ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Understanding the Contraception Regulation Debate: Legal, Moral and Regulatory Implications

    Understanding the Contraception Regulation Debate: Legal, Moral and Regulatory Implications

    Background

    What is contraception?

    Reproductive health access has been a consistent topic in American politics since the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade. One aspect of this debate is the right to contraception, which was first affirmed through Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. The landmark case concluded that states cannot make contraception illegal. However, the contraception regulation debate is complicated due to disagreements over what constitutes abortion in post-Dobbs America. In fact, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his Dobbs opinion that SCOTUS “should reconsider” other cases decided by the same clause as the overturned Roe v. Wade, including Griswold v. Connecticut.

    Contraception is defined by the medical and scientific community as the intentional prevention of pregnancy through the use of devices, drugs, sexual methods, and surgical procedures. Contraception is also referred to as birth control and is different from abortifacients, which are substances that lead to abortion. The medical community defines pregnancy as a fertilized egg that is implanted into the uterus. By these definitions, abortion involves the detachment of a fertilized egg from the uterine wall to end a pregnancy, while contraception involves methods to prevent pregnancy (the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

    Introduction to Contraceptive Access Debate

    In response to increased debates on reproductive healthcare access since the Dobbs decision, the Biden-Harris administration passed an executive order to “strengthen contraceptive access.” The order builds on the existing contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which guarantees that health insurance plans must cover contraceptive methods and counseling. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Title X program provides grants to health clinics for affordable and confidential birth control access. 

    Still, some state laws and policy recommendations blur the line between birth control methods and abortions, with some categorizing birth control as abortifacients. For example, Missouri defines abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy. However, because the ban does not define pregnancy, the law could be interpreted as a ban on anything that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining, including emergency contraceptives. As a result, a health system in Missouri initially stopped providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B after the state outlawed abortion. According to health tracking polls, 73% of Americans incorrectly believed emergency contraceptives like Plan B were abortifacients. Since these varied interpretations of birth control in post-Dobbs America have opened the door for states to restrict access to birth control, some believe that the right to contraceptives should be codified in federal law. In May 2024, Congress introduced the Right to Contraception Act to solidify a national right to contraceptive access and standardize definitions of birth control, abortifacients, and pregnancy. While the act did not pass through Congress, the right to contraception remains a debated topic as the 2024 election approaches.

    Arguments For Federally Codifying Contraception Access

    Proponents of contraception access cite the public health benefits of readily available and accessible contraceptives. They stress that barrier methods of birth control like condoms are important in preventing the spread of STDs. Proponents also point to evidence that increased availability of contraceptives is linked to lower rates of HIV transmission, better maternal health, and decreased pregnancies in children and older women who would otherwise experience health complications. In addition to public health benefits, some argue that birth control assists in public savings associated with the prevention of unintended pregnancies. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated $7.7 billion of total net savings was attributed to public clinics providing birth control, with an estimated $4.83 in savings for every public dollar invested in contraceptive and family planning services.

    Proponents also argue that access to contraceptives will reduce the need for women to seek abortions. One Washington University study explained that the majority of unplanned pregnancies in the US result from a lack of correct contraceptive use. It showed that birth control can reduce the rates at which people seek abortion by 68-72%. Moreover, seeing as unsafe abortions are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, some argue that contraceptive access is crucial for safeguarding women’s health in a post-Dobbs world.

    Other proponents of protecting contraception access point to precedent court cases that establish the right to contraception. In addition to Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) expanded the right to contraception to unmarried individuals and Carey v. Population Services International (1977) ruled that minors have a constitutional right to contraception. Due to these precedent cases and aforementioned public health arguments, proponents believe that it is permissible to establish a national right to contraception via federal law.

    Arguments Against Federally Codifying Contraception Access

    Some opponents of federally codifying contraception access argue that doing so would encroach on states’ right to restrict abortion. As shown in national polls, many Americans define abortion as the prevention of a likely pregnancy, and therefore believe that emergency contraceptives are abortifacients. Many religious groups similarly believe that life begins at conception, and thus have moral concerns with emergency contraceptives. They argue that by introducing legislation like the Right to Contraception Act, which defines abortion more narrowly, Congress would encroach on states’ rights to regulate and restrict abortion as they define it. For example, some members of Congress opposed the Right to Contraception Act because they believed it would lead to abortion drugs such as mifepristone being available in all states. 

    Those who oppose a federal right to contraception also point to the religious right to refuse compliance with certain laws and mandates. In the 2014 SCOTUS case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the court ruled that it was lawful for private employers with religious objections to deny health coverage for contraception, despite the Affordable Care Act contraception mandate. In 2017 and 2018, the Trump Administration further regulated contraceptive access by issuing refusal laws that allow employers and universities to deny insurance coverage of contraceptives on the basis of moral and religious objections. The Biden-Harris executive order on contraceptives in 2023 removed the moral exemption, but the religious exemption remains. Opponents to federally codifying the right to contraception argue that removing the religious exemption would limit freedom of religion for institutions founded on religious beliefs. 

    Conclusion

    In summary, the debate over the right to contraception highlights deep divisions regarding the definition of abortion and concerns about states’ rights. As the 2024 election approaches, the future of contraceptive access in America remains uncertain, with ongoing discussions about its moral, legal, and public health implications.

  • Understanding the Rural Hospital Reimbursement Debate: The Medicare Wage Index Dilemma and Budget Neutrality

    Understanding the Rural Hospital Reimbursement Debate: The Medicare Wage Index Dilemma and Budget Neutrality

    Background and Introduction

    In 2021, Medicare accounted for $900 billion, or 21% of U.S. healthcare spending, making it a critical revenue source for hospitals. The way Medicare reimbursements are governed is a contentious issue, particularly due to the significant impact on rural hospitals, which often receive lower payments for their services. A key factor in determining these payments is the wage index, which assesses a hospital’s labor costs relative to the average income in its surrounding area. A hospital with a wage index above 1.0 receives reimbursements higher than the national average, while one with a wage index below 1.0 receives less.

    Furthermore, Medicare operates under a principle of budget neutrality, meaning any changes to its reimbursement policies must not result in increased overall spending. This requirement implies that increasing reimbursements for rural hospitals would necessitate reductions for others, deepening divisions within the healthcare community over how Medicare funds are allocated.

    Rural Hospitals in the U.S. and the Save Rural Hospitals Act

    In the U.S., rural hospitals serve 14% of the population, or 46 million Americans. These hospitals are often in a precarious financial situation; from 2010 to 2021, 136 rural hospitals closed either partially or fully, exacerbating the shortage of healthcare services in rural areas. Currently, an additional 600 rural hospitals are at risk of closing. A major factor contributing to this financial instability is low Medicare reimbursements coupled with a scarcity of patients who have private insurance, which generally pays more than Medicare. The core issue lies in the wage index system used by Medicare, which often results in lower reimbursements for rural hospitals because they are typically located in areas with a low wage index. This discrepancy means that the cost of providing services often exceeds the reimbursements these hospitals receive, leading to financial losses.

    To address this critical situation, the Save Rural Hospitals Act has been proposed. This legislation aims to adjust the wage index by setting a minimum threshold of 0.85, ensuring that even the hospitals in the poorest regions receive sufficient revenue to maintain their operations. This change could be pivotal in preventing the closure of over 200 rural hospitals in the coming years.

