ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Environmental Policy Impact on Housing in the U.S.

    Environmental Policy Impact on Housing in the U.S.

    Main Policies

    The Clean Air Act was established to help regulate emissions, and made housing closer to public transportation more desirable and thus, more expensive. The Clean Water Act was established to regulate run-off, development, residential and commercial pollution. It regulates development by requiring proper storm drainage or other means to prevent harmful runoff, this causes development prices to increase thus, raising housing prices. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Act (CERCLA) is a superfund that was created to help clean up hazardous waste. It makes owners responsible for toxic waste found on their property. The process of checking or removing toxic waste is expensive and contributes to housing prices. The Endangered Species Act is meant to protect species in danger of becoming extinct and to protect habitats and food sources. Desirable land close to protected land becomes more expensive because of the decrease in supply. 

    Impact on Urban vs. Suburban Housing

    The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act do not have as great an impact in urban areas because of the availability of public transportation, and storm drainage or other issues are typically integrated into the infrastructure of a city. Further, apartment buildings with 5+ units generally use less energy. These Acts have more effect on suburban living because of the environmental inefficiency of suburban living. Suburbs typically have larger homes, are more spread out, have larger/higher numbers of vehicles, and often infrastructure is not in place prior to the development of the area. The larger homes require more energy to heat or cool and suburban residents consume more gasoline because of their driving habits. Emissions from cars and transportation account for about 50% of all household emissions which can be avoided by using public transportation or alternative means of movement. City-dwellers have a smaller carbon footprint than suburbanites. Suburban areas tend to have fewer transportation options, although they are good candidates for electrical vehicles and solar energy. 

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more likely to affect suburban development than urban development. This is mostly because “conventional housing development has contributed to converting rural land at a rate three times faster than population growth.” This means that they are encroaching on rural land that hosts more wild species. There are cases in urban areas where the ESA applies, but it is far more common in suburban and rural areas. 

    Benefits of Smart Growth and Green Construction

    Advocacy for “smart growth” and green construction also impacts housing supply. Smart growth encourages green construction or approaches that consider the building’s whole life cycle. This means considering alternative uses for the building after its original purpose has been served or considering how the demolition of the building will impact the local environment. Green construction/building standards involve considering and pushing for the use of sustainable sites, energy and water-efficient materials and practices, sustainable materials and resource use, indoor environmental quality, emissions, operations, and maintenance (the resources available to fix issues safely and sustainably). Green construction can lead to savings on utilities through more efficient systems by reducing energy and water consumption. Examples of this include better insulation, low-flush toilets, building design that conserves heat such as window placement.

  • US Bilateral agreements with Japan and Korea

    US Bilateral agreements with Japan and Korea

    Bilateral Treaties are “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.” During the Cold War, bilateral treaties were the main way the United States created alliances in Asia. Bilateral treaties are important because they form the basis for the U.S. military relationship with both Japan and South Korea to this day. This alliance method meant the US would have separate treaties with each individual allied country in Asia (primarily Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), but those countries would not have treaties with each other. This gave the US a lot of power over its Asian allies, since the US had agreements with multiple countries in the region, while Asian countries only had agreements with the US. This arrangement shaped the balance of power and way alliances have generally worked in East Asia until present day. Many countries still have bilateral treaties, as opposed to multilateral treaties, which are agreements “between a large number of states, usually (though not always) denoting participation by a majority of the world’s states,” and therefore give more equal power to those signing the treaty.

    This alliance system the US created in Asia after World War II is called the “Hub and Spoke system,” also referred to as the “San Francisco System.” The United States was the “Hub” and countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan were the “spokes,” meaning these countries were all allied with the US at the center, but not with each other, like the spokes of a bike wheel. This allowed the United States to begin its rise to global supremacy by expanding its military reach across the Pacific.

    US-Japan Relations

    US-Japan relations were officially established at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945, after the conclusion of World War II. 46 nations plus four sponsors were invited to the conference because they had declared war on Germany and Japan. This conference was key because it was where the US wrote Japan’s constitution and disarmed their military, which “officially ended Japan’s position as an imperial power.” The 1951 United States-Japan Security Treaty established that the US would station soldiers on Japanese soil and have the exclusive right to defend Japan from threats even after Japan regained sovereignty, meaning Japan could not have its own standing military. The agreement was renewed in 1960 and created greater mutual security cooperation and reliance between the US and Japan by allowing the US to “establish bases on the archipelago in exchange for a commitment to defend Japan in the event of an attack,” which is still in effect today.

    Despite the fact that Article 9 of the Japanese constitution states that Japan is not allowed to have its own military, Japan created their own Self-Defence force (SDF) under Former Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida of Japan in 1954. The SDF established Japan’s maintenance of military forces to settle international disputes as a result of US presence being reduced in East Asia at the time. Under former Prime Minister Shinzō Abe in 2013, a reformed Article 9 allowed for the SDF and foreign militaries to collaborate to protect Japan from threats.

    US-South Korea Relations

    South Korea and the United States also have deep military ties. In June 1950, the North Korean military invaded South Korea and started the Korean War. With the help of the United States and United Nations forces, the War tentatively stopped with a ceasefire in July 1953. The US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty was formed in October of 1953 to give South Korea security guarantees from the US after South Korea was weakened as a result of the tragic Korean War, since North Korea still threatened to invade and reunify the peninsula. This peace treaty allowed South Korea to rebuild with less threat of another invasion.

