that believe abortion is a personal decision tend to oppose any policy which limits legal access.

    Outside of the traditional pro- and anti-abortion debate, some additional arguments come into play specific to the Hyde Amendment. Some who believe abortion is a personal choice also believe that it is not a good use of taxpayer money, and do not want the federal government to fund abortions. In addition, Medicaid provides healthcare for 20% of women of reproductive age, including 30% of Black women and 24% of Hispanic women. For this reason, some oppose the Hyde Amendment because they believe it disproportionately impacts low income women and women of color, reinforcing socio economic inequities.

    The right to abortion and abortion itself continues to be a controversial topic in the United States. Although no longer a constitutional right, many continue to speak on it and how recent decisions and past (such as the Hyde Amendment) will continue to  affect those in need of an abortion.