ACE

Tag: government

  • Understanding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

    Understanding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

    Background

    In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

    • Publishing procedural rules in the Federal Register
    • Electronically disclosing certain frequently requested records
    • Disclosing all covered records not already available upon request

    FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

    History of FOIA

    Concerns over government secrecy grew in the aftermath of the Cold War. In response, Representative John Moss, a Democrat from California, introduced FOIA in 1955 with support from the journalism community. Despite opposition from President Lyndon B. Johnson and every federal agency, the House of Representatives passed the bill with a vote of 307–0. When Johnson signed the legislation in 1966, he included a signing statement emphasizing that the law allowed room for interpretation and exemptions related to national security.

    Over the decades, several amendments refined FOIA to make it what it is today. Most notably, the Privacy Act of 1974 was created in response to concerns about individual privacy rights In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which required agencies to make documents available electronically. The OPEN Government Act of 2007, signed by President George W. Bush, expanded the definition of “journalist” to include web-based reporters and bloggers. It also established the Office of Government Information Services to oversee FOIA compliance. President Barack Obama further reformed the law with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which required agencies to update their FOIA regulations and create a centralized online portal for requests. The FOIA Improvement Act also introduced the “foreseeable harm” standard, which prohibits agencies from denying FOIA requests unless they can sufficiently prove that disclosure of the requested records would lead to a specific harm.

    The FOIA Request Process

    FOIA requests are open to anyone, regardless of citizenship status. Requesters must submit their inquiries either electronically or in paper form to the appropriate federal agency. Upon submission, the agency provides a tracking number and begins searching for relevant records. If the requested documents contain sensitive information, agencies redact sections in accordance with the nine exemptions before releasing them to the requester.

    The processing time for a FOIA request depends on the complexity of the information sought. Simple requests are generally fulfilled more quickly, while those requiring extensive searches or redactions take longer. In certain circumstances, requests may qualify for expedited processing, particularly if a delay would threaten someone’s safety or if there is an urgent need to inform the public about government activities. While there is no initial fee to file a request, agencies may charge for search time beyond two hours or for duplicating more than 100 pages, depending on the requesting party. If a request is denied, the requester has the right to file an appeal at no cost.

    FOIA in the 21st Century

    As digital technology has advanced, FOIA has become a tool for journalists and advocacy organizations to uncover government behaviors and potential wrongdoings. Some FOIA requests eventually turn into lawsuits. For example, in 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit for the Department of Justice to turn over records on the government’s use of individual cell phones as tracking devices. In 2016, Color of Change and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation for not responding to their FOIA requests, which they had submitted that same year for records about federal surveillance of Black Lives Matter protests.

    During the Trump administration, FOIA requests were frequently used to fact-check government statements, investigate the COVID-19 response, and examine financial conflicts of interest. In 2017, federal agencies redacted or withheld 78 percent of requested records, the highest rate in a decade. That same year, FOIA lawsuits rose by 26 percent, marking a 70 percent increase from 2012. 

    Under the Biden administration, FOIA request processing remained similarly restrictive. In fiscal year 2023, over two-thirds of requests were either redacted, withheld, or denied on the basis that no relevant records were found. Agencies received nearly 1.2 million FOIA requests that year, setting a new record. Approximately 40 percent of requests were only partially fulfilled, a rate comparable to the final year of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the number of requests fully granted dropped from 21 percent in 2020 to 16 percent in 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of FOIA

    Supporters of FOIA argue that the law promotes public transparency and holds government officials accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. In a democratic society, access to government information is essential for maintaining trust between the public and its government. Proponents argue that government transparency is especially important in the post-9/11 era, as government agencies have expanded their data collection efforts while often keeping these activities secret.

    In addition to promoting the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry, supporters argue that FOIA is especially useful to potential voters. FOIA gives Americans access to in-depth knowledge about their political representatives, allowing them to make more informed choices at the polls.