    During the Cold War, South Korea’s fear of US abandonment became apparent. President Nixon decided to relocate a majority of the US Forces Korea (USFK) stationed in South Korea to Vietnam to aid the ongoing war effort there, raising concerns about US dedication to protecting South Korean. US Troops in South Korea continued to decrease after the Cold War under the 1990 Strategic Framework for the Asian Pacific Rim, known as the East Asian Strategic Initiative (EASI). EASI increased the United States’ relationship with East Asia and Japan mostly through heightened military ties. Tensions began to rise even more in the early 1990s as North Korea began to increase and exhibit its military capabilities and presence on the international stage. During this time, USFK remained in Seoul under the original US-ROK alliance in their largest and main base, Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul. 

    Present Day Consequences

    South Korea and Japan normalized relations in 1965, but despite this “friendship” treaty, they still have a lot of tensions stemming from Japanese Colonial rule over Korea. Before 1965, Japan and South Korea mainly cooperated with each other indirectly through their separate “hub and spoke” alliances with the US. This is important because these two alliances (plus Taiwan) are a strategic way the US can counter Chinese influence in the region today. 

    US Treaties with Asian allies have become increasingly important with the rise of a nuclear North Korea and an assertive Chinese stance. Furthermore, to this day the United States continues to maintain a large physical military presence in Japan and South Korea. The United States currently has 55,000 troops and over 80 military facilities stationed in Japan, more than in any other foreign country, and 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. Additionally, due to the treaties the US has with Japan and South Korea, if war broke out in either of these countries, the US would be drawn into war, making these security agreements hugely consequential.

  • Intro to 2018 U.S. Sanctions on Iran

    Intro to 2018 U.S. Sanctions on Iran

    History

    Sanctions have been the core of U.S.-Iran foreign policy since the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the U.S. government imposed sanctions as part of its strategy to prevent the Iranian government from supporting terrorist groups and destabilizing the Middle East. In the mid-2000s, U.S.-imposed sanctions expanded to curb Iran’s nuclear weapon production and reduce the country’s missile arsenal. Financial sanctions weighed heavily on Iran’s economy for decades, and led to the Iranian government agreeing to the 2015 J.C.P.O.A. 

    The Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.), was supported by permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, the European Union, and Iran. It committed to alleviating U.S., E.U., and U.N. sanctions if Iran complied with a list of demands, including restrictions on nuclear production. Though many economic sanctions were lifted under the J.C.P.O.A., some U.S. sanctions, including on direct trade with Iran and on Iran’s support of regional armed groups, remained in place.

    In 2018, the Trump Administration claimed Iran was not obeying the Iran Nuclear Deal rules, which sought to place limits on the country’s nuclear arms program, among other guidelines. In response, the Trump Administration removed the United States from the J.C.P.O.A. and introduced a “maximum pressure” campaign. At this time, sanctions that were eased under the 2015 nuclear agreement were reimposed with greater intensity.

    Benefits for the U.S.

    According to the Trump Administration, Iran’s nuclear program threatened  U.S. interests, and the J.C.P.O.A. didn’t curb inappropriate actions committed by the Iranian government. In a 2019 report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the reintroduction of sanctions sought to prevent the Iranian government from proceeding further with the following actions:

    1. Repressing the Iranian people
    2. Diverting humanitarian aid from low income Iranians to government interests
    3. Growing the country’s weapons arsenal
    4. Contributing to destabilization in the Middle East and promoting terrorism around the world

    In order to stop Iran’s “unacceptable actions” in the Middle East, sanctions were designed to cripple Iran’s main industries (oil, shipping, and banking) and weaken the country’s currency and purchasing power. These “unacceptable actions” referred to Iran’s support of terrorist organizations in Syria, Yemen, and other countries.

    Impacts on Iran

    Political Impact

    Sanctions can make counties more authoritarian and give more power to corrupt governments that hoard resources and use their power to control their people. While the entire country loses wealth, the government and financial elites lose less wealth than average citizens. In this way, U.S. sanctions on Iran have slowed the movement for democracy and civil rights in the country. Since the reimposition of sanctions, the Iranian government has continued to arrest activists for demonstrations and for promoting equal rights. However, it is not clear that these actions are directly related to the reimposition of sanctions.

    Economic Impact

    Financial sanctions have contributed to the following consequences for the Iranian economy:

    1. Currency Decline and Inflation: Iran’s currency value declined from 35,000 rials to the U.S. dollar under the J.C.P.O.A. to 265,000 rials to the U.S. dollar in late 2020. This contributed to major inflation – 45% in 2021 –  after the U.S.’s 2018 reimposition of sanctions.
    2. Lack of International Financial System Involvement: Additional sanctions in 2018 were placed on Iranian banks that were owned privately or by the government. Any financial institution who enters transactions with these sanctioned banks could face prosecution in the U.S. In 2019, international firms feared retaliation from the U.S. if they were caught in any form of transaction with Iran, including humanitarian imports into Iran. This threat prevented many firms from any interaction with Iran-based banks or organizations. Years of similar sanctions have inhibited Iran’s role in international trade, which ultimately affects the country’s wealth, imports of necessary items, and the number of reliable trading partners abroad.
    3. Oil Sales Reduction and Recession: Oil exports and petroleum production are the main industries in Iran. Reimposed and additional sanctions on banks involved in Iranian exports caused a decrease in oil sales and the inability of Iran to fully participate in the international financial system. In turn, this made Iran’s economy fall into a recession.

