ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Introduction

    In recent years, the idea of a merit-based immigration system has gained traction in the United States. Unlike the more familiar family reunification approach to immigration, a merit-based system would focus on ranking immigrants’ skills, qualifications, and potential contributions to the nation. One model of this approach, a points-based system, assigns candidates scores based on factors like education, work experience, and language skills. The higher the score, the better the chance of an immigrant’s admission. 

    Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia currently use points-based systems. In the United States, the RAISE Act of 2017 proposed adopting a similar model by reducing family-based admissions in favor of skills-based rankings. The bill did not pass; however, its introduction highlighted a shift in thinking about immigration reform. The debate around merit-based systems persists today. Supporters of a merit-based system say it will strengthen the economy, but critics argue it could distance the U.S. from its long-held values of offering refuge and opportunity to those in need. The tension between economic benefits and social ideals sits at the heart of the ongoing debate about the future of American immigration policy. 

    Arguments in Favor of Points-Based Systems

    Proponents of a merit-based immigration system argue that the policy prioritizes skilled workers who can positively contribute to the economy. They claim that by focusing on applicants with valuable assets, the United States could address labor shortages in critical sectors and select individuals whose skills match its needs. Proponents emphasize that this ability to fill economic gaps will enhance the nation’s innovation and competitiveness on a global scale by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains and prioritizing the hiring of documented American workers. They add that merit-based immigration could more effectively diversify the professional workforce than family-based policies, since prioritized applicants will be of appropriate age and skill level to enter certain vocations. 

    Additionally, proponents argue that a merit-based system will speed up the U.S. immigration process. Proponents point to the fact that when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand shifted to points-based systems, they did not have to expand their immigration departments because the system was less resource-intensive. The new points-based systems elicited a decrease in family-based visa applications, requiring less government personnel and time expenditures on screenings and interviews. Supporters add that the ranking component of points-based systems discourages unqualified applicants from submitting applications in the first place. They say this allows the government to cut down the time required to screen applications and invest that saved time in supporting new immigrants once they arrive. 

    Supporters also contend that a merit-based system would be more just than family-based immigration because it rewards individual achievements rather than personal connections. They argue that merit-based systems create a more transparent and objective process in which immigrants are chosen based on their potential contributions to society. 

    Finally, supporters argue that merit-based systems are more adaptable and flexible than family-based systems because point categories can change based on the country’s needs. For instance, as industries grow or decline, the criteria for earning points can adjust to attract the necessary talent or skills. This adaptability allows the government to respond quickly to labor shortages and emerging economic sectors, ensuring that immigration policy aligns with national interests. 

    Arguments Against Points-Based Systems

    Opponents of a merit-based immigration system raise concerns about discrimination and inequity. They argue that points-based systems favor immigrants from wealthier regions with access to higher education and professional development opportunities. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign proposed several measures for a merit-based immigration framework, one of which involved ideological screening as a step in issuing green cards. Critics criticized this step in the ranking process, saying it will discriminate against immigrants with diverse political beliefs. 

    Another primary concern with merit-based systems is that they overlook essential workers in the agriculture, construction, and service industries. These fields rely on a continuous supply of laborers who may not meet the high educational requirements typically emphasized in merit-based frameworks. Critics hold that by focusing solely on highly-educated immigrants, a merit-based system could create labor shortages in these critical sectors of the American economy, disrupting production and creating economic bottlenecks. For example, in the agriculture sector, labor shortages directly impact food supply and prices, with ripple effects down to consumers. Similarly, the construction industry relies heavily on manual labor, and could face slowed project completion rates and increased labor costs if faced with a shortage in workers. 

    Opponents also argue that the merit-based system’s emphasis on skills undermines family reunification, a core principle of American immigration policy. For many, the ability to bring family members together reflects the fundamental value that family units contribute to resilient communities. Families provide social and economic stability, help preserve cultural traditions, and contribute to the well-being of society. However, a points-based system makes it more difficult for families to stay together or reunite quickly, since not all family members may meet the skill criteria. 

    Finally, critics hold that merit-based systems do not adequately address the needs of refugees or asylum seekers. These categories of immigrants may not meet educational requirements, but require immediate protection from persecution, violence, or conflict. Opponents hold that denying entry to a person fleeing a dangerous environment on the basis of education or skills is deeply unethical. 

    Additionally, opponents disagree with the notion that the American immigration system must choose between increasing economic value and tending to humanitarian needs. They point to research that shows that refugees stimulate their host country’s economy by creating jobs, contributing tax revenue, and driving consumer spending. They emphasize that refugees often fill crucial roles in the healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and education sectors, where labor gaps are common. In 2019, 13% of refugees in the U.S. identified as entrepreneurs and collectively generated $5.1 billion in business income. Critics of points-based systems argue that refugees and asylum seekers also broaden the cultural landscape of society by introducing diverse perspectives, skills, and cultural practices. They contend that limiting their entry disregards ethical imperatives and the long-term benefits of their presence in the U.S.

    Conclusion 

    The debate over whether the United States should adopt a merit-based immigration system raises critical questions about the country’s core values and future economic priorities. While proponents argue that points-based systems offer economic benefits by attracting skilled workers and decreasing processing times, critics warn that they risk widening global inequalities and eroding the humanitarian principles central to American immigration policy. This tension will continue to shape the ongoing debate over the future of American immigration policy.