    Increasing Medicare reimbursements to rural hospitals presents a complex challenge, particularly because Medicare operates under a budget-neutral framework. This means any increase in payments to one group must be offset by a decrease to another, making it difficult to boost funding for rural hospitals without affecting others negatively.

    For instance, the Save Rural Hospitals Act proposes increasing the minimum wage index to 0.85 for rural hospitals. While this would provide much-needed support to these facilities, the funds would need to be redirected from hospitals with a wage index above one, many of which are urban hospitals that also face significant financial pressures. Urban safety net hospitals, which were severely impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic with rising expenses and financial losses, would be particularly affected.
    Reallocating Medicare funds is highly contentious, especially among hospitals in wealthier areas that would stand to lose funding. Legal challenges like the case of Bridgeport Hospital et. al. v. Becerra, where hospitals successfully sued over reductions in Medicare reimbursements, illustrate the resistance to such changes. Additionally, as former Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl pointed out, the budget neutrality of the bill means that any benefit to one state comes at the expense of another, complicating the legislative process and making it difficult to pass reforms that could help disadvantaged or rural areas without harming others. This dynamic creates a significant barrier to reforming Medicare payments in a way that equitably supports all hospitals.

  • Understanding US Relations with Switzerland: Key Insights into Trade, Diplomacy, and Strategic Interests.

    Understanding US Relations with Switzerland: Key Insights into Trade, Diplomacy, and Strategic Interests.

    Introduction

    Switzerland, known for its neutrality, abstains from military alliances and international conflicts, playing a significant role in global peace and diplomacy. It frequently hosts diplomatic conferences on international humanitarian law. Over time, shared characteristics in their political systems and joint efforts in international organizations have strengthened relations between the United States and Switzerland. Currently, the United States stands as Switzerland’s primary trading partner, accounting for 16.3% of its total exports. Therefore, the relationship between the U.S. and Switzerland is vital for the economic development, security, and maintenance of global peace for both nations.

    Quick Facts

    History of U.S.─Switzerland Relations

    Despite their history of close cooperation, certain factors have strained the relationship between the United States and Switzerland in the past. In the 1990s, tensions arose due to the World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks regarding the handling of stolen Nazi gold during World War II. The U.S. argued that Switzerland, as a neutral country, had inadvertently aided the Nazi regime, thereby prolonging the war. Switzerland disputed this claim, leading to heightened tensions. Additionally, Swiss banking secrecy has been a contentious issue, with U.S. authorities alleging that it hampers oversight and facilitates money laundering schemes. To address these challenges, the United States and Switzerland established the U.S.-Swiss Joint Economic Commission (JEC) in 2000. This commission focuses on fostering trade relations, combating money laundering and terrorism, and protecting intellectual property rights. Subsequent agreements, such as the Enhanced Political Framework and Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum, have further enhanced the JEC’s mandate.

    In 2013, Switzerland signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) to ensure that Swiss banks operating in the U.S. comply with surveillance and accountability measures. This requires Swiss banks to report offshore accounts to the Internal Revenue Service.

    Furthermore, in 2019, the U.S. Senate approved the Double Taxation Treaty with Switzerland, aimed at promoting entrepreneurship and facilitating the creation of new businesses in both countries, thereby fostering employment and new industries.

    Despite past disagreements, both nations remain committed to spreading democratic values and institutions globally. Their cooperation extends to providing economic development assistance and humanitarian relief to developing nations.

    Strategic Interests

    • Trade: In 2021, Switzerland emerged as the seventh-largest foreign investor in the United States, injecting a total of $315 billion into the country. Trade between the two countries primarily takes the form of services, with the US exporting business services, financial services, and licenses, and importing licenses, information services, and insurance services.
    • Security: As a neutral nation, Switzerland plays a diplomatic role in mediating current international conflicts. Since 1980, Switzerland has served as the protecting power between the United States and Iran, facilitating open lines of communication and providing consular and diplomatic assistance to Iranian citizens in the U.S. and Americans in Iran. Presently, Switzerland has offered to assume a similar role in the Russo-Ukrainian War, although the Russian government declined this offer. Switzerland is a valued partner of NATO and engages in numerous operations mandated by the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). However, due to Swiss law prohibiting participation in combat operations for peace enforcement, all operations are manned by volunteers.

    Neutrality

    In 1920, the League of Nations formally acknowledged Switzerland’s state of neutrality, which prohibits the country from participating in international wars, supplying mercenary troops to belligerent states, and favoring any belligerent state in the exportation of war material. However, this neutrality law does not extend to internal conflicts and does not apply to military operations authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

    Currently, Switzerland’s neutrality is under scrutiny due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The nation is restricted from sending weapons and ammunition to Ukraine as per its neutrality law. However, given the urgency of the situation, Swiss authorities are reassessing the centuries-old declaration of neutrality. Many politicians are exploring avenues to support Ukraine without violating Swiss neutrality laws.

  • Understanding U.S. Relations with Germany: History, Trade, and Strategic Interests 

    Understanding U.S. Relations with Germany: History, Trade, and Strategic Interests 

    Introduction

    Germany is the largest economy in Europe by GDP. Its diplomatic ties with the United States play a significant role in ensuring political stability in Europe and fostering economic development between the two nations. Alongside the United States, the European Union stands as a key supporter of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Currently, Germany holds a prominent position in NATO, leading the Very High Readiness Joint Force (VJTF). Additionally, Germany ranks as the fifth-largest trading partner of the United States, with annual bilateral trade exceeding $260 billion in goods and services. Therefore, the relationship between the U.S. and Germany is vital for the economic growth, security, cultural exchange, and mutual interests of both nations.

    Quick Facts

    History of U.S.─Germany Relations

    Until the 20th century, commerce and immigration were the primary factors shaping the relationship between the U.S. and Germany. However, during WWI, Germany’s alignment with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, known as the Central Powers, and the U.S.’s support for the Allies, including the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, and Japan, disrupted their relationship. Germany’s threats to the U.S., such as unrestricted submarine warfare and attempts to form a partnership with Mexico to invade the United States, turned them from rivals to enemies. Relations were later restored through peace and trade treaties signed in 1921 and 1923.

    In 1941, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor prompted the U.S. to declare war on Japan, thus becoming an enemy of the Axis powers, which included Germany, Italy, and Japan. Despite lacking a formal relationship, many German refugees found sanctuary in America, including notable figures such as Thomas Mann, Albert Einstein, Marlene Dietrich, and Kurt Weill.

    Following Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Potsdam Conference divided the country into Western and Eastern regions, dominated by the U.S., U.K., France, and the Soviet Union, respectively. The formation of NATO by the Western bloc and the Warsaw Pact by the Eastern bloc marked the onset of the Cold War. Post-WWII Germany symbolized democracy in the West and communism in the East, with West Germany emerging as a strong military and economic power. The reunification of Germany in 1990 solidified its relationship with the U.S.

    In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Germany, as a NATO member, sent troops to Afghanistan to support the U.S., although it opposed the Iraq War in 2003 due to concerns over destabilizing the Middle East.

    Friction arose in the U.S.-Germany relationship in 2013 following mass surveillance disclosures, where the FBI and NSA illegally collected personal data of German citizens. This led to Germany canceling the 1968 UKUSA Agreement, an intelligence-sharing pact with the U.S. and U.K.