    Social Impact

    In recent years, Iran has experienced an increase in food insecurity due to inflation and a decrease in value of the rial. In addition, reports suggest a rise in domestic violence and suicide due to stressful economic conditions. Further, street fights have broken out in lines at food markets and currency exchanges over tense financial conditions exacerbated by economic sanctions on Iran.

    According to the Iranian National Bank in 2020, the poverty rate in Iran was close to 20%. However, other reports claim the rate to be as high as 35-40%. There are reports that generational poverty is more growing under the financial sanctions, which make it harder for employed Iranians born into poverty to climb the ladder to higher socio-economic classes.

    Though the U.S. government claimed sanctions would not impact the entry of humanitarian aid into the country, Human Rights Watch claims that sanctions have limited the purchasing power of Iranian healthcare facilities to acquire medicines for Iranians. Depreciation of Iranian currency, limits on banks who can finance sales with Iran, and threats to companies importing goods into the country prevent many Iranians from obtaining goods. 

    Future of U.S.-Iran Relations

    Election of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi

    The reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran in 2018 suggested to Iranians that working with the U.S. through diplomatic channels would not equate to a healthy relationship between the countries. Since sanctions were imposed, Iran saw “hardliners” win a majority of parliamentary elections in February of 2020. Additionally, many strong candidates running for president of Iran in 2021 considered themselves on the conservative and uncompromising side of politics. This categorization included the newly elected president, Ebrahim Raisi. 

    Raisi was elected president of Iran in June, 2021 with less than 50% voter turnout. Raisi is supported by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and has a record of human rights abuses. With Khamenei and Raisi on the same page, reports suggest Iran will become more conservative. This will likely include the Iranian government acting without the voice of the urban middle class, who support social reforms.

    J.C.P.O.A. (Iran Nuclear Deal)In early 2021, the Biden Administration said it welcomed a return to the J.C.P.O.A., with modifications, and a removal of harsh sanctions if Iran is willing to comply. On the other hand, the Iranian government wants the U.S. to remove the economic sanctions before an agreement is made and promise longevity for the future agreement. Further, Raisi suggested he would agree to a similar deal to the 2015 agreement but promised to push harder in talks related to Iran’s weapons capabilities. However, Raisi brings more conservative and unwavering views to the table, suggesting an unclear path to a deal between the countries. Additionally, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Bahrain, and Israel believe they have a right to enter talks regarding an updated nuclear deal with Iran, but Iranian leadership has qualms about the involvement of these countries.

  • Zapad 2021—Eastern Europe’s Military Alliance and NATO

    Zapad 2021—Eastern Europe’s Military Alliance and NATO

    Overview of Zapad 2021

    What is it?

    Zapad 2021 was a week-long joint military exercise between Russia and Belarus. Zapad, Russian for “west,” took place in Russia’s Western Military District, Belarus, and areas under the Northern Fleet’s Joint Strategic Command in the Baltic Sea. Zapad was proceeded by drills in the geographic regions of Vostok, “east,” in 2018, Tsentr, “center,” in 2019, and Kavkaz, “Caucasus,” in 2020. The exercise consisted of a three-day defensive phase simulating an invasion by Western actors, referred to as the Polar Republic, and a four-day counter-offensive to regain lost territory. Zapad essentially represented a show of Russian-Belarusian military solidarity and served as a staging ground for new doctrine, strategy, and weapons systems.

    Diagram Description automatically generated

    Image Courtesy of the ISW

    Important Actors

    Russia and Belarus were the primary states involved in the exercise, although military representatives from India and states in the Caucasus and Central Asia were present. Despite unreliable statistics, it is believed that a total of 200,000 military personnel participated in the exercises, and roughly 80 aircraft and helicopters, up to 15 ships, and nearly 300 tanks were used.

    A helicopter flying over a field Description automatically generated with low confidence

    Image Courtesy of Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

    Significant Developments from the Exercise

    Overall, Zapad was hailed as a success by the participating states. By the end of the exercise, the combined military force had defeated the Polar Republic, which served as a fictitious representation of NATO. Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin expressed satisfaction with the exercise’s results and hailed his military for its capabilities. The most intriguing technological success was the performance of Russia’s newly developed autonomous tanks, which represent the Russian military’s success in developing new autonomous weaponry.

    Although not a direct result of the exercise, Vladimir Putin had to recuse himself from viewing the exercise due to being exposed to the Covid-19 virus. Putin tested negative for the virus but isolated himself as members of his staff had tested positive.

    Implications for NATO and Eastern European Geopolitics

    The exercise was meant to serve as a show of unity between Russia and Belarus, and a show of force directed towards NATO. To the first point, Russia and Belarus’ close military relationship was apparent even before the exercise, as Belarus had recently purchased over $1 billion in Russian weaponry. This significant purchase signals that Belarus is concerned about its security. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asserted that Zapad was practice for preventing a western-backed color revolution in Belarus in response to the 2020 mass protests against his regime.

    Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko

    Image Courtesy of The Guardian

    Zapad caused significant concern in Ukraine, a country currently in conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. In response, the United States, Ukraine, and several other NATO countries plan to hold a joint military exercise in late September 2021 in response to Zapad named “Rapid Trident—2021.”