    Finally, supporters argue that FOIA allows advocacy organizations to amplify and seek justice for government wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret. They point to instances where FOIA requests have led to the discovery of misinformation campaigns, coordinated use of excessive force against protesters, and surveillance. In some cases, such as the aforementioned 2008 and 2016 lawsuits, FOIA requests can provide a foundation for victims of injustice to seek accountability. 

    Although FOIA initially faced challenges such as bureaucratic delays and inconsistent enforcement, proponents contend that amendments over the years have made the process more accessible. The rise of digital technology has also made it easier for agencies to share information with the public. 

    Criticisms of FOIA

    Opponents argue that FOIA places an excessive burden on federal agencies by requiring them to respond to requests within a short time frame despite limited resources and funding. They also argue that FOIA contributes to an overburdened judicial system, as courts must handle cases involving delayed or incomplete responses to FOIA requests. Another concern is that FOIA allows too many requests driven by personal curiosity rather than legitimate public interest, further straining agency resources. 

    On the other hand, some criticize FOIA’s broad exemptions, arguing that agencies frequently overuse them to withhold information. Exemption 5, which protects privileged communications between agencies, is particularly controversial. In 2013 alone, it was cited more than 81,000 times to deny FOIA requests. 

    Another longstanding issue is the excessive delay in releasing certain records. The FBI, for example, took nearly 25 years to release files on musician John Lennon following an ACLU request. The agency withheld the final 10 documents until 2006, citing concerns about “foreign diplomatic, economic, and military retaliation” against the United States. However, when the documents were finally disclosed, they contained only well-known information about Lennon’s connections to antiwar groups. ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum described the prolonged secrecy as “government paranoia at a pathological level.”

    Proposed Reforms

    To address some of these concerns, several reforms have been proposed to improve FOIA while balancing the government’s need for confidentiality. One suggestion is to limit the duration that records can be withheld under Exemption 5. Proponents of this reform suggest that setting a maximum withholding period of 12 years—the same limit applied to presidential records involving deliberative processes—could help prevent excessive secrecy while still protecting sensitive government deliberations. Another proposed reform is to implement a “balancing test” that requires agencies to weigh the government’s interest in confidentiality against the public’s right to access records. 

    Conclusion

    FOIA is a landmark law that changed the landscape of government transparency. While it has undergone reforms to improve public access to records, challenges such as delayed processing times and resource constraints hinder its effectiveness. Ongoing debates about FOIA reflect broader tensions regarding national security, government efficiency, and the public’s right to information. 

  • English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the Official Language of the U.S.

    On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.

    Generally, an official language is the language used by the government to conduct its day-to-day operations. President Trump’s order rescinds a policy established during the Clinton administration that required federal departments and organizations with federal funding to provide “extensive language assistance to non-English speakers.” However, it allows such agencies to keep their current language policies if they choose. In line with the order’s principles, Trump removed the Spanish-language version of the White House website within his first few days in office. 

    Public Response

    The order drew criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that it harms immigrant communities and those seeking to learn English by reducing access to language assistance. Others stress that the order will make it more difficult for non-English speakers to access governmental services such as voting, healthcare, or English as a Second Language (ESL) education programs. Since the executive order could cause a considerable population of U.S. residents to lose access to these government programs, some have labeled it “a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against immigrants.” 

    Immigration advocacy organizations have also emphasized the order’s potential impacts on the citizenship application process. Currently, applicants can complete the citizenship test and interview in their native language if they meet certain age and residency criteria. If the Trump administration expands the English-only standard to the citizenship application process, advocates fear several residents who completed a years-long application process would be disqualified from citizenship on the basis of their native language. 

    On the other hand, some argue the order has more benefits than drawbacks. In the text of his executive order, Trump argues that an official language will “create a more cohesive and efficient society,” suggesting that eliminating ESL requirements will push non-English speakers to improve their English language skills. ProEnglish, an advocacy organization that aims to codify English as the official language of all U.S. states and territories, argues that conducting government business in languages other than English creates “cultural-linguistic segregation” that disrupts “the ideal of the melting pot”. 