    The relationship between the two nations has been influenced by the stances of their respective presidents and chancellors. During the Trump and Merkel administrations, differences over trade, immigration, and relations with Russia strained ties. However, with the election of Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz, both countries’ relationship has strengthened, marked by shared political ideas and increased cooperation, particularly evident during the Ukraine War, which bolstered their economic and political ties.

    Understanding the Current Relationship

    In 2022, Germany took significant steps to support Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War by donating 5,000 helmets and a complete field hospital. Initially, Germany refrained from providing military assistance to Ukraine, which strained its relationship with the United States. However, during a meeting between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Joe Biden in February 2021, Scholz reiterated Germany’s alignment with the United States in supporting Ukraine while expressing a cautious approach to avoid escalating tensions with Russia.

    Germany’s reluctance to engage militarily stemmed partly from the belief that economic integration could help deter further conflict, along with considerations of its reliance on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline for affordable natural gas.

    The Nord Stream 1 pipeline, a key source of natural gas from Russia, had been a major factor in Germany’s neutrality stance. However, in late August 2022, gas flow through the pipeline halted due to Western sanctions and equipment leaks. With Germany no longer dependent on Russian gas, the country shifted its position and began providing military support to Ukraine. This support includes armored fighting vehicles, air defense, artillery, and other resources to bolster Ukrainian sovereignty.

    In response to Germany’s shift, the United States became a significant supporter by agreeing to supply Germany’s demand for natural gas through a 20-year contract, supplying 2.25 million tonnes per year. This partnership reflects a strategic move to strengthen ties between the two nations while supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression.

    Strategic Interests

    • Trade: In 2023, Germany exported €14.1B and imported €8.46B from the United States. Main German exports to the US include automobiles, machinery, and pharmaceuticals. Main US exports to Germany include aircrafts, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, and medical equipment.
    • Security: Since January 2023, Germany has assumed leadership of NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Force (VJTF). This force serves as a crucial component and the primary responder for NATO’s territorial defense, with the capability to deploy and take action in any location within 48–72 hours. Germany has shouldered a significant portion of the responsibility for defending European territory against the threat posed by Russia, maintaining approximately 8,000 troops on standby for rapid deployment.
    • International cooperation mechanisms: Both nations are members of several international organizations dedicated to fostering alliances for global security, economic cooperation, and peace. They are part of prominent groups such as the G-7, G-20, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These memberships reflect their commitment to international cooperation and their roles as key players in addressing global challenges.
    • Sustainable development: The U.S.-Germany Climate and Energy Partnership, established in 2021, aims to foster long-term development in four key areas: hydrogen, offshore wind, zero-emission transport, and third-country cooperation. Through this partnership, the goal is to promote environmental sustainability and advocate for shared values, with the aspiration of inspiring other nations to adopt similar initiatives.

    Future DevelopmentsThe Just Energy Transition Partnership, comprising G7 members, is dedicated to assisting developing nations in expanding and transitioning to renewable energy sources. Recent commitments indicate that the United States will invest $8.5 billion and Germany €700 million in South Africa. This investment aims to prevent up to 1.5 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades. Furthermore, both countries are committed to the Paris Agreement and are actively developing strategies to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C.

  • Trump vs Harris: Unbiased Coverage of the Second Presidential Debate 2024

    Trump vs Harris: Unbiased Coverage of the Second Presidential Debate 2024

    Tuesday, September 10th, marked the second presidential debate but the first match-up between the Republican nominee: former President Donald Trump and the Democrat nominee: current Vice-President Kamala Harris. Originally scheduled to be between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Harris took Biden’s place in the debate after he ended his re-election campaign and endorsed Harris in July and Harris accepted the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention. The debate took place at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was hosted by the ABC news network. This is also currently the only scheduled Presidential debate with the Vice-Presidential debate scheduled for October 1st.

    Rules were also set forth for this debate session, including no props or pre-written notes allowed on stage, microphones were muted when speaking time was given to the opposing candidate, candidates had two minutes to answer questions and rebuttals, and the debate room had no live audience. 

    With the rules set and the candidates behind their podiums, the debate began.

    Economy

    Hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis’ first set of questions for the candidates were on the economy. The first question was for Vice-President Harris, asking if she believed Americans were better off economically than they were four years ago. Harris used this question to discuss her “opportunity economy,” which would give a child-tax credit of $6,000 for young families, give a “$50,000 tax deduction to start up small businesses,” and argue that Trump’s economic plan would give tax cuts to billionaires and increase sales taxes for the middle class. In Trump’s rebuttal, he denied the sales tax and stated that he would increase tariffs and lower inflation. He then cited immigrants as the cause of a poor economy, arguing that they are taking “African-American and Latino” jobs. Harris responded with the claim that Trump exited the presidency with the “highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression” and in the worst public health epidemic while she has spent her time in the White House “cleaning up his mess.” Trump then denied her claim that he supports Project 2025, stating that he has never even read the policy plan. Harris then argued the merits of her economic plan, stating that it had been lauded by a number of economists while Trump’s plan would “explode the deficit” and “invite a recession.”

    When questioned about Trump’s plan to enact a 20% tariff on incoming goods which economists claim will raise prices for consumers, he denied that his tariffs would raise prices and instead argued that China was paying the tariffs and that the Biden administration kept Trump’s tariffs in place. Harris responded by claiming that Trump “sold America out” by selling China American-made technological chips that improved the Chinese military. Trump denied her statement by claiming that China bought chips from Taiwan, not America, because “America does not make chips anymore.”

    Abortion

    The issue then moved to abortion with the first question of the topic being directed at Trump and why women should trust Trump on abortion. Trump began to target Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, claiming that Walz wanted abortion up to the ninth month and execution after birth. He then applauded the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and the returning of the issue to the states instead of having abortion “tied up in the federal government.” Harris responded by condemning Trump’s Supreme Court Justice picks and “Trump’s abortion bans” in the states, some of which do not have an exception for rape or incest. She then pledged to sign a bill as president that would “reinstate the protections of Row vs. Wade” if the bill passed Congress and came across her desk. Trump refused to answer whether or not he would veto a national abortion ban, arguing that his response does not matter because an abortion bill would never pass the Senate. When questioned if she would support restrictions on the right to an abortion, Harris stated that she would support the protection granted in Row vs. Wade before moving to attack Trump’s false claim that Democrats support abortions up to the ninth month and after birth. 

    Immigration and Border Security

     When asked why Biden waited to act on the border issue, Harris cited her background prosecuting transnational criminal organizations and her support for Congress’ border security bill that would increase funding for border agents and for resources that would be given to prosecuting transnational criminal organizations. But claimed that the bill did not pass because Trump convinced Congress members to kill the bill. She then criticized Trump’s rallies which she stated showed that Trump does not care about the people and that people leave in the middle of his rallies out of “boredom.” This statement got a rise out of Trump as he immediately responded to that claim by arguing that she pays people to attend her rallies and that he holds “the biggest rallies.” 