    Before the exercise, NATO officials advised Russia to be transparent and warned that any miscalculations could ignite a potential conflict. However, it is clear that Zapad was used to demonstrate Russia’s new military capabilities and project strength rather than serve as a pretense for an invasion of a neighboring state.

  • Key Policies in the History of U.S. Immigration

    Key Policies in the History of U.S. Immigration

    Introduction

    The first official piece of U.S. immigration policy was the Nationality Act of 1790, which created eligibility for citizenship by naturalization. From 1790 until the Nationality Act of 1965, U.S. policy prioritized immigrants from European countries, with heavy restrictions on immigration from other regions. Since that act, the immigrant, or foreign-born population, has quadrupled in size. The process to become a naturalized citizen has changed over the years as well. The foreign-born population includes any person who is not a U.S. citizen, including lawful permanent residents, naturalized U.S. citizens, temporary migrants, refugees and asylees, and unauthorized migrants.

    Historical Overview of U.S. Immigration Policy

    1. The Nationality Act of 1790

    The Nationality Act of 1790 was the first law enacted in United States history that defined who had the ability to become a naturalized citizen. It specifically allowed only “free white persons” who have resided in the U.S. for at least two years the ability to naturalize. The law also limited naturalization to those who were “of good moral character” and were male. Any child of a naturalized citizen under the age of twenty-one could also become a U.S. citizen. The use of the word “alien” when referring to an immigrant was first used in the wording of this act.

    1. Immigration Act of 1864

    Also known as An Act to Encourage Immigration, the Immigration Act of 1864 addressed labor shortages in the railroad and mining sectors by making it possible for immigrant workers to come to the United States. Similar to the concept of indentured servitude, immigrant workers would pay for their passage to the U.S. through a labor contract. This law was later repealed in 1868 due to protests by various labor organizations. Around this time in 1850, the U.S. began to survey the population through the census in 1850, and reported that there were 2.2 million immigrants, equaling 10% of the 23.2 million-strong population.

    1. Naturalization Act of 1870

    The Naturalization Act of 1870 expands the requirements defined in the Nationality Act of 1970 to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” However, other nonwhite immigrant groups such as Asians still could not become fully naturalized citizens.

    1. Series of Exclusionary Acts
      • The Immigration Act of 1875, also known as the Page Law or the Asian Exclusion Act, prohibited unfree laborers and women brought to the United States for “immoral purposes.” This act was primarily enforced against the Chinese. 
      • Soon after, in 1882, the United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that banned Chinese laborers from migrating to the U.S. for the next 10 years. It began the deportation of unauthorized Chinese immigrants and barred naturalization for any Chinese immigrants that had resided in the U.S. after November 16th, 1880. This act was renewed for another 10 years in 1892 with the Geary Act. In 1880, the total foreign-born population equaled 13.3% of the population. In 1902, the exclusion was expanded to those migrating from Hawaii and the Philippines.
      • The 1891 Immigration Act expanded the groups to be excluded from immigrating to the United States to those who have a contagious disease, practice polygamy, felons, and “all idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.”
      • The Immigration Act of 1903, also known as the Anarchist Exclusion Act, banned anarchists, beggars, and importers of prostitutes from immigrating. This was the first exclusionary act that banned immigration based on personal political beliefs.
      • The 1917 Immigration Act, known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, banned immigration from most Asian and Middle Eastern countries besides the Philippines, a U.S. colony. A literacy test designed to test the migrant’s ability to read English was also introduced.
    1. 1921 Emergency Quota Act

    Immigration quotas were introduced that allowed 3% of the foreign-born population of a specific nationality (from the 1910 census). Immigration from Asian countries was still barred. This was enacted due to fears of increased immigration soon after World War, and was primarily used to limit immigration from southern and eastern European countries. These quotas did not apply to countries in the Western Hemisphere. Total annual immigration was capped at 350,000. At this point, the total foreign-born population made up 13.2% of the total population which was 108.5 million.

    1. Immigration Act of 1924

    Also known as the 1924 National Origins Quota Act, the Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted immigration by reducing the annual immigration cap from 350,000 to 165,000. Additionally, the national origin quota was limited to 2% of the foreign-born population of a specific nationality counted in the 1890 census. This gave immigrants from northern and western European countries a better chance of immigrating. Policymakers wanted to maintain the majority-white ethnic makeup of the population, and at that time people from other parts of Europe were not considered white.. Asian countries continued to be barred from immigrating and a formal restriction on Japanese immigration was added. This act also allowed the U.S. congress to deny entry to Jewish people.

    1.  Bracero Agreement in 1942

    This agreement between the United States and Mexican governments addressed labor shortages during World War II. Mexican workers were able to sign contracts in the agriculture industry. Many Mexican workers experienced employer abuse and discrimination when participating in the program. This program was in practice until 1964, after reformers pushed for change. The foreign-born population decreased at this time to around 8.8% of the total population which was 132.1 million.

    1.  Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

    Also known as the McCarren-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 removed race as a grounds for exclusion for immigration and naturalization, while granting Asain countries a minimum quota of 100 visas per year. The national origins quota was updated to one sixth of 1% of each nationality counted in the 1920 census. Nonetheless, 85% of immigration quotas and visas were given to western and northern European countries. 