    Other supporters argue that the executive order was the common-sense culmination of a decades-long effort. Vice President J.D. Vance introduced a bill to codify English as the official language of the U.S. in 2023, stating, “This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country.”

    While the order does not require federal agencies and their beneficiaries to halt ESL programs and accommodations, the impacts of the order on non-English-speaking communities are likely to become clear in the coming months.

  • The TikTok Ban: Overview and New Developments

    The TikTok Ban: Overview and New Developments

    An Overview of TikTok Security Concerns

    In 2016, the Chinese company ByteDance launched Douyin, a social media app focused on short-form content in China. Following the app’s success, ByteDance expanded the app overseas, launching TikTok to the international market in late 2017. TikTok was a major success internationally, amassing two million downloads and 800 about million active users within a few years.

    Despite its massive popularity, TikTok has come under scrutiny for alleged cybersecurity threats. In 2019, the U.S. government sued the company for violating child online privacy laws, leading TikTok to settle for a $5.7 million fine. After reports of alleged censorship suggested that TikTok was working in tandem with Chinese government interests, the Pentagon banned the app on all military devices. In a joint letter to the Director of National Intelligence later that year, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) argued that weak Chinese cybersecurity laws might compel ByteDance “to support and cooperate with intelligence work controlled by the Chinese Communist Party” by handing over data to the Chinese government upon its request. However, more recently, security experts argued that China has been collecting personal data from Americans for nearly a decade such that TikTok is not necessarily a novel or unique threat.

    A Brief History of the TikTok Ban

    After TikTok gained widespread attention in 2019 for alleged security concerns, President Trump signed two consecutive executive orders that restricted American business transactions with ByteDance and demanded ByteDance to shift management of TikTok’s U.S. operations. While these orders prompted consideration of a potential sale to Microsoft, the second order was blocked by a federal judge and the Trump administration eventually loosened its deadlines after losing the 2020 election.

    The momentum toward a national TikTok ban slowed for the first few years of the Biden Administration, until a 2023 hearing with TikTok’s CEO drew public attention for lawmakers’ heated interrogations. The same year, a bipartisan “sell-or-ban” bill, which proposed a national TikTok ban if the app was not sold to an American buyer in 270 days, was introduced and gained traction. On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed the “sell-or-ban” bill into law. In response, TikTok sued the U.S. Justice Department, arguing that the ban violated the constitutional right to free speech. The Department of Justice argued that the bill was justified due to pressing national security threats. 

    Recent Developments

    On Friday, January 17th, 2025 – two days before the ban was to go into effect – the Supreme Court ruled against TikTok, holding that the “sell-or-ban” bill was constitutional because it did not target TikTok for the content of the platform’s speech, and was based on sufficient evidence of national security threats. Additionally, the Supreme Court reasoned that the law was not an outright ban because TikTok still had the opportunity to operate if the platform was sold to different management. 

    On Saturday, January 18th, the app went offline for about twelve hours before returning with a message thanking then President-elect Trump for his efforts to restore the app. Before TikTok resumed service on Sunday the 19th, Trump had promised to issue an executive order delaying enforcement of the “sell-or-ban” law after his inauguration the following day. 

    Now, Trump has issued a 75-day delay in enforcing the TikTok ban, ordering that ByteDance either sell the app within that time or reach a deal with Trump in which 50% of ownership of the app would be given to the United States

  • What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    President-Elect Donald Trump recently began announcing his presidential cabinet nominations, tapping Congresspeople, former Republican presidential nominees, and close allies. As the leader of the executive branch, the President must appoint about 4,000 officials, including the members of his cabinet, who serve as heads of executive departments. Some cabinet positions, including UN Ambassador, require confirmation by the Senate and typically involve confirmation hearings. In the midst of his cabinet nominations, Trump introduced an idea for a new executive department that has caused debates about executive power. 