  • Transportation Funding Debate: Key Facts and Insights

    Transportation Funding Debate: Key Facts and Insights

    Introduction

    Transportation infrastructure is the physical framework that supports the movement of people and goods across a country. This framework includes roads, highways, bridges, airports, public transit systems, and more. Building and maintaining efficient transportation infrastructure is essential for a strong economy, from stocking grocery store shelves to work commutes. However, transportation infrastructure in the United States has fallen into disrepair. In 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a C- for its infrastructure, and in 2020, 32% of urban roads were in unsatisfactory condition. Overall, there is a widely-established need for improved transportation infrastructure in the U.S., yet addressing this problem requires a discussion of how funding should be divided between state and federal authorities. The way transportation is funded influences people’s interactions with infrastructure, such as their demand and travel behaviors, because various funding methods have different effects. 

    Arguments in Favor of State-Level Funding

    Proponents of increased state-level funding argue that the states should be responsible for reversing the decline of transportation infrastructure in the U.S., since states have more than one way to source funding for projects. States typically pay for infrastructure projects either by borrowing funds or through taxes and fees. Overall, states pay for around 36% of transportation infrastructure projects in the U.S. Thirty percent of transportation infrastructure is funded through state borrowing. The borrowing method has been shown to have greater benefits for bigger projects, as the costs of large investments are spread out over several years. Alternatively, state taxes and fees – including gasoline taxes and road tolls – pay for 6% of transportation infrastructure in the U.S. The share of local government spending on public transit is increasing, but the share of local government spending on roads is declining. 

    Historically, infrastructure development was reserved as a state responsibility. The federal government has expanded its role in this area in recent decades, specifically with grants-in-aid programs. Through these programs, states receive federal funds with requirements attached that dictate how the funds should be spent.  Critics argue that these regulatory controls are causing the federal government to micromanage state activities with no apparent benefit, and that grants-in-aid programs should thus be phased out.  

    Generally, proponents of state funding for transportation infrastructure argue that states are better positioned to understand and address the unique needs of their area. They point to evidence that state highway maintenance spending is critical for improving the quality of roads and bridges since states can tailor spending to local conditions. Additionally, proponents of increased state funding argue that federal infrastructure funding encourages overspending. They say that federal policymakers aim to maximize subsidies for their states, and consequently may not consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the funded programs. For example, supporters of state funding believe that the Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act, which directed federal funds towards several infrastructure projects, had a questionable return on investment. They posit that if states were instead given the autonomy to fund infrastructure projects, each dollar spent would have a greater effect on infrastructure improvement since states are not allowed to run deficits like the federal government.

    Arguments in Favor of Federal Funding

    The federal government traditionally funds transportation infrastructure through the aforementioned grants to states, and covers about one-fourth of highway and transit spending in the U.S. This money is sourced primarily from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, and payroll taxes. 

    Proponents of increased federal funding argue that federal backing generates more trust and buy-in from involved parties, from lenders to transit agencies. They claim that this enhanced buy-in encourages larger research and development budgets, supports domestic manufacturing, helps deliver projects faster due to increased lender trust, and improves infrastructure quality due to more reliable maintenance of materials. 

    Moreover, supporters argue that federal funding is more equitable than state level funding due to its revenue sources. Federal revenue sources rely on progressive taxation models such as income taxes; these tax wealthier people at higher rates than lower-income people. On the other hand, state funding relies on regressive taxation, such as sales and fuel taxes; these tax everyone at the same rate. Regressive taxation systems take a larger share of low-income people’s resources, and are thus inequitable. Because of this, proponents of federal transportation funding hold that using federal funding is the only way to spread the tax burden of large transportation projects equitably. 

    Others argue that federal funding promotes long-term sustainability in transportation projects, with respect to both durability and climate consciousness. Due to its larger budget, proponents claim the federal government is able to prioritize long-term benefits over band-aid fixes. Additionally, supporters emphasize that states tend to be less consistent in funding long-term projects, so federal funding prevents infrastructure in lower-income states from falling behind infrastructure in higher-income states. 

    Conclusion

    As the government works to modernize American transportation infrastructure, the debate over funding revolves around the principles of federalism, as both states and the federal government will ultimately contribute to building and maintaining infrastructure. Each level of government’s share of responsibility and control greatly impacts the quality of American infrastructure. As this issue evolves, it is important to consider the ramifications of each infrastructure project and its funding sources on local communities.

  • Understanding the Debate on Fair Access to Mental Augmentation in Neurotechnology

    Understanding the Debate on Fair Access to Mental Augmentation in Neurotechnology

    Neurotechnology is an area of technology that specifically applies to the monitoring, regulation, or enhancement of brain activity. As neurotechnologies advance, the once far-fetched idea that humans might leverage technology to augment their nervous system has become closer to fact than fiction. Mental augmentation encompasses any means by which people enhance their mental functions beyond what is necessary to maintain health. Although potentially useful, the application of mental augmentation technologies today presents challenges and controversy.

    Applications of Mental Augmentation: Medical vs. Recreational

    Neurotechnology devices serve either medical or recreational purposes. Medically, these devices treat mental health disorders, learning disabilities, and neurological conditions by stimulating the brain. Recreationally, they enhance learning and cognition or improve efficiency.