    1. Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962

    President Kennedy enacted this act in order to provide medical care, financial issues, educational help, resettlement, and child welfare services specifically for Cuban refugees. It formalized the Cuban Refugee Program to further help those in the Western Hemisphere fleeing oppressive regimes. It was used as a foreign policy strategy to oppose communist governments in the region.

    1. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

    The biggest reform to immigration policy, this act finally replaced the national origins quota system built around race and ethnicity restrictions with a system that stressed family reunification and skilled workers. Eastern Hemisphere countries were given 170,000 of the total visas per year and 120,000 were given to Western Hemisphere countries. In 1970 the foreign-born population reached an all time low of just 4.7% of the total population.

    1.  Refugee Act of 1980

    The Refugee Act of 1980 created a different policy for the admission of refugees into the United States. Through this act, the U.S. adopted the United Nations definition of a refugee: “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” It also established annual refugee quotas which were set by the Executive Branch. The Refugee Act was passed to facilitate immigration from conflict zones, and throughout the Cold War the U.S. prioritized giving refugee status to individuals fleeing conflicts related to communism. This included many Vietnamese and Korean refugees. 

    1. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

    Also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, this reform act created a pathway to residency for unauthorized immigrant workers who have resided in the United States since 1982. The H-2A visa, which allows for the admittance of temporary agricultural workers, was created under this act. 

    In 1987 President Reagan allowed for minor children of those who were legalized under this act to be protected from deportation. It was estimated that around 3 million immigrants, almost all of Hispanic descent, gained their legal status through this act.

    1. Immigration Act of 1990

    This act created H-1B visas and H-2B visas, which were given to highly skilled temporary workers and non-agricultural workers. The immigration cap was raised to 700,000 in 1990 (its highest point in U.S. history) and was lowered to 675,000 in 1995. The Diversity Visa lottery was also introduced, which allowed for people who had been negatively affected by the preference system set into place through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to enter a lottery system for U.S. citizenship. The entry of around 20 million people over the next two decades, the greatest influx of immigrants in the nation’s history, was attributed to this act. This was the last comprehensive immigration reform act passed through congress.

    Source: Migration Policy Institute

    1. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

    President Barack Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals through an executive action that gave young adults who arrived in the U.S. illegally the opportunity to apply for temporary deportation relief with a two-year work permit. 790,000 people have benefited since the start of the program. However, In July of 2021, a U.S. district court in Texas found that DACA was “illegal” and partially ended the program for first-time recipients. 

    1. Muslim Travel Ban

    The “Muslim Ban” was implemented in 2017 under an executive order by President Donald Trump’s in an effort to stop travel and refugee settlement from some majority-Muslim countries. Travel was banned for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, refugee resettlement was halted for 120 days, and Syrian refugees were banned indefinitely.

    U.S. Immigrant Population Today

    The first population records for the immigrant population took place in 1850, which reported 2.2 million immigrants making up 10% of the total U.S. population. A 2018 study found that 44.8 million people residing in the United States are foreign-born, which comprises almost one-fifth of the world’s total migrant population, and 13.7% of the U.S. population (totalling 327.1 million). Since American independence, the origin of the immigrant population has shifted from primarily European countries to Western Hemisphere nations like Mexico and Canada.

  • Introduction to the US Relationship with Uruguay and Paraguay

    Introduction to the US Relationship with Uruguay and Paraguay

    The two northernmost countries of the Southern Cone, Uruguay and Paraguay, are linked through both their geographies and their histories. The United States works closely with each country, especially in its efforts to combat drug trafficking across the Americas, and the two are frequent collaborators in establishing and advancing environmental protections.

    Republic of Paraguay

    Fact Sheet: 

    History of U.S.-Paraguay Relations

    The United States recognized Paraguay’s independence from Spain in 1852. In the years following the formation of this relationship, Paraguay experienced a series of coups, civil wars, and dictatorships. During the mid 19th-century, the country was also engaged in a series of border conflicts with its neighbours, in which the US military often attempted to intervene. These tensions culminated in the outbreak of the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-1870), a bloody interstate conflict between Paraguay and the alliance of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil, which resulted in the complete destruction of Paraguay and the death of half of its people. Following the devastation of the war, the Paraguayan government transitioned to a republic. However, the country remained divided by inter-party conflict throughout the early 20th century. General Alfredo Stroessner took control of the Paraguayan government by force in 1954, and ruled as dictator for several decades before being overthrown in 1989. During this period, relations between Paraguay and the United States collapsed entirely, a consequence of international backlash against the many human rights abuses committed by the general’s government.

    Over the past two decades, Paraguay has slowly made the transition to democracy. The United States encouraged this change and has provided support to the new government. This new relationship has given the United States a new partner in the Southern Cone to cooperate with on international issues of migration, crime, corruption, and environmental conservation.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Paraguay

    The United States is one of Paraguay’s largest sources of development aid and foreign direct investment. Of particular interest to the United States are issues of drug trafficking and money laundering, preservation of democratic norms within the country, and the conservation of Paraguay’s many natural resources. 