    Donald Trump then claimed that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating residents’ cats and dogs. When host David Muir refuted that claim as false with a statement from Springfield’s city manager, Trump doubled down on the claim stating that he had “seen people on television” say that immigrants ate their dog. Harris used this opportunity to note Trump’s extremism and highlight her endorsements from over 200 Republicans, including former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

    Trump was then questioned about his plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. He attacked the Biden-Hariss administration for letting criminals into the nation, claiming that crime is down everywhere else in the world but “through the roof here” because Biden let in so many criminals into the country, causing “migrant crime.” When his claim was debunked by the host who cited the FBI when explaining the crime rates were lower, Trump attacked the FBI by stating that they were “defrauding statements” that did not include “the worst cities.” Harris responded by pointing out Trump’s 34 felony charges while Trump argued that the charges were “just weaponization” tactics to help the other side win. Harris highlighted the Supreme Court ruling that would grant the president immunity for official acts to make a point on Trump’s extremism and argued that if he wins this election, there will be no one left to stop him.

    In response to a question about changes in her policy since her 2020 bid for the presidency, Harris stated that she will not ban fracking but aims to “invest in diverse sources of energy to reduce reliance on foreign oil” but reaffirms that her values on protecting the middle class, seniors, and sexual assault victims have not changed. Trump then attempted to paint her as a “radical left liberal” who wants to ban fracking and defund the police. He then praised his policies in the oil and fossil fuel industry and argued that solar energy takes up too much space.

    January 6th

    When questioned if Trump regretted anything about the insurrection on January 6th, he argued that he told people to march on the capitol “peacefully and patriotically” and instead argued that the attention should be on violent migrants rather than the events on January 6th. He then denied his involvement by claiming he was only asked “to make a speech” and that Nancy Pelosi was the one responsible. Harris described the events that occurred as a “violent mob” and drew comparisons to the “Unite the White” white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2018 in which Trump claimed there were “good people on both sides.” She painted her presidency as a path to the future stating that “we will not go back.” 

    Election Denial Claims

    Trump continued to deny that he lost the 2020 election, stating that his previous admissions of defeat were “sarcastic.” Harris reaffirmed the fact Biden won the presidency with “85 million votes” and claimed that Trump wanted to “upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election.” She stated that world leaders are laughing at Trump because he refused to admit defeat despite losing numerous election denial court cases.

    Israel-Hamas War

    When questioned on how to break the stalemate between Israel and Hamas, Harris reiterated her support for Israel’s right to defend itself but noted that “it matters how” and reaffirmed her support for a cease-fire and a two-state solution that would provide security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Trump argued that under his presidency the war would never have started. He also claimed that “Putin would have never invaded Ukraine” because he “knows Putin very well.” He then argued that Harris hates both the Israel and Arab populations and that her economic policies have only empowered Iran. Harris denounced Trump’s claim, stating that she has always supported Israel, arguing that dictators such as Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin want Trump in power because he can be easily manipulated with “flattery and flowers.”

    Russia-Ukraine War

    When asked if Trump wanted Ukraine to win the war, he refused to give a direct answer and simply stated he wanted the war to end and for Europe to finance a larger portion of the war. He also claimed that could end the war as president-elect before even being inaugurated into office. When Harris was questioned on how she would handle the war, she cited her actions during her Vice-Presidency of providing defense advice to President Zelesky and arranging a committee of 50 countries to help provide support for Ukraine.

    Withdraw in Afghanistan 

    When questioned on whether or not Harris felt responsible for how the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, she stood by Biden’s decision to withdraw and stated that Trump negotiated “one of the weakest deals you can imagine” that “bypassed the Afghan government” and “negotiated directly with the Taliban.” Trump admitted that he did “get involved with the Taliban” and cited Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan as the reason “Russia attacked Ukraine. It was because Russia saw how incompetent [Harris] and her boss are.”

    Kamala Harris’s Racial Makeup

    When questioned on his remarks about Harris’s ethnicity, Trump claimed that he actually did not care what race she was and only made those remarks because he “read where she was not black” and then “read that she was black.” Harris states that these remarks only demonstrate that Trump is only trying to divide the country, while she will be a president that unites people.

    Healthcare

    Trump was questioned on his plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and he stated that he “saved ObamaCare.” When pressed on his policy plan, Trump admitted that he “has concepts of a plan” and would only change ObamaCare if there was a “better and less expensive option.” Harris explained that she has strengthened the Affordable Care Act and for the first time “allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, capped the price of insulin at $35 a month, and capped prescriptions for seniors at $2000 a year.” She stated that “healthcare is a right.”

    Climate Change

    Harris states that to fight climate change, the Biden administration has invested $1 trillion into clean energy production, increased domestic gas production, increased manufacturing jobs, and invested in American-made products. Trump denied Harris’s claim to creating new manufacturing plants and jobs, arguing that the “administration is selling the country down the tube.”

    Closing Statements

    Harris began her closing statement by representing her vision for the future as America progresses, stating “we will not go back.” She reiterated her commitment to the middle class, bringing down the price of goods, and creating an “opportunity economy.” She then listed her previous office positions as a district attorney general, senator, and vice president to emphasize that she has had “only one client: the people.” She promises to be a president for all by investing in the people.

    Trump criticized Harris’s policy plans, arguing that she has had three and a half years in the White House to enact her goals, asking “why didn’t she do it?” He then argued that foreign nations are laughing at the United States and that we are headed toward World War III. He then claimed during his presidency, he “rebuilt the entire military” while the Biden-Harris administration “gave it away to the Taliban.” He then reiterated that Harris allowed “millions of people into our country” and that they are “destroying our country” before ending with the statement: “[Biden and Harris are] the worst president and the worst vice president in the history of our country.”

  • Understanding the Debate on Neurorights and Personal Identity in Neurotechnology

    Understanding the Debate on Neurorights and Personal Identity in Neurotechnology

    In recent years, significant advancements in neurotechnology promise to profoundly impact healthcare and human capabilities. As technologies such as Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS), and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) evolve, they can potentially blur the boundary between a person’s consciousness and external technological influences. 

    Examples of Neurotechnologies

    Conditions such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and epilepsy are caused by disruptions in brain function due to inactive neurons. Neurotechnology offers a potential solution by monitoring brain activity and selectively stimulating these faulty brain regions. This technology can help restore lost functions by activating the disrupted neurons, improving the quality of life for patients. Non-invasive methods use external devices for stimulation, whereas invasive methods involve surgically implanted electrodes. 

    BCIs are devices that enable control of computers through thought. In January 2024, Neuralink, founded by Elon Musk, implanted an invasive BCI into Noland Arbaugh, a quadriplegic participant in the PRIME study. The procedure aimed to restore his autonomy after a spinal cord injury. After surgery, he was able to control his laptop cursor for the first time since his injury, allowing him to reconnect with friends and family and regain independence. Neuralink aims to implant chips in 10 individuals by the end of 2024, pending FDA approval. 

    DBS involves implanting a small device under the skin near the collarbone, with wires reaching the brain to deliver mild electrical currents. This technology treats medical conditions like Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy. According to the Cleveland Clinic, as of 2019, experts estimated that about 160,000 people have had a DBS procedure since the 1980s and that 12,000 procedures happen each year.  

    tDCS, a non-invasive technique, applies low electric currents to the scalp. tDCS devices are being explored to treat depression, schizophrenia, aphasia, chronic pain, and other medical conditions. tDCS is used for non-medical applications as well including accelerated learning, focus, relaxation, and meditation. tDCS devices are currently available online ranging in cost from about $40-$500. 

    It is difficult to find a number that encompasses how many people use neuromodulation devices, however, the potential treatment population is vast including the millions affected by epilepsy, migraine, Parkinson’s disease, urinary incontinence, and other medical conditions. The global neurotech market grows at a compound annual rate of 12% and is expected to reach $21 billion by 2026. 