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are both FDA-regulated medical treatments. Although their primary purpose is treatment, they have also been proven to improve brain functions. TMS, primarily used to treat depression, improves cognitive functions such as episodic and working memory, and motor learning, with treatment costs ranging from $6,000 to $12,000. DBS, used to treat Parkinson’s disease, enhances learning and long-term memory, with an average procedure cost of $39,152. Candidates for DBS must have severe symptoms, unmanageable by medications. 

    Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is currently unregulated by the FDA and is considered a non-medical device. tDCS devices can be sold for “wellness” purposes and recreational use. tDCS increases neuronal plasticity, encouraging the formation of connections that reinforce learning. Research suggests that tDCS enhances cognitive and behavioral performance, and potentially improves language acquisition, math ability, and memory. tDCS devices are available online and can cost as little as $40 to around $500. 

    Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

    Given its easy accessibility for mental enhancement and recreational use, tDCS plays a central role in the debate on fair access to neurotechnologies. It is difficult to determine how many people use tDCS for mental enhancement rather than medical treatment, since the line between medical and recreational use is blurred. Users like Phil Doughan seek mental improvement exclusively, while others, like Kathie Kane-Willis, use the device to fix issues like brain fog, a medical symptom that is often subjective and difficult to measure. 

    tDCS is not widely used; however, one study suggests that brain stimulation could one day become mainstream, similar to the way people use caffeine to increase alertness. A study done by Pew Research found that nearly half of Americans (47%) say they would be at least somewhat excited about mental augmentation techniques that allow people to process information more quickly and accurately. 

    tDCS is not FDA approved, which means companies currently have the freedom to bring tDCS devices to the market with claims of treating medical conditions and enhancing brain function. Advertisements can be misleading as tDCS studies have not yet conclusively shown that the technique provides real benefits. One neuroscientist notes that the public adoption of tDCS is happening at a faster pace than related research. International organizations suggest that this under-researched and unregulated use of neurotechnologies entails unprecedented risks for human rights. 

    The NeuroRight to Fair Access to Mental Augmentation

    Amidst ethical concerns about neurotechnology, Dr. Rafael Yuste founded The Neurorights Foundation to advocate for human rights directives and ethical guidance on neuro technological innovation. Concerned with the possible exacerbation of inequality between people who can and cannot afford neurotechnologies, professors have proposed a framework entitled The NeuroRight to Fair Access to Mental Augmentation. The framework states, “There should be established guidelines at both international and national levels regulating the use of mental enhancement neurotechnologies. These guidelines should be based on the principle of justice and guarantee equality of access.” 

    Brazil and Chile have both enacted legislation to ensure equitable access to neurotechnology. Brazil’s Article 13-E of bill No. 522/2022 states that “The State shall take measures to ensure equitable access to advances in neurotechnology”. Similarly, Chile passed the “Neuroprotection Bill”, which establishes that “The State will guarantee the promotion and equitable access to advances in neurotechnology and neuroscience”. Chile’s “Neuroprotection Bill” faces criticism for its vague scope, limitations, and obligations, highlighting the need for more nuanced discussion of the issue. 

    The Central Debate

    Proponents of Fair Access to Mental Augmentation are concerned that cognitive enhancements may primarily benefit the wealthy due to high pricing, which may widen social, cultural, and economic divides. They suggest that the enhanced mental abilities afforded to those with the purchasing power to buy mental augmentation devices will further exacerbate wealth gaps. Moreover, proponents argue that the social polarization caused by augmentation technology would have knock-on consequences for a range of human rights, raising questions about how far a “neurotech divide” could set back equality and inclusion. They warn that augmentation devices require especially careful consideration when used in classrooms, workplaces, and other competitive environments where wealth differences are amplified. And even in the context of medical treatment, the benefits of neurotechnologies will not be financially accessible to everyone. Proponents of the NeuroRight to Fair Access also point out that if augmentation becomes a widespread practice, enhanced abilities may become a standard. This raises the challenge of respecting people’s will to not use neurotechnologies – an issue touched on in the NeuroRights framework. 

    Critics of Fair Access to Mental Augmentation question the feasibility of implementing the policy framework. If equal access to neuroenhancement is established in a way where states are responsible for guaranteeing equal access to all, this would imply a fiscal burden to already-underfunded health systems that cannot provide access to more basic human needs. Critics also argue that the NeuroRights framework must be adapted to various economic, cultural, and social contexts before its implementation, since augmentation technology is not equally perceived nor equally accessible across the globe. For example, mental augmentation may go against religious precepts and morals where the modification of human nature is not viewed favorably. Moreover, enshrining access to mental augmentation as an international human right risks punishments for developing nations with less access to such technologies, which may widen gaps between wealthy and historically-exploited countries.

    Conclusion and Future Prospects

    Neurotechnologies have recently entered the market, increasing the availability of products for mental augmentation purposes. The global neurotech market is growing at a compound annual rate of 12% and is expected to reach $21 billion by 2026. This rapid pace of innovation suggests that we may be late to regulate neurotechnologies. To promote responsible and ethical use, it is crucial to engage in proactive and thoughtful discussions on how to regulate neurotechnologies effectively.