    The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

    On Tuesday, November 12th, 2024, Trump announced that he would be creating a new executive department, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire businessmen Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he is creating the new department to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Also known as DOGE, the department aims to provide “outside guidance” to the government and foster “an entrepreneurial approach” to government spending. The department is slated to last until July 4th, 2026, giving it a deadline to accomplish its objective of cutting government spending. It is still unclear as to how the department will officially be created or funded, as creating new federal departments requires congressional approval. If Congress does not move forward with establishing DOGE, Musk and Ramaswamy may act as advisors to the President rather than as leaders of an official executive department.  

    Who are the proposed heads of the Department of Government Efficiency?

    • Elon Musk: Musk is a businessman worth over 303 billion dollars and the co-founder of over seven companies, some of the most notable being Tesla and SpaceX. Throughout Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, Musk has been a staunch supporter, attending rallies, giving at least $130 million in campaign donations, and hosting a $1 million raffle in the swing state of Pennsylvania for those who registered to vote. At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in October, Musk stated that he wanted to reduce the federal budget by “at least $2 trillion,” about 30% of the federal government’s total fiscal spending in 2024. 
    • Vivek Ramaswamy: Ramaswamy made political news in early 2023 when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination. His policy positions included militarizing the southern border, ending the funding of sanctuary cities, diversifying healthcare insurance options, abolishing the Department of Education, and increasing the voting age to 25. Ramaswamy founded Roivant Sciences, a biotech company focused on applying technology to drug development. He previously signaled support for cutting government spending when he announced his plans to cut the number of federal workers through “reduction of force” regulations when he was campaigning for president in 2023.

    Your opinion matters! Click Here to let us know how you feel about the issues discussed in this brief!

  • Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Pros and Cons of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    What is the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act?

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018 mandated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to coordinate with relevant agencies to study and implement a three-digit dialing code, later designated as 988, for the national mental health crisis hotline. Introduced by Senators Cory Gardner, Tammy Baldwin, Jack Reed, and Jerry Moran, the Act aims to simplify the process of reaching out for help during a crisis, given the rising suicide rates among youth and high-risk groups such as veterans, LGBTQIA+ people, and individuals in rural areas.

    Arguments in Favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Improved Accessibility and Crisis Service Coordination

    One of the primary arguments in favor of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is that it offers better access to mental health support. By designating 9-8-8 as the national suicide prevention hotline number, proponents say the Act simplifies the process of seeking help during a crisis. According to a national report, a three-digit number is easier to remember than the previous ten-digit number, which helps ensure that individuals in distress can quickly access the support they need. Proponents highlight that such an ease of access significantly increases the likelihood of timely assistance, which is crucial in emergency situations where every second counts. Furthermore, using the 988 number for mental health crises directs individuals in distress to appropriate and specialized professional support which they may not otherwise receive from the more general 911 line. Some praise this aspect of the Act for relieving the burden on other emergency medical services, which are often overburdened and under-equipped to respond to mental health crises on top of other emergencies. 

    Follow-Up and Continuous Care

    Supporters also praise the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act’s emphasis on follow-up and continuous care for individuals who contact the 9-8-8 Lifeline. The Act recognizes that immediate crisis intervention is just the first step in preventing suicide and addressing mental health crises. By ensuring systematic follow-up programs, the Lifeline can provide ongoing support to individuals after their initial contact. Follow-up care can include regular check-ins, referrals to local mental health services, and support in navigating the healthcare system, all of which contribute to a comprehensive approach to crisis management and suicide prevention. Proponents hold that this continuous engagement helps to maintain the well-being of individuals, citing a study that suggests follow-up care reduces the risk of future crises and improves overall mental health outcomes. 

    Enhanced Funding and Resource Allocation

    Supporters claim the Act also has the capacity to drive a cultural shift in how mental health crises are perceived and addressed. By equating the importance of mental health emergencies with medical emergencies, proponents argue that the legislation encourages greater recognition and prioritization of mental health issues. This shift has the potential to lead to increased funding and resources for mental health services, ultimately improving the quality and availability of care. Indeed, the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment of nearly $1 billion in the 988 Lifeline, including a sub-network for Spanish speakers, highlights the commitment to expanding and enhancing these critical services.