    Neurotechnology Regulation

    The FDA regulates the implementation of neurological devices, classifying them by their degree of risk and forming the pathways necessary to bring the device to the market. In general, for high-risk devices, companies will get an Investigational Device Exemption to clinically test their devices by proving that the benefits justify the risks. The gathering of clinical data is a key step in supporting pre-market approval. BCIs are still in the clinical trial period of gaining FDA approval. DBS technologies have been gaining FDA approval to treat different medical conditions since 1997. tDCS is FDA-cleared, which is a lower standard to be met than FDA approval due to lower risk compared to other neurostimulation methods.

    Neuroright to Personal Identity

    Neurotechnologies have the potential to alter perception, behavior, emotion, cognition, and memory, reshaping identity and notions of “humanness”. Technologies like BCIs, tDCS, and DBS use electrical impulses to influence brain activity. This can lead to changes in emotional and behavioral responses. For instance, a study on DBS found that stimulating the subthalamic nucleus, a brain area involved in cognitive and motivational functions, led to increased positive mood and reduced anxiety in participants. Depending on how invasive the devices are and the part of the brain they target, effects on mental processes vary. While neurotechnology holds the potential for positive therapeutic benefits, the possibility of changes to human behavior has raised concerns. 

    At Columbia University, academic leaders united to discuss the ethical concerns of neurotechnology. This discussion led to a new human rights framework called “Neurorights”, reflecting the consensus that advances in neurotechnology outpace global, national, and corporate governance. The 5 Neurorights proposed by the Neurorights Foundation include the right to Personal Identity. The foundation writes, “Boundaries must be developed to prohibit technology from disrupting the sense of self. When neurotechnology connects individuals with digital networks, it could blur the line between a person’s consciousness and external technological inputs.”

    The Neurorights Foundation, founded by Dr. Rafael Yuste, worked with the Senate of the Republic of Chile in 2021 to pass a Neurorights law and plans for a constitutional amendment. This development made Chile the world’s first country to have legislation protecting personal identity, free will, and mental privacy in reference to emergent neurotechnology.

    The Main Debates

    Proponents of Neurorights argue that Neurotechnology infringes on personal identity by causing unexpected changes to personality, identity, and decision-making, with evidence shown in research. In a 2016 study, a man using a brain stimulator to treat his depression for 7 years began to wonder whether the way he interacted with others was due to the device, stating “It blurs to the point where I’m not sure… frankly, who I am.” In another study, Dr. Yuste realized that by controlling specific brain circuits scientists could manipulate a mouse’s experience including its behaviors, emotions, awareness, perception, and memories. Yuste stated, “The brain works the same in the mouse and the human, and whatever we can do to the mouse today, we can do to the human tomorrow.” 

    Opponents of Neurorights question the sophistication of neurotechnology and its ability to cause widespread human rights concerns, seeing altering personal identity as something far in the future. Additionally, opponents draw attention to the concern that depending on the definition of identity, the Neuroright to Personal Identity may imply prohibiting neurotechnologies in general. This would significantly slow down important scientific progress in the field of neurotechnology. 

    Opponents of Neurorights also argue that considering existing legislation, Neurorights are unnecessary, and that passing additional human rights could be harmful. Human rights are powerful tools transforming the lives of billions of people. One central worry in the debate is that the inflation of rights may result in their devaluation. Human rights could lose their distinction, significance, and effectiveness if the passing of legislation is not considered cautiously. Proponents of Neurorights take a reformist position arguing that Neurorights must go beyond current fundamental human rights to effectively protect the right to personal identity, seeing this as a new and unique issue requiring additional legislation. 

    Conflicting ideas of “personal identity” add more complexity to the argument. Some view the right to use neurotechnology as an expression of personal identity, while others see preventing brain manipulation as a way to preserve and promote the freedom of the human mind.

    Conclusion

    In summary, the rapid advancement of neurotechnology, including BCIs, tDCS, and DBS, presents ethical dilemmas regarding personal identity. As research progresses and investments increase, these technologies could impact various aspects of human life from medical treatments to personal enhancement. The Neurorights Foundation actively works to incorporate Neurorights into international human rights law, national legal and regulatory frameworks, and ethical guidelines. The foundation has made developments in Chile, Brazil, Mexico, the United Nations, and Spain, and strives to incorporate Neurorights in the United States. As of now, at least two US states are considering legislation to protect private thoughts, reflecting a growing awareness of this issue.

  • Understanding The Debate on Facial Recognition Technology in Policing: Pros, Cons, and Privacy Concerns

    Understanding The Debate on Facial Recognition Technology in Policing: Pros, Cons, and Privacy Concerns

    Introduction

    A facial image is like a fingerprint: a unique piece of human data that can identify an individual or connect them to a crime. Law enforcement uses facial recognition to identify suspects, monitor large crowds, and ensure public safety.

    Facial recognition software is used by local, state, and federal law enforcement, but its adoption is uneven. Some cities, like San Francisco and Boston, have banned its use for law enforcement, while others have embraced it. Despite this, the technology has been instrumental in solving cold cases, tracking suspects, and finding missing persons, and is considered a game changer by some in law enforcement.

    Facial recognition software can be integrated with existing police databases, including mugshots and driver’s license records. Private companies like Clearview AI and Amazon’s Rekognition also provide law enforcement with databases containing information gathered from the internet. 

    Here’s how police use facial recognition technology:

    1. Law enforcement collects a snapshot of a suspect drawn from traditional investigative methods, such as surveillance footage or independent intelligence. 
    2. They then input the image into the facial recognition software database to search for potential matches. 
    3. The system populates a series of similar facial images ranked by the software’s algorithm, along with personal information such as name, address, phone number, and social media presence 
    4. Law enforcement analyzes the results and gathers information about a potential suspect, which is later confirmed through additional police work

    The exact number of law enforcement agencies using facial recognition software is difficult to know.

    Much like other investigative techniques, law enforcement tends to keep the practice of facial recognition identification out of the public eye to protect ongoing investigations. Furthermore, facial recognition technology is not used as evidence in court proceedings, meaning that it is hard to track the frequency of use of this technology in criminal prosecutions. 

    However, studies conducted on facial recognition and law enforcement give a broad understanding of the scope and scale of this debate. A 2017 study conducted by Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology, estimates that 3,947 out of roughly 15,388 state and local law enforcement agencies in 2013, or one in four, “can run face recognition searches of their own databases, run those searches on another agency’s face recognition system, or have the option to access such a system.” Furthermore, a 2021 study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 42 federal agencies used facial recognition technology that they either owned or were provided by another agency or company. 

    Supporters of this technology celebrate the use of facial recognition to solve crimes and find suspects faster than ever before. 

    “The obvious effect of [this] technology is that ‘wow’ factor,” said Liu. “You put any photo in there, as long as it’s not a very low-quality photo, and it will find matches ranked from most likely to ones that are similar in a short second,” says Terrance Liu, vice president of research at Clearview AI, a leading service provider of facial recognition software to law enforcement. 

    Before facial recognition technology, identifying suspects caught on surveillance cameras was difficult, especially without substantial leads. Law enforcement argues that this technology can help investigators develop and pursue leads at faster rates. 

    How accurate are the results produced by this software? 