  • How News Organizations “Call” the Presidential Election

    How News Organizations “Call” the Presidential Election

    Tuesday, November 5th marks Election Day in the United States. As millions of voters cast their ballots, news organizations carefully analyze incoming voting data to determine the winner in several races, including the presidency. But even though news organizations such as the Associated Press can “call” a presidential election, their projections do not constitute official election results. Election results are instead certified by the government. However, due to the fragmented and often slow-moving design of the Electoral College, the official Electoral College vote does not usually occur until December. In order to fill the time gap between Election Day and the Electoral College vote, news organizations analyze vote count data from each state to determine state-level results, predict state Electoral votes, and ultimately declare one candidate the next President.

    The Long Road to Official Election Results

    Presidential election results in the U.S. are not determined by the popular vote, but instead by the Electoral College vote. As specified in the Constitution, each state receives a number of Electoral College representatives proportional to the state’s congressional delegation size. For example, Vermont has three electors since the state has two Senators and one Representative in Congress. As populations shift, census-based redistricting can cause states to gain or lose electors. However, Electoral College votes are not proportional to population size; for example, one Electoral College vote in Wyoming accounts for 195,000 people, while one Electoral College vote in Texas accounts for 700,000 people. 

    Before the November election date, each presidential party chooses its slate of electors for each state. There are few criteria to be an elector other than not having engaged in insurrection and not holding national Congressional office. Currently, all but two states operate under a “winner takes all” system in which all of that state’s electors are sworn to cast their Electoral College vote for the presidential candidate who won the majority of votes in their state. Faithless electors, or electors who cast their Electoral College vote for someone other than the candidate they swore to vote for, complicate the predictability of this system and are not currently regulated consistently across states. 

    After November votes are tallied and the winner in each state is made evident, electors meet in their respective states to cast their votes in mid-December. The results of the Electoral College vote are then sent to the newly-elected national Congress which meets to declare official election results on January 6th. 

    How News Organizations Calculate Timely Results

    In order to calculate the results of the presidential election on or soon after Election Day, the media tabulates votes as they are cast. Media organizations will typically use two methods to determine votes: national polls or data collected from local officials such as county clerks. Since 2003, news networks have worked together to create an organization called the National Election Pool to create exit polls that more accurately capture voting choices. After the 2016 presidential election results differed widely from polling projections, the Associated Press left this consortium of news networks in favor of conducting its own online polling. The Associated Press determined that because voting on Election Day is no longer more common than voting early or by mail, Election Day exit polls are disproportionate to the larger electorate. Thus, the Associated Press created its own polling methodology, AP VoteCast, to attempt to provide polling methods that better accounted for the votes casted prior to Election Day. 

    Through a combination of polling and collecting voting results, news organizations are tasked with determining the President-elect in real time. News organizations analyze incoming votes to determine if the trailing candidate can achieve the number of votes needed to catch up to the current polling leader based on the number of votes a county or state has historically received in previous elections, the demographics of the area, and past voting history. Based on this analysis, if a news organization determines that there is no chance the trailing candidate will achieve the number of votes necessary to overtake their opponent, the news organization will call the race. 
    In states where the race is close, news organizations may not call a clear winner until days after Election Day. This is because states have different voting laws. Some states do not start counting votes until Election Day, causing a delay in results compared to other states. Additionally, in some states, mail-in ballots received within a certain period after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. These discrepancies can cause delays in news media tabulations, as organizations wait for official state vote tallies. For example, the 2020 presidential election was called by most media outlets four days after Election Day due to the steep increase of mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated delays in vote counting.

  • Pros and Cons of the Kids Online Safety Act

    Pros and Cons of the Kids Online Safety Act

    The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) responds to the escalating youth mental health crisis and its ties to harmful online content and addictive social media algorithms. Given the rising rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness among children in the U.S., KOSA aims to establish a legal framework that promotes a healthier online ecosystem for youth. 

    KOSA: An Introduction

    For clarity, it is essential to differentiate between two important technology policies: the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which are often considered together due to their concurrent passage in the Senate. This brief will focus specifically on KOSA. COPPA primarily addresses privacy through provisions like prohibiting the collection of personal data from children 13 and under without parental consent, but KOSA takes a different approach to online safety that emphasizes the mental health impacts of social media use.

    In a time of increasing legislative partisanship, KOSA is a strongly bipartisan proposal with 72 co-sponsors and the support of President Biden. However, despite passing 91-3 in the Senate, KOSA now faces resistance from House GOP members over potential censorship issues, rendering it unlikely for the bill to advance in its current form. This opposition emphasizes the challenge of balancing online safety regulations and First Amendment rights. 

    KOSA: The Youth Mental Health Crisis

    Research suggests that youth today struggle with mental illness at higher rates than past generations. From 2007 to 2018, rates of suicide among the ages 10-24 increased by nearly 60%. According to the CDC, three in five teen girls report feeling “persistently sad or hopeless,” and 30% have seriously contemplated suicide. One study shows that increased social media use is linked to higher levels of anxiety, depression, and self-doubt. Moreover, a study by the NIH found that the risk of depression rose by 13% for each hour of increase in social media use among adolescents.