    Oriental Republic of Uruguay

    Fact Sheet

    • Population: 3.4 million
    • Capital: Montevideo
    • System of Governance: Presidential Republic
    • Chief of State and Head of Government: President Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou
    • Majority Language: Spanish
    • Majority Religions: Christianity (Roman Catholic, 47%), Nondenominational (23.2%), Atheist or Agnostic (17.2%)
    • GDP Per Capita: $21,561

    History of U.S.-Uruguay Relations

    The United States formally established diplomatic relations with Uruguay in 1867. The country was internally fractured by civil war less than a decade after it declared independence in 1830, with followers of Uruguay’s first and second presidents fighting over control of the government and the country’s political future. Conflict between these two factions, the Colorados and the Blancos, eventually boiled over the country’s borders, generating a multinational conflict between the countries of the Southern Cone known as the War of the Triple Alliance. Although the Colorados ended the war in power, tensions between the factions persisted. In 1905, a civilian government backed by popular mandate was established. The early 20th century saw progress on a number of social and political issues, including women’s rights and equitable distribution of power within government. Following the Great Depression, however, the country was once again engulfed in political turmoil leading to conflict and the government’s right-ward, authoritarian shift. Economic instability led to a six decade-long period of alternating constitutional reform and military control. A civilian government returned to power in 1985.

    Though the US never formally severed diplomatic ties with the country, relations were strained while Uruguay was under military control. For this reason, the US relationship with Uruguay is weaker than with neighboring countries like Argentina and Brazil. Once Uruguay returned to civilian-led democracy, the two countries began to strengthen their alliance.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Uruguay

    A central focus of US-Uruguay relations is the United States’ support for Uruguay’s participation in and support for conflict resolution and peacekeeping efforts in Latin America and across the world. Uruguay has a strong reputation in both regional and international forums for acting as a reliable mediator and for consistently advocating peace, stability, and democracy. In an effort to support these endeavours, the United States provides assistance to the Uruguayan government and military and encourages Uruguay’s engagement in programs, particularly those of the United Nations, that work to these ends. 
    As with issues of political stability and peacekeeping, Uruguay takes an active role in international organizations’ efforts to combat international crime. The United States supports these efforts through direct assistance and has partnered with Uruguayan law enforcement agencies and officials to augment the international community’s capacity to undermine organized crime and trafficking organizations, particularly in Central America. The United States similarly provides assistance, in the form of training. to the institutions of the Uruguayan justice system in an effort to support the country’s commitment to reforming and improving the country’s criminal justice and correctional systems.

  • Intro to Data Privacy

    Intro to Data Privacy

    Data privacy is concerned with the way personal data is collected, analyzed, and used. This is not to be confused with data security, which is how collected data is protected from external attacks. Within the United States, internet usage amongst adults has increased from 52% in 2000 to 93% in 2021. With more people using the internet, more personal data can be retrieved from online. Thus, improvement of data privacy is increasingly vital. In the definition provided by the California Consumer Privacy Act, private information includes any material “that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” Some examples of private information include, but are not limited to:

    • Health records
    • Email
    • Social Security Number
    • Postal address
    • Drivers license number
    • Passport number
    • Alias

    Federal Policy

    When it comes to understanding the policies in place to protect private data, only 3% of Americans know how current regulations and laws work. Furthermore, only 9% of Americans say they always read company privacy policies to understand how private data is used. This lack of knowledge about data privacy regulations is in part due to the way policies are set up. There is no federal regulation that includes language for multiple types of private data. Instead, multiple policies each cover a specific type of private data. 

    Here are the current federal policies that relate to data privacy:

    The Future of Data Privacy Policy

    Data privacy policies are currently being revisited. Legislation at both the international and state level has heightened the repercussions for companies if found guilty of personal data misuse. In May of 2018, the European Union passed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the most progressive and punishing data privacy policy to date, with strict fines and broad terms. This regulation punishes any enterprise that illegally collects or uses, in the scope of the GDPR literature, the data of residents of the EU even if the company is not in the EU. The GDPR governs data privacy under seven basic principles including lawfulness, fairness and transparency; purpose limitation; data minimization; accuracy; storage limitation; integrity and confidentiality; and accountability.

    In the United States, state level legislation is leading the way towards passing a federal law pertaining to data privacy. California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, the first active data privacy state regulation. With the CCPA in place, all residents of California have the right to know how their personal information is collected and used, the right to delete personal information, the right to opt-out of their information being sold, and the right to non-discrimination should they exercise their rights listed under the CCPA. In 2020, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) was passed. The CPRA builds on the CCPA, adding the right to rectification, right to restriction, and updated special protections surrounding sensitive personal data, like social security numbers. In addition to these new rights given to consumers, the CPRA established the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). The CPPA is the first private data privacy agency in the United States.

    Virginia is the second state to pass a data privacy law. The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) was signed into law in March 2021. The CDPA is very similar to the CCPA and CPRA. However, there are two key differences between the California legislature and the CDPA. First, enforcement of the CPDA in Virginia comes from the attorney general, not a private enforcement agency, like the CPPA in California. Secondly, the CDPA does not include a revenue threshold for companies to impose obligations. This allows companies to avoid the CDPA laws as long as they do not control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 consumers during a calendar year or control or process the personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive at least 50% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data. 

    Other states are working towards passing data privacy laws while using the GDPR and California legislature as examples to emulate and build upon. Despite the shared perspective that consumers’ data is valued, the Democratic and Republican parties want to regulate protection in different ways. Democrats focus on protecting the consumer, believing that data collectors should be held accountable for the misuse or mishandling of consumer data. Alternatively, Republicans fear that consumers could abuse their protections at the expense of industry and push for less strict punishments for companies that collect data. 