    Due to the advances in processing power and data availability in recent years, facial recognition technology is more accurate than it was ten years ago, according to a study conducted by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

    However, research conducted by Joy Bulowami at MIT Media Lab demonstrates that while some facial recognition software boasts more than 90% accuracy, this number can be misleading. When broken down into demographic categories, the technology is 11.8% – 19.2% less accurate when matching faces of color. Critics argue that this reliability gap endangers people of color, making them more likely to be misidentified by the technology. After the initial release of the study, the research noted that IBM and Microsoft were able to correct the accuracy differentials across specific demographics, indicating that with more care and attention when crafting these technologies, adverse effects like these can be prevented. 

    Image clarity plays a large role in determining the accuracy of a match. A 2024 study from NIST found that matching errors are “in large part attributable to long-run aging, facial injury, and poor image quality.” Furthermore, when the technology is tested against a real-world venue, such as a sports stadium, NIST found that the accuracy ranged between 36% and 87%, depending on the camera placement. However, as low-cost, high-resolution cameras become more widely available, researchers suggest the technology will improve. 

    Law enforcement emphasizes that because facial recognition cannot be used as probable cause, investigators must use traditional investigative measures before making an arrest, safeguarding against misuse of the technology. However, a study conducted by Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology says that despite the assurance, there is evidence that facial recognition technology has been used as the primary basis for arrest. Publicized misidentification cases, such as Porcha Woodruff, a black woman who was eight months pregnant when wrongfully convicted of a carjacking and armed robbery from a false match on the police’s facial recognition software, reaffirm the belief that police can use matches in a facial recognition return to make an arrest and that the technology is less reliable for faces of color. 

    Opponents argue that law enforcement is not doing enough to ensure that their systems are accurate and reliable. This is in part due to how law enforcement uses facial recognition software, and for what purpose. Facial recognition software allows users to adjust the confidence scores, or reliability, of the image returns. Images with high confidence scores are more accurate but produce fewer returns. In some cases, law enforcement might use a lower confidence score to generate as many leads as possible. 

    For example, the ACLU of Northern California captured media attention with an investigative study that found that Amazon’s Rekognition software falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshots, 40% of which were congresspeople of color. The study used Rekognition’s default confidence score, 80% which is considered relatively low, to generate the matches. However, in response to the study, Amazon advised users that a 95% confidence threshold is recommended to find human matches. 

    Both proponents and critics advocate for comprehensive training to help law enforcement navigate the software and protect against misuse. A GAO study of seven federal agencies using facial recognition technology found that all seven agencies used the software without prior training. After the study, the DHS and DOJ concurred with the recommendations and made steps to rectify this issue. 

    Civil liberties advocates and policy groups argue that without regulation and transparency in this area, it is hard to ensure that the systems are used correctly and in good faith. 

    Privacy Concerns and Freedom of Assembly 

    Social media companies have raised concerns about how the information hosted on their platform is used in facial recognition software. Facial recognition software is powered by algorithms that scrape the internet of facial images and personal information which is then used to generate returns for the software. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are among the largest companies to speak out against the practice, filing cease and desist orders. However, legal precedence established in a 2019 ruling, ​​HiQ Labs V. LinkedIn, allows third parties to harvest publicly available information on the internet due to its nature as public domain. 

    Facial recognition technology can be used to monitor large crowds and events, which is commonplace in airports, sports venues, and casinos. Furthermore, law enforcement is known to have used facial recognition software to find individuals present at the January 6th Insurrection and the nationwide Black Lives Matter movements. Law enforcement argues that surveilling large crowds with this technology can help protect the public from unlawful actors, and help catch suspects quickly. However, privacy and civil liberties activists worry about the impact of surveillance on the freedom of assembly. 

    Regulatory Landscape and Conclusions 

    In 2023, Senator Ed Markey (D) reintroduced a bill to place a moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology by local, state, and federal entities, including law enforcement, which has yet to progress through Congress. However, states like Maine and California have enacted laws that address some of the challenges presented by the technology, along with a patchwork of other local laws across the country. 
    Critics continue to argue that a lack of transparency and accountability among law enforcement drives uncertainty in this area. The ACLU is currently suing the FBI, DEA, ICE, and Customs and Border Protection to turn over all records regarding facial recognition technology usage. However, advocates argue that the benefits outweigh the concerns, and are a useful tool for law enforcement.

  • The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    The Rights of North Korean Defectors to the United States under Sections 207 and 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

    Description of Issue

    North Korea is one of the United States’ toughest adversaries. The nation’s continuous nuclear development and human rights controversies have raised alarms for protecting global peace. Ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea restricts both the physical and digital contact of its people with the outside world. Nevertheless, thousands of North Koreans leave the country illegally to escape from surveillance and oppression. Most of those defectors resettle in South Korea, as they share a common ethnicity and language. However, Congress also facilitates the entry of North Koreans into the U.S. as refugees to provide new educational and economic opportunities. 

    Description of Legislation

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a federal law that governs immigration and naturalization in the United States. It was first enacted in 1952 and has been amended numerous times. In 1965, the INA abolished the national origins quota system, which diversified the racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. by expanding immigration from Asian and Latin American countries. While the INA does not explicitly mention North Koreans, Sections 207 and 208 provide a broad framework for the admission of refugees and asylees.

    Section 207 [8 U.S.C. 1157] of the INA, titled ‘Annual admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees,’ outlines procedures and criteria for accepting refugees. As per INA Section 101 [8 USC 1101], refugees cannot return to their home country due to a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In consultation with Congress, the President determines annually the maximum number of refugees that may resettle in the United States. Refugees can obtain humanitarian assistance through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), including housing, healthcare, education services, and financial support. 

    Section 208 [8 U.S.C. 1158] of the INA, titled ‘Asylum,’ allows individuals who are already present in the U.S. or arrive in the U.S. to apply for asylum if they meet the refugee eligibility criteria. Given the extensive process for determining refugee status, asylum seekers receive certain protections before they are officially recognized as refugees. This includes the ability to seek employment in the U.S. and travel abroad with prior consent of the Attorney General. However, if asylees are no longer eligible for refugee status or commit a serious crime, their right to stay may be terminated. In that case, the individual may get deported to another country where their life or freedom would not be threatened. 

    Arguments in favor

    Demonstrates global leadership

    Sections 207 and 208 of the INA illustrate the U.S.’ commitment to providing humanitarian aid to individuals fleeing persecution, violence, and other forms of harm in their home countries. Proponents assert that welcoming refugees is foundational to the U.S.’ national identity as a nation founded by those escaping religious persecution. By coordinating the world’s most extensive refugee resettlement program, the U.S. sets a model for other countries to also contribute to alleviating global humanitarian crises. 

    Human rights activists argue that North Korea is an authoritarian regime that restricts all civil and political liberties for its citizens, and defectors should be protected under the INA. It is widely perceived that the North Korean government routinely uses torture, forced labor, and executions to maintain fear and control. In accepting North Korean refugees, the U.S. offers safety to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. 

    Flexible refugee resettlement ceiling

    Section 207 enables the current administration to determine the maximum number of refugees admitted to the U.S. yearly based on various humanitarian concerns, international obligations, and national interests. Notably, after President Trump’s election, he reduced the refugee resettlement ceiling to a historic low of 18,000 in 2020 to protect American jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon President Biden’s election, he raised the cap to 62,500 in 2021 and to 125,000 in 2022. 