    Modern-day social media algorithms are intentionally addictive, promoting compulsive use. Congress defines compulsive use as any behavior driven by external stimuli that causes individuals to engage in repetitive behavior reasonably likely to cause psychological distress, loss of control, anxiety, or depression. Furthermore, algorithms often recommend inappropriate or harmful content. For example, as teens click on advertisements for weight loss products, their feeds can become dominated by the content, negatively impacting body image. A study reported that thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.

    KOSA’s Major Provisions

    KOSA emerged in response to the research linking youth mental health struggles to social media use. The bill aims to protect children’s mental and emotional safety online by:

    • Requiring platforms to modify their content moderation policies in order to reduce major harms such as mental illness onset, sexual exploitation, and the sale of illicit drugs to minors on their platforms.
    • Giving minors the tools to restrict the collection and visibility of private information. 
    • Allowing minors to opt out of addictive algorithmic recommendations. 
    • Requiring platforms to default to the strongest safety settings for child users. 
    • Holding online platforms accountable through annual independent audits. 

    Arguments in Favor of KOSA

    Proponents of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) argue that the bill is crucial for protecting youth from mental health challenges. Pediatricians across the nation have spoken out about the urgent need to create a healthier digital environment for children and adolescents. Additionally, the U.S. Surgeon General released an advisory stating social media carries a “profound risk of harm” to youth. The U.S. surgeon general called on Congress to require warning labels on social media platforms and their effects on young people’s lives, similar to those on cigarette boxes. This emphasis on mental health is a central aspect of the arguments in favor of KOSA. 

    Autonomy is a key argument in the discussion surrounding KOSA as well. Addictive algorithms keep kids endlessly scrolling and seeking dopamine hits from follower engagement. There is currently no mechanism for opting out of recommendation algorithms. KOSA aims to change this by requiring social-media platforms to provide parental controls and disable features like algorithmic recommendations. Supporters argue that this provision would provide parents and kids with more autonomy over their online experiences, allowing them to gain greater control over their usage times. 

    Supporters also argue that KOSA is an important step toward holding companies accountable for the harm they cause. They emphasize that Big Tech companies have designed social media to maximize profit by exploiting children’s developmental vulnerabilities for commercial gain. After years of operating with few regulations, tech firms are receiving increasing scrutiny for alleged harms to young users, exposed by whistleblower revelations. Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, disclosed tens of thousands of pages of internal Facebook documents to Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission proving that Facebook was aware of their negative impact on teens’ mental health. Microsoft, Snap, and X have all endorsed KOSA, likely in recognition that profits can still be made while taking reasonable steps to protect children. 

    Arguments Against KOSA

    Critics of KOSA express concerns about potential censorship of online content. On one hand, many conservatives argue that empowering the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with censorship authority could lead to the suppression of legitimate speech. For example, if a Republican leads the FTC, content discussing LGBTQ+ lives, reproductive health, and climate change might be deemed harmful to youth, while a Democratic leader could censor discussions on automatic weapons, shootings, and religious viewpoints on the LGBTQ+ community. Critics fear KOSA could be enforced for political purposes.

    On the other hand, many liberal legislators are concerned with KOSA’s Duty of Care provision, which requires companies to “prevent and mitigate” harms to children such as bullying, violence, and negative mental health impacts. They worry that this provision could lead to the censorship of LGBTQ+ content and reproductive health content as companies over-filter content to avoid legal repercussions. In September 2022, the Heritage Foundation seemingly endorsed KOSA in an editorial, praising the Duty of Care provision’s potential to limit what they claim is Big Tech’s influence on children’s gender identities. The Heritage Foundation later expressed intentions to use similar bills to limit transgender content online, fueling concerns about KOSA’s potential dangers for the LGBTQ+ community.  

    The Duty of Care provision has been revised since its initial introduction. Originally, KOSA specified various mental health conditions that companies needed to mitigate, but after revisions, the emphasis shifted to preventing the promotion of inherently dangerous behaviors. Despite these changes, critics maintain that the provision remains too broad and vague, potentially leading to censorship of crucial information. Although KOSA includes a limiting principle saying nothing in the Duty of Care will prevent a minor from deliberately searching for a specific type of content, companies may still censor content to prevent compliance issues. 

    Another significant concern is that KOSA could be counterproductive, potentially increasing the risks of online harm to children. Critics argue that by restricting access to lawful speech on topics such as addiction and bullying, KOSA may hinder minors from finding supportive online communities and feeling comfortable in their identities. 

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, KOSA aims to address the rising youth mental health crisis by holding platforms accountable for their negative mental health impacts and enhancing parents’ and young users’ autonomy over their online experiences. While supporters believe the bill will create a safer digital environment, concerns about potential censorship and the implications of KOSA’s Duty of Care provision underscore the complexities of balancing safety with free speech. This balance presents a continuing challenge as lawmakers debate the future of the bill.

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.

  • Immigration Policies: Where Each Presidential Candidate Stands

    Immigration Policies: Where Each Presidential Candidate Stands

    As the upcoming election draws near, immigration remains a top issue of concern amongst voters. According to Pew Research, 61% of registered voters say immigration is a “very important” issue when considering their vote. Many presidential candidates have centered immigration reform in their platforms, addressing everything from the border wall to administrative reforms in immigration processing. 