    As these differing viewpoints are discussed and navigated in policy making processes, states will look to establish their own laws. This trend can be tracked here, where you can view your own state’s progress in passing data privacy legislation.

  • Intro to the One Country, Two Systems Policy

    Intro to the One Country, Two Systems Policy

    Historical Context

    In the late 19th century, the Qing Empire ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain as part of a series of treaties ending the Opium Wars. Under these treaties, a majority of Hong Kong was leased to Great Britain for 99 years. In the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping, leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), entered into negotiations regarding the framework for the transfer of Hong Kong back to mainland China, also known as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). During these negotiations, Deng introduced the One Country, Two Systems policy as a way of absorbing the region without requiring it to immediately conform to mainland economic and political standards, as well as compromising with Britain, who technically owned Hong Kong Island and the nearby Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity. Under the declaration, signed in 1984, Hong Kong’s economic and social systems would remain unchanged for at least 50 years. After the implementation of this policy in Hong Kong, it was also applied to Macau when it was ceded by Portugal in 1999.

    What is “One Country, Two Systems”?

    One Country, Two Systems describes mainland China’s policy regarding its relationship to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Under this policy, the PRC views Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as Special Administrative Regions (SAR’s) with local governments that have more authority than the CCP usually grants. While China is governed by a one-party communist dictatorship, Hong Kong and Macau operate as capitalist societies with varying degrees of democracy. Macau’s government more closely resembles that of the mainland due to a largely pro-CCP population, while Hong Kong has a stronger democratic tradition. In contrast, Taiwan is more or less a fully independent country that does not recognize CCP authority. 

    While Hong Kong and Macau’s statuses as SARs allows them to operate under different systems from mainland China and remain semi-autonomous, they still must recognize the existence of one unified China. This is because one of the CCP’s key foreign policy goals and a matter of national pride is the existence of a unified China that includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Thus, the CCP often requires countries to recognize their sole authority under “One Country, Two Systems” in order to have normal trade relations with China. 

    Key government officials in Hong Kong and Macau must be approved by the CCP and deemed to be patriots. Additionally, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law, a constitution-like document for these Special Administrative Regions, also lies with the mainland. Furthermore, matters of defense and foreign affairs are under the CCP’s control. Essentially, the CCP reserves the right to interfere in the affairs of the SAR’s when those affairs affect the sovereignty or unity of China. Another more pragmatic reason for imposing the One Country, Two Systems policy is because China wanted to leverage the advantages of the region’s free markets. By utilizing the existing capitalist systems, they have served as a bridge between capitalism and socialism, opening China up to more foreign capital and supplementation and supporting the growth of the socialist economy.

    US Relationship to the Policy

    As of 1979, the United States recognises the PRC as the legitimate, sole ruler of China. While the US acknowledges mainland China’s claim that Taiwan is a part of China, it still maintains unofficial ties with Taiwan’s government and a strong commitment to protecting Taiwanese security, due to Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. Similarly, the US maintains that Hong Kong is “an independent customs territory and economic entity separate from the PRC and can separately enter into international agreements,” and is committed to Hong Kong’s prosperity, autonomy, and way of life.

    Recently, China has publicly stated its intention to fold Taiwan into the mainland under the One Country, Two Systems model, but has met heavy resistance from both the government and citizens of Taiwan. China will be the biggest international challenge to the United States in the coming decades due to its recent economic and military ascendancy. 

  • Introduction to Private Prisons

    Introduction to Private Prisons

    In the 1970s, the US government declared a “war on drugs” involving tough policies on drug-related crimes. These policies included strong minimum mandatory sentences and a reallocation of funds to support the imprisonment of individuals, with the intention of lowering crime rates and protecting citizens. The US experienced a “fivefold increase in imprisonment rates.” Due to the rapid growth of the inmate population and increased costs within the US prisons, the government outsourced inmates to for-profit private prisons.

    Federal and state justice systems decide whether to place certain inmates in private or government prisons. 9% of prisoners in the US are held in privately owned facilities, with a majority having federal convictions, and 73% of immigration centers are private. Though private prisons are used by both the federal and state governments, 20 states do not rely on private prisons (see table below).

    When inmates are put in the care of private prisons, accountability of treatment shifts from the government to private organizations. Private prisons are able to decide acceptance into their facilities through contracts with the government. Usually, private prisons negotiate restrictions on certain inmates, as there is a cap on how much the prison is willing to spend on each inmate. For example, out of eight private prisons contracted by the state of Arizona, five of those did not accept inmates with “limited physical capacity and stamina,” severe physical illness, or chronic conditions, while none allowed inmates with “high need” mental health conditions. Some inmates who became sick were “returned to state prisons due to an increase of their medical scores that exceed[ed] contractual exclusions.” 