    Collaborative consultation process

    The Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) utilizes the resources of several other national security agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, and Department of Defense, to approve refugees. A thorough consultation among multiple agencies helps ensure admission decisions are made responsibly to promote national interests. 

    Non-refoulement obligations

    The Principle of Non-refoulment under International Human Rights Law prohibits returning individuals to countries where they would face torture, cruel treatment, or other irreparable harm. In particular, the United Nations officially classifies North Koreans as “refugees sur place,” meaning that any nation that deports North Koreans violates the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The INA affirms the U.S.’ commitment to meet global human rights standards by protecting refugees. 

    Arguments against

    Numerical limitations

    Among over 108 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, the U.S. only admits a small fraction of them by setting an annual limit. Some advocate that the cap should increase to reflect the growing number of refugees. This would require a significant revision to Section 207 by preventing the presiding administration from changing the refugee admissions ceiling yearly and determining a higher quota permanently or removing the quota completely. 

    Despite the difficulty of escaping North Korea, tens of thousands of defectors are hiding in China, approximately 34,000 live in South Korea, and at least 2,000 have reached Europe and other Asian countries. However, the U.S. has only accepted around 200 North Korean refugees over the past two decades. Opponents of the fluid admissions ceiling believe that removing it could create stability and encourage the U.S. to accept more refugees. 

    Infrastructural limitations

    In recent years, the Biden Administration has struggled to admit more refugees due to slow processing and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2017, 134 resettlement sites nationwide have been forced to close due to funding cuts during the Trump Administration, leading to a 38% decrease in resettlement capacity. Agencies are hesitant to reopen offices and stretch their resources, only for resettlement caps to get slashed by the next administration. Additionally, the health risks of COVID-19 have disrupted in-person interviews for asylees since March 2020. While the Biden Administration has initiated some interviews using virtual teleconference (V-Tel) software, it has not adequately expanded its capacity. In 2023, the U.S. only admitted approximately 60,000 refugees out of 125,000 allocated spots. 

    Complex adjudication process

    The refugee adjudication process can be lengthy and complex, delaying assistance to people in urgent need. The USCIS conducts rigorous interviews to determine whether an individual satisfies refugee status. Refugees must also pass extensive background checks and medical screenings. On average, it takes nearly two years for refugees to be admitted to the U.S. By contrast, the resettlement process for North Korean defectors in South Korea begins almost immediately, and they are automatically granted citizenship. 

    Potential security concerns

    Despite strict screening measures, other critics are concerned about the potential security risks of the refugee admissions system. They argue that the process may not sufficiently prevent people with malicious intentions from entering the U.S. Out of over three million refugees who have entered the U.S., a handful have been implicated in terrorist plots. Of 192 foreign-born terrorists who committed attacks in the U.S. between 1975 and 2017, 25 were refugees. Of those attacks, three proved deadly, which occurred before the INA tightened its screening procedures in 1980. 

    Notably, in September 2017, the Trump Administration suspended the entry of North Koreans into the U.S., citing the country’s “provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies.” This executive order followed the death of an American student, Otto Warmbier, who was detained in North Korea and returned to the U.S. in a vegetative state. 

    In January 2018, the Trump Administration resumed accepting refugees from North Korea and ten other “high-risk” countries. Nevertheless, refugees from these countries are subject to stricter background checks from U.S. screeners. Given that American standards for accepting refugees are already considered some of the toughest in the world, critics view the additional screening measures as part of a broader goal to restrict all forms of immigration from “high-risk” countries. 

    Conclusion

    While Sections 207 and 208 of the INA serve as crucial mechanisms for providing refuge to vulnerable groups, they face critical challenges and limitations. Supporters of refugee admissions find it imperative for the U.S. to establish an efficient and just immigration system, especially for individuals who need shelter immediately, including those escaping North Korea. They claim that U.S. security measures against the North Korean regime should not target the people who are fleeing from the exact danger and remind us that government actions do not necessarily represent the masses.

  • Pros and Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    Pros and Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, is a comprehensive agreement that defines the laws and regulations for the world’s seas and oceans. UNCLOS exists to ensure that as we move into the future, conversations are being had about our oceans and how to protect them, while still protecting the economies that rely on them. As the world population continues to increase and conversations around climate change encourage higher fish consumption, there is an increasing reliance on fisheries around the globe. Sustainable fishing practices are used to ensure that the environmental health of fisheries doesn’t diminish, while still utilizing them to feed the planet. The three tenets of sustainable fishing practices are sustainable fish stocks, minimizing impact on marine ecosystems, and effective management of operations. At the core of sustainable fishing practices is the desire to ensure longevity of fisheries and the benefits they provide to our global economy. “According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, about 79 percent of seafood is sustainable. However, not all fishing practices are exemplary, and there is a limit to how much we can take from the ocean.” 

    The implementation of sustainable fishing practices under UNCLOS is crucial for global conservation efforts. While the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, its adherence to UNCLOS principles demonstrates a commitment to sustainable fishing. The collective efforts of all UN members in implementing sustainable fishing practices can significantly impact marine ecosystems. Despite past hesitations, the US has embraced sustainable fishing measures, aligning with UNCLOS values and regulations to promote marine conservation on a global scale.

    Pros of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    There are both economical and environmental benefits to implementing sustainable fishing practices. In 2013, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) report calculated the time it would take to fully restore over-exploited fish stocks, and found that if fishing in those areas was completely halted, they could be fully restored in five years, surpassing the 2013 fish supply levels in the EU in only four years. The result would be an initial economic loss, since fishermen would need payment during the transition to sustainable fishing practices. However, all initial costs would be recovered within 4-5 years, with “each year thereafter seeing a net benefit on the investment.”

    Implementing sustainable fishing practices is crucial for protecting marine ecosystems and preserving marine biodiversity. According to the 2018 Living Planet Report by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the fishing industry has been a major contributor to the loss of marine biodiversity due to overfishing. Sustainable fishing techniques, such as selective fishing, can help minimize these impacts. Selective fishing targets only commercial value fish, reducing bycatch and allowing for the use of non-target species like fishmeal for livestock feed, thus minimizing food waste. By preventing overfishing and promoting sustainable practices, marine biodiversity can be preserved and even recovered, ensuring the viability of fishing industries for future generations. 

    Cons of Implementing Sustainable Fishing Practices

    Economically, there are many costs associated with implementing sustainable fishing practices. As previously mentioned, it could be years before there is a return on initial investments. In the meantime, the world still relies on fishing to feed the population, and to support economies of food systems. Socially, many coastal communities and cultures around the world have traditions that revolve around fishing. Implementing sustainable fishing practices as law may negatively impact these traditions, altering cultures that have been around for centuries. 

    Lastly, the World Wildlife Foundation critiques current sustainable fishing practices in the sense that funds have not been successfully allocated toward improving fishing practices and the health of the oceans. “The sustainable seafood movement has been very good at developing eco-labelling incentives and technical mitigation solutions yet poor at keeping track of, or adopting, leading-edge sustainable business practices.” A 2019 study at Bournemouth University found that while sustainable fishing is implemented with the intention of preserving marine ecosystems, “it requires ecological devastation in terms of fish numbers (a removal of up to 80% of the initial level) to reach a population capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.” Furthermore, their study found that the ocean’s capability to absorb greenhouse gasses may be decreased by current sustainable fishing practices, suggesting that current techniques that are used for sustainability must be reimagined in order to truly have a positive impact on global warming and ocean ecology. One suggestion is a return to slower, more traditional forms of fishing, like the hook-and-line method, taking only what is needed to feed a population and no more.