    Donald Trump

    Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has expressed the idea that there is a “massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction.” He plans to deputize the National Guard and local law enforcement to remove illegal immigrants and create a merit-based immigration system to limit the number of migrants entering the country. Additionally, in his keynote speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump promised to “close the border” and finish constructing his border wall with Mexico. He has also promised to apprehend and deport all illegal immigrants, arguing that their presence is “unfair” to those who entered the country legally. Trump also plans to reinstate policies from his previous term in office such as his “Remain in Mexico” policy which would force migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico until their court date with a U.S. immigration judge. Under his presidency, Trump promised to create the “most secure border in U.S. history” and to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

    Kamala Harris

    Throughout her campaign, Kamala Harris has promised to secure the Southern border and to “reform our broken immigration system.” During her time as Vice President, she supported the bipartisan border security bill that, if it had passed, would have imposed limits on asylum eligibility, added over 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel, and increased funding for cities and states to provide support for immigrants. She has promised to reintroduce that bill and sign it into law if elected President. As Vice President, she was also tasked with “dealing with the root causes of immigration” in Latin American countries, working with various nations to mitigate poverty and lower the number of migrants leaving those countries. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention this past August, she stated that she wants to create an “earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border.”

    Jill Stein 

    Jill Stein aims to overhaul the immigration system in the United States. She believes that border policy should shift from focusing on detention and enforcement to humane and effective asylum processing. She believes that migrants should initially be screened for criminal records before being granted entrance into the country. Stein’s reform policies include abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), constructing an Office of Citizenship under the Department of Labor, granting amnesty to every undocumented person in America, expanding refugee programs, and increasing the number of visas available to immigrants. Stein believes that immigrants’ rights are human rights that America has the duty to protect. 

    Cornel WestCornel West’s immigration policies aim to uphold principles of “dignity, respect, and human rights.” West wants to create clear and broad legal pathways for immigrants to seek residency within the country and dismantle the bureaucratic barriers that prevent immigrants from obtaining status. West also seeks to abolish ICE, demilitarize the border, and create a more humane path to seeking legal status. Additionally, West hopes to uphold asylum laws to ensure that those who flee persecution and violence have the opportunity to find safety within American borders so that America remains a “refuge for the oppressed.”

  • U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    Background

    The citizenship question is a proposed addendum to the decennial U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the U.S. Census every ten years to determine the headcount of the United States. The results of the U.S. Census are used for several purposes, including:

    • Apportionment (the process of proportionally distributing the 435 seats in the House of Representatives to the 50 states)
    • Redistricting
    • Determining the distribution of federal funds to state and local programs. 

    The Census Bureau sends the decennial Census in the form of a survey that asks questions about the respondent’s date of birth, sex, race, and income. 

    The citizenship question, if it were added to the census, would additionally ask respondents if they and/or members of their household are citizens of the United States. The decennial U.S. Census previously included a question about citizenship beginning in 1820, but removed the question after 1950. The question does continue to appear, however, on the American Community Survey (ACS), another survey conducted by the Census Bureau which is sent to 3.5 million households annually.

    The citizenship question became a topic of debate in the lead-up to the 2020 Census when the Justice Department sent a letter requesting the inclusion of the citizenship question to then-Census director Dr. Ron Jarmin. Democratic critics accused the Trump administration of adding the question to depress political power in Republican-leaning areas of the country. After three federal judges blocked a Department of Commerce motion to include the citizenship question, the issue arrived at the Supreme Court. In Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court temporarily barred the citizenship question from the census, but held that the inclusion of the citizenship question in the U.S. Census is constitutional. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Citizenship Question

    Those who advocate for the addition of the citizenship question on the decennial U.S. Census argue that accurate counts of citizens and noncitizens are crucial for accurate redistricting and fair elections. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) states that racial discrimination in voting procedures and standards is strictly prohibited. In order to enforce this portion of the VRA and rectify instances of vote dilution, many argue that the Justice Department must know how many citizens of each race live in a jurisdiction. Multiple court cases have established that determining whether a minoritized racial group should hold the majority in a district should be based on the number of citizens of that racial minority, rather than noncitizens. 

    Arguments Against the Citizenship Question

    Opponents of the citizenship question believe that the question would undermine the accuracy of the decennial U.S. Census by lowering response rates. A Harvard Kennedy School study found that asking respondents about citizenship status on a mock Census study “significantly increases the number of questions skipped, especially among Hispanic populations, and makes respondents less likely to report having members of their household who are of Hispanic ethnicity.” The study estimated that at a national level, the decrease in responses spurred by the citizenship question would reduce the number of Hispanic and Latinx people counted in the Census by 6.07 million. Another study found that the inclusion of the citizenship question could potentially cause an overall 2.2% drop in Census response rates. The researchers involved in the study found that the main reason for this drop concerned respondents’ fear that their answer to the citizenship question would be shared with governmental agencies outside the Census Bureau.

    Since research suggests that including the citizenship question could significantly reduce Census response rates, some claim that doing so would violate the constitutional reasoning behind the Census. In 2020, 14 State Attorneys General sued the Trump administration for its efforts to include the citizenship question, stating that the question violated the constitutional requirement to “count each person in our country – whether citizen or noncitizen – ‘once, only once, and in the right place.’”