    Comparing Private and Public Prisons

    The private prison industry is hugely profitable nationwide. To illustrate, one of the largest companies that operates and manages private prisons in the United States, CoreCivic, reported a total revenue of $1.91 billion in the year 2020. There is not sufficient data to demonstrate that private prisons are less costly than public prisons. In 2007, the United States Government of Accountability Office wrote a report urging the Bureau of Prisons to collect better comparable data between private and public prisons to determine the impact of the difference in costs. Additionally, a study in Florida found that recidivism rates between private and public prisons were about the same. When comparing the recidivism rates of men in private prisons with those in public prisons, the difference proved to be statistically insignificant. However, when comparing the adult female group, it was found that the recidivism rate in private prisons was lower than in public prisons. Private prisons have also been found to be less safe than public prisons. In 2016, the Department of Justice found that “contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions.” These incidents included an increase in contraband, lockdown, inmate discipline, reports of incidents, telephone monitoring, and selected grievances. 

    Recent Developments

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed the executive order on “Reforming our Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities.” This order directs the Department of Justice to phase out the use of private prisons by not renewing contracts with these institutions, ensuring that correctional systems focus on rehabilitation and education rather than punishment and provide inmates with a safe working and living environment. The executive order states that “[t]o decrease incarceration levels, we must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing out the Federal Government’s reliance on privately operated criminal detention facilities.” Though this executive order will neither immediately decrease incarceration rates nor drastically change prison environments, it is a step in the direction of a more humane incarceration and rehabilitation experience. 

    Incarcerated Individuals Held in the Custody of Private Prisons by Jurisdiction in 2019

    Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics, 2018 and 2019

  • Overview of Japanese Colonial Rule in Korea

    Overview of Japanese Colonial Rule in Korea

    In 1910, Korea was annexed by Japan, following a long and complicated history between the two nations. Relations between Korea and Japan were strained for centuries before the Japanese annexation of Korea, with one of the most notable conflicts being the Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century, in which Japan attempted to conquer Korea, but ultimately failed. By the beginning of the 20th century, Japan had established itself as the dominant military and imperialist power in Asia by defeating both China in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, formalizing Japan’s hold on the Korean peninsula.

    After annexing Korea, Japan established a government in which all of the officials were military leaders appointed by the emperor of Japan. Japan also imposed their education system onto the Korean colony, using it to assimilate Korea into Japan. Schools only taught in Japanese and excluded Korean history from their curriculum. The colonial government took away land from many Koreans and deprived them of rights such as the freedom of speech, assembly, and press. Japan also made efforts to modernize Korea’s economy. For example, Japan expanded Korean infrastructure by building nationwide infrastructure like roads, railroads, and electrical power. Japan also established heavy manufacturing industries in the north, such as steel, chemicals, and hydroelectric power. Much of this transformation was done using forced Korean labor.

    Struggling for Independence

    On March 1, 1919, a day also known as the March First Movement, Koreans held peaceful nationwide anti-Japanese rallies, which began with a written declaration of Korean independence. The Japanese responded with military force to suppress the demonstrations, killing, wounding, and arresting tens of thousands of protestors. Korean independence leaders formed the Korean Provisional Government, Korea’s first democratic republican government, in response to the Japanese suppression of the March First Movement. Koreans continued to fight for independence, carrying out armed struggles against Japan during the 1920s. In response, Japan imposed strict military rule over Korea in 1931 and, by the end of the 1930s, made efforts to erase Korean identity. Koreans were forced to adopt and use Japanese names, worship at Japanese shrines, and follow Japanese spiritual practices. Written work published in Korean was banned. Koreans were drafted to fight for Japan in both the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II, and were forced to work in mines, factories, and military bases for little or no pay. Following the outbreak of the war in the Pacific, young Korean women, also known as “comfort women,” were forced to perform sexual services for the Japanese military.

    Independence and Post-Independence Relations

    The Korean Provisional Government declared war against Japan in 1941 and established the Korean Restoration Army, which fought with the Allied forces in China. Japanese colonial rule in Korea ended in August 1945, when Japan surrendered at the end of World War II. Today, far-right groups in Japan insist that Japanese colonial rule was moderate, if not beneficial to Korea. They attribute Korea’s economic growth and success following the colonial period to the changes in infrastructure and education that Japan installed. Additionally, many of these groups in Japan say that Koreans have “‘enjoyed a moral arrogance through a moral superiority’ over Japan” and assert that Koreans themselves managed stations for comfort women, even though Koreans were compelled into many different types of labor during colonial rule. They argue that Japanese rule over Korea was not “brutal,” citing examples of colonial rule by Western nations, and claim that “Japan never practiced any of the forced labor, economic exploitation, and destruction of recalcitrant villages, with occasional forced relocation and racial segregation” that typifies Western colonialism, therefore making Japanese colonization “moderate” and “almost fair.” However, most Koreans who lived through this period give consistent accounts of Japanese oppression and exploitation, and both the victims of Japanese colonialism and scholars of Japanese history today agree that the “Japanese have never seriously faced…the realities of the devastating abuse Japan brought to neighboring nations and their people.”
    Koreans continue to fight to keep the memory of Japanese colonization alive by writing about it and erecting memorials, such as the comfort women memorial statues. Japan claims it apologized to Korea through a 1965 bilateral treaty, which established diplomatic ties between the two nations, and a 2015 fund. Nonetheless, Koreans believe that Japan has not truly apologized to the victims who suffered under Japanese colonialism, especially since the Japanese government continually denies the severity of Japanese colonialism and refuses to include Japan’s past atrocities in their education system. As Japan and South Korea are both key allies for the US in East Asia to counter Chinese influence, it is crucial that Americans understand the historical tensions between them. These disagreements could disrupt their partnerships with the US and change the balance of power in the Pacific.