    Conclusion

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was initially designed to create a framework by which all countries knew the laws and expectations for how to conduct business pertaining to the global ocean system. Whether through implementing sustainable fishing practices, or not, we are all a part of one ocean, and UNCLOS hopes to create a unified approach to protecting this ocean, and the billions of people who rely on it.

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 4

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 4

    The fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention featured the theme “For the Future,” encapsulating the forward-looking message that has defined the event. While the night included appearances by high-profile celebrities, Democratic officials, and party elites, the spotlight was firmly on Kamala Harris as she officially accepted the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

    As calls for freedom and the promise of a new future echoed through the United Center in Chicago, here’s what the Democrats had to say as they closed out their convention and introduced their new leader.

    Key Speakers of Night 4:

    Elizabeth Warren

    Elizabeth Warren emphasized Kamala Harris’s commitment to making life more affordable for working families. She highlighted Harris’s efforts to tackle price gouging during crises like the California wildfires and the pandemic. Warren portrayed Harris as a determined advocate for women’s rights, stating, “Kamala will protect abortion rights nationwide,” and concluded with a vote of confidence: “Kamala Harris is someone we can trust.”

    Members of the Central Park 5

    The Central Park 5 spoke about their wrongful convictions and subsequent exoneration, using their story to underscore the importance of justice and voting. They expressed their belief that Kamala Harris would continue to fight for fairness in America, with one member stating, “Vice President Kamala Harris has also worked to make things fairer. I know she will do the same as President.”

    Former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords

    Gabby Giffords, a survivor of gun violence, expressed admiration for Kamala Harris’s resilience and dedication. Giffords praised Harris’s ability to challenge the gun lobby and protect abortion access, portraying her as a leader with the strength to enact meaningful change: “Kamala can beat the gun lobby. She can fight gun trafficking.”

    Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly

    Mark Kelly focused on Kamala Harris’s dedication to national security and support for the military. He emphasized the importance of America’s alliances and the challenges a second Trump presidency might bring. Kelly commended Harris’s understanding of foreign policy, noting, “Kamala Harris knows that standing with our allies means standing up for Americans.”

    Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer

    Governor Gretchen Whitmer highlighted Kamala Harris as a leader who understands the struggles of ordinary Americans, particularly working women. Whitmer drew parallels between their shared experiences of caring for ill mothers, and emphasized Harris’s commitment to healthcare and elder care, stating, “Kamala Harris knows who she’s fighting for too.”

    Maya Harris, Kamala’s Sister

    Maya Harris provided a personal glimpse into Kamala Harris’s upbringing, sharing stories about their mother’s influence. She described their mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, as a trailblazer who instilled in them a belief in their potential and a responsibility to fight for justice. Maya highlighted Kamala’s lifelong dedication to these values, saying, “Kamala’s entire life has been about fighting for each of us to have that freedom.”

    North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper

    Governor Roy Cooper spoke about Kamala Harris’s determination to stand up for everyday Americans against powerful interests. He recounted how Harris, as California’s Attorney General, secured $20 billion for California families during the foreclosure crisis. Cooper praised Harris as a leader who “does exactly what she said she’s going to do,” urging Americans to support her as she would fight for them.

    Kamala Harris

    Kamala Harris’s speech was the crowning moment of the convention, blending her personal story with a strong policy vision. She began by acknowledging her roots, particularly the influence of her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and her immigrant upbringing. Harris spoke at length about the values instilled in her by her family, such as community, faith, and the importance of justice. She linked these values to her professional journey, highlighting her work as a prosecutor and attorney general, where she fought against sexual abuse, big banks, and elder abuse, emphasizing that “a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us.”

    Harris laid out her vision for the economy, promising to build a strong middle class through an “opportunity economy” that would create jobs, lower the cost of living, and provide access to capital for small businesses. She sharply contrasted her vision with Donald Trump’s, accusing him of serving only himself and his billionaire friends, while she pledged a “middle-class tax cut.”

    Harris underscored her administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. She recalled her direct engagement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, warning him of Russia’s impending invasion: “Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade.” She highlighted how the Biden administration successfully rallied over 50 countries to defend Ukraine, declaring, “I helped mobilize a global response… to defend against Putin’s aggression.” This, she argued, is essential to upholding democratic values and international law.

    On the Israel-Gaza war, Harris expressed unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense while acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” she stated, while also describing the devastation in Gaza as “heartbreaking.” Harris emphasized the administration’s diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire and secure a hostage deal, noting, “President Biden and I are working around the clock because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done.”

    Outlining her broader Middle East strategy, she focused on countering Iranian-backed terrorism and strengthening U.S. alliances. She criticized Trump for being easily manipulated by autocrats like Kim Jong Un, warning, “They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself.” Harris pledged to maintain U.S. leadership in critical areas like space and artificial intelligence, vowing, “I will make sure to lead the world into the future on space and artificial intelligence that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century.”

    She reaffirmed her vision of America as a global leader that champions democracy, human rights, and strong alliances. She contrasted this with Trump’s isolationism, urging, “In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.” Harris called on Americans to support her leadership to secure the nation’s future and uphold the values that define American democracy.

    Harris also spoke on women’s reproductive rights, positioning it as a fundamental freedom that is under unprecedented attack. She directly linked the current state of reproductive rights in America to Donald Trump’s influence, stating, “Donald Trump handpicked members of the United States Supreme Court to take away reproductive freedom. And now he brags about it.”

    Harris recounted stories from women across the country who have suffered due to the erosion of reproductive rights, highlighting the human cost of these political decisions. “Women have told me those stories… of miscarrying in a parking lot, developing sepsis, losing the ability to ever again have children,” she said, painting a vivid picture of the stakes involved.

    Harris also warned of Trump’s broader agenda: “As part of his agenda, he and his allies will limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion, and enact a nationwide abortion ban with or without Congress.” In contrast, Harris pledged to restore these rights, asserting, “When Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.”

    Vice President Harris concluded her speech with a call to action, urging Americans to embrace a future defined by freedom, opportunity, and unity. She contrasted this vision with the divisive rhetoric of her opponents, stating, “In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.”

    “Let us show each other and the world who we are and what we stand for: freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness, and endless possibilities.” Harris called on Americans to rise to the occasion, saying, “It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done… to fight for the ideals we cherish and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on earth, the privilege and pride of being an American.”

    With this rallying cry, Harris sought to unite the nation around a vision of progress and inclusivity, urging all to vote and contribute to writing “the next great chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told.”

    The stage is now set. The candidates are locked in, and there is no going back.

    Coming off a historic convention, Kamala Harris seems to have all the momentum heading into November. But now, she faces the real test.

    In just under three weeks, Harris will face Trump on the debate stage. For the first time, Americans will have the chance to see the contrast between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, compare their visions for the country, and decide who they want to lead them into the future.

    Get ready, America, because we’re in for a ride.

    Stay here to get all your news without the spin. Stay engaged, stay informed, stay critical.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading

    Do I agree with Vice President Kamala Harris’ vision for the country?

    Do I agree with her policy in regards to the economy, foreign policy, abortion, etc?

    Do I know enough about VP Harris’ policies?