    Conclusion

    The issue of the citizenship question is likely to stay relevant at the legislative and judicial levels. Members of the House of Representatives have already begun discussing legislation on the topic. For example, Representative Chuck Edwards introduced the Voter Population Accuracy Act in January 2024, which would require the census to ask about citizenship status. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in May 2024, but has yet to pass in the Senate.

    The debate over including the citizenship question in the U.S. Census ultimately hinges on whether it would provide a more accurate count of the U.S. population and improve outcomes for funding, apportionment, redistricting, and elections in the years to come.

  • Podcasting for the Presidency: Candidate Interview Recaps

    Podcasting for the Presidency: Candidate Interview Recaps

    As Kamala Harris and Donald Trump continue on the campaign trail, both presidential candidates have attempted to reach new audiences of potential voters. In recent months, both candidates have tapped into the expanding podcast industry, appearing on popular shows to speak on political issues and encourage the expanding base of podcast listeners to vote. 

    Recap: Harris’ Interview with Call Her Daddy

    On October 6th, Alex Cooper, podcaster and co-creator of the Call Her Daddy podcast, released her interview with Vice President Harris. The Call Her Daddy podcast is Spotify’s second-largest podcast and attracts a predominantly female audience. Cooper, who interviewed Harris, stated that she had also reached out to Donald Trump for an interview. 

    To begin the Call Her Daddy interview, Cooper first inquired why the Vice President chose to sit down for an interview with her in the first place. Harris noted that Cooper had built up an impressive community where her listeners felt seen and heard as women. Harris then spoke about her time serving as a prosecutor and how that career choice stemmed from her desire to help those who were left vulnerable by abuse. She emphasized that her work has been about restoring survivors’ voices and honoring their right to justice. 

    The conversation then shifted to reproductive freedoms and voting. Harris emphasized that both are fundamental rights for women, asserting, “No one should take your power from you.” When questioned about how to make this country safer for women, Harris emphasized economic autonomy, stating her desire to “uplift the ability of women to have economic health and wellbeing.” Harris expressed that women in abusive relationships often cannot leave because they lack access to the financial means to support themselves. 

    On the topic of women’s health and freedom, Copper asked for Harris’s thoughts on a statement Trump had directed at the women attending his rally in Pennsylvania. Trump had stated, “You will be protected and I will be your protector.” This led Harris to argue that Trump’s statement was hypocritical, given that he previously ran on and delivered a promise to elect Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and remove the national right to abortion. Cooper then spoke on her perspective on post-Roe America, sharing an experience where she spoke to a woman who had experienced extreme harassment for trying to seek an abortion. Harris and Cooper both condoned the government’s authority over women’s bodies, calling the overturning of Roe “outrageous.” Harris also pointed out that many clinics that provide abortion, which have since been shut down, also provided access to other health services like pap smears and breast cancer screenings. She argued that abortion bans have therefore limited access to healthcare in general. 

    Harris then spoke on the practical applications of these abortion bans, arguing that abortion exceptions “if the life of the mother is at risk” do not actually protect women because they imply that the mother is “almost dead before you decide to give her care”. Harris cited the case of Amber Thurman, who died after doctors were prohibited from performing a life-saving procedure due to state abortion bans.

    Harris also shared her thoughts on Republican Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies,” calling them  “mean spirited” and saying that the “strength of a leader is about who you lift up.”

    Harris wrapped up by addressing her plans to help young Americans. She shared that she wants to create tax incentives to build 3 million more housing units and provide $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. She also wants to give young parents a “$6,000 tax cut for the first year of their child’s life.” Harris then reiterated her commitment to relieving student loan debt and preventing medical debt from impacting credit scores. Finally, when asked why people should trust her, Kamala Harris stated that she “believes in the promise of America” and that leadership is about “investing in the people” to lift up the whole.

    Recap: Trump’s Interview with This Past Weekend

    On August 20th, comedian and podcaster Theo Von interviewed former president Trump on his podcast This Past Weekend. The comedian interviewed Trump at the former President’s country club in New Jersey and discussed a variety of topics such as healthcare and border security. Notable past guests on This Past Weekend include Mark Cuban, Bernie Sanders, and Tucker Carlson.

    Theo Von began the interview by inquiring about Donald Trump’s sons, seeing as Barron Trump is a fan of the podcast. Trump spoke about all of his sons’ various ventures before the conversation shifted to Trump’s abstinence from substance use. Trump stated that he does not drink or do drugs because of his brother, Frank Trump Jr., who struggled with an addiction that eventually led to his death. Von and Trump bonded over their shared avoidance of substances, as Von had previously struggled with substance use himself but has been sober for two years. 

    The conversation then pivoted to a discussion of the opioid crisis. Trump shared his thoughts on allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television and his plans to curtail opioid-related deaths. Trump stated that during his time in office, he formed committees to attempt to combat the opioid crisis. Trump also claimed that “the establishment” is trying to “sink” him, which he claimed is part of the reason why so many of his supporters continue to back him. Trump claimed that he had prepared an executive order that would have “forced hospitals and insurers to publish all their prices”, and blamed Biden and Harris for not continuing the order during their administration. Trump also accused democratic Senator and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of keeping medical prices high and taking financial contributions from healthcare lobbyists.

    Von then asked Trump if he ever considered having Robert F. Kennedy as a potential running mate, an idea which Trump shut down immediately. Trump shared that though he liked the guy, he firmly believes that the American electoral system is a two-party system, and Kennedy is a third-party candidate. Von and Trump also discussed Biden’s performance in the first presidential debate and Kamala Harris’ subsequent rise to Presidential nominee. Trump speculated that the Democratic leaders forced Biden out of the race, calling the debate “a good debate for me and a bad debate for him.” He then went on to label Harris the “worst Vice President in history.” 

    Discussing border security, Trump brought back the idea of his border wall, arguing that the wall “works” and provides a rest stop for border security agents. He then claimed that Harris wanted open borders and that other countries’ crime rates were lower because they are “sending all their criminals here.” In closing, Trump stated that he would seal the border and that the border was safest under his previous administration. 

  • Citizens United v. FEC: Understanding the Debate

    Citizens United v. FEC: Understanding the Debate

    Background

    Campaign finance laws are controversial and highly influential in the American election system. Before 2010, Supreme Court rulings in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC upheld regulations by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that restricted organizational political expenditures and electioneering communications, such as political advertisements. However, in 2010, a landmark case Citizens United v. FEC overturned these restrictions. The Citizens United case arose when a nonprofit organization titled Citizens United attempted to air a documentary critical of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton just before the 2008 primary election. Anticipating FEC penalties due to regulations on organizational electioneering, Citizens United sued the FEC and argued that the documentary did not constitute explicit advocacy against a candidate. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court overturned its previous campaign finance rulings entirely. The majority opinion held that limiting political expenditures and electioneering communications by collective entities such as corporations, unions, and some nonprofits violates the First Amendment right to free speech. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Court Decision

    Defending Free Speech 

    Those in favor of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC argue that regulating the spending of corporations and very wealthy individuals is the equivalent of regulating their rights to free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. Advocates argue that corporations represent the opinions of the individuals within the company and therefore should not be subject to different regulations than people.

    Increasing Civic Engagement

    In addition, supporters argue that heavy regulations on campaign finance would reduce the dissemination of information related to political candidates, effectively reducing civic engagement among voters. They argue that allowing unlimited corporate expenditures strengthens democracy by creating opportunities for the publication of more political content and information on candidates and their policies.

    Anti-Corruption

    Citizens United retained regulations that forbid coordination between corporations, nonprofits, PACs, and their favored candidates or campaigns. Thus, advocates argue that there is no greater risk of corruption under Citizens United v. FEC because the changes only serve to amplify the opinions of the masses and do not allow organizations to coordinate directly with political candidates.  Supporters also argue that many corporations will not want to exercise their right to participate in politics financially. The Supreme Court agreed with this logic and determined that, although certain expenditures could curry favor with a candidate, “ingratiation and access are not corruption.” 

    Arguments Against the Court Decision

    Corruption 

    Citizens United v. FEC allowed for the creation of Super PACs, or political action committees that may receive and spend unlimited funding from corporations, labor unions, people, and other PACs, as long as there is no formal coordination between the PACs and the candidate’s campaign. Critics of Citizens United disagree with the notion that the case’s safeguards against coordination are sufficient in preventing corruption, as there are apparent loopholes in the system. The most prominent of these are often referred to as “dark-money” groups — 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors and can contribute to super PACs. Critics argue that these non-profits endanger our democracy by opening a channel for anonymous financiers and foreign actors to influence our elections. They hold that deregulating campaign finance for anonymous corporations and individuals will create a top-heavy democracy benefitting the wealthiest few. 

    Difficulty Verifying Compliance

    While the FEC regulation against coordination is crucial for preventing quid pro quo corruption, critics argue that it is difficult to verify that coordination has not occurred between a candidate, their team, and a backer. While direct communication is prohibited, using the same consultation group as a political candidate or allowing ex-staff to attend meetings and fundraisers for a super PAC is not. Therefore, critics claim there are loopholes that allow candidates to engage in strategic communication with financiers without technically “coordinating” under FEC regulations. 

    Reinforcing Racial Inequalities 

    Opponents of the Citizens United decision also note that campaign finance structures that allow big-money influence may contribute to racial bias and underrepresentation in the campaign system, since there is a disproportionate representation of white individuals in both corporate executive roles and the affluent class of large donors. Critics argue that the financial freedom instilled by Citizens United will grant greater power to affluent individuals to serve their own interests, reinforcing the economic insecurity that people of color experience at disproportionate rates. 

    What’s Next? 

    There’s no question that political campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive. The 2020 presidential election cost roughly $3.1 billion more than that of 2012, and the midterm election in 2022 cost roughly $8.9 billion, a $4 billion increase from the 2010 election. Opponents of Citizens United blame rising campaign costs on the deregulation of corporate finance, claiming the 2010 decision rendered the cost of running for office inaccessible to the average American, while proponents of the Citizen United decision attribute rising campaign costs to inflation. Currently, a significant debate over Citizens United and its central topics endures. Groups such as End Citizens United advocate for a complete reversal of the 2010 decision and push ballot measures to reform state campaign finance laws. Some lawmakers have also tried to pass campaign finance transparency laws, such as the DISCLOSE Act. The debate over Citizens United v. FEC, and campaign finance law more generally, will undoubtedly continue to shape the future of American democracy.