    Arguments Against the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act

    Uneven State Response

    One significant concern regarding the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act is the uneven state response to the 9-8-8 implementation. Critics highlight that in-state answer rates currently range from 55% to 98%, indicating significant disparities in service quality across the country. States like Alaska, which have the lowest in-state answer rates, often lack local call centers. As a result, residents are redirected to national backup centers that may lack access to or knowledge of local resources for treatment referrals. This variability leads to different levels of accessibility and dependability, which critics claim compromises the overall effectiveness of the 988 hotline and leaves individuals in certain areas without the crucial help they need during crises. Critics warn that the discrepancies in care between states might lead to a general distrust of the hotline.

    Resource and Capacity Constraints

    Critics also argue that the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act was enacted without proper attention to resource allocation and capacity building. They claim that building the infrastructure for a new nationwide crisis hotline is a long-term endeavor, complicated by a national shortage of mental health professionals. Critics point to the development of the 911 system, which took decades to achieve full operational capacity, as a predictor of the difficulties that may be faced with such a quick 9-8-8 rollout. They argue that workforce shortages and infrastructure limitations could delay the system’s full functionality, potentially causing a snowball effect in which crisis centers drop out of the network, rendering care less accessible, reducing the effectiveness and legitimacy of the hotline, and ultimately dissuading people in crisis from calling.

    Low Public Awareness

    Another crucial issue is the low public awareness of the 988 Lifeline and its purpose. Without widespread knowledge and understanding of the service, the number’s reach and impact are significantly reduced. Critics highlight that many Americans, particularly racial minorities and those without a college education, are unaware of the 988 hotline or do not understand how to use it. They argue that the Act should have included more specific programs to increase consumer awareness of the hotline, especially in communities where mental health is a taboo topic. Similar to the rollout of 911, building public awareness will take significant time and effort to ensure that the 988 lifeline is effectively utilized by all segments of the population. Critics of the bill claim this awareness curve could have been mitigated by a more robust public outreach strategy. 

    Conclusion

    The National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act aims to improve access to mental health crisis support by simplifying the process of reaching out for help. Some believe the Act was an urgently needed intervention that provided an adequate basis for the national hotline, while others argue its passage could have been delayed to include more specifics on public awareness and capacity building. While the Act has the capacity to greatly enhance mental health crisis intervention and reduce suicide rates, challenges such as uneven state responses, resource constraints, and low public awareness must be addressed to fully realize its benefits.

  • 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.

  • A Guide to Candidate Positions: Abortion Rights in the 2024 Election

    A Guide to Candidate Positions: Abortion Rights in the 2024 Election

    Abortion, defined as a medical intervention to end a pregnancy, has remained a contentious issue in American politics and the judicial system for decades. The right to an abortion was first granted in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment right to personal privacy” included the right to an abortion without “extreme” government restriction. After the ruling, some areas of the country remained “resistant to abortion”, and legislators tested the extent of the ruling via state-level restrictions on abortion access. One such abortion restriction law was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2022, leading to the monumental Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision which overturned the right to abortion established in Roe. The Dobbs ruling asserted that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, thereby leaving the regulation of abortion to individual states. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, abortion rights have become a pivotal issue, with measures related to abortion appearing on ballots in 10 states. 

    Kamala Harris: Harris has strongly urged Congress to pass legislation that would federally codify the right to an abortion. During the past presidential debate, she promised to sign such a bill into law if it crossed her desk as President. Harris has stated that she supports the abortion limitations set in Roe. Wade, which protect abortion up until the point of fetal viability. As Senator, Harris cosponsored legislation that would ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion access. During her time as Vice President, Harris worked to protect access to FDA-approved abortion medication, promote reliable sources of information on abortion, and support those who must travel to seek reproductive health care.

    Donald Trump: Throughout his political career, Trump has vocally opposed abortion. In 2016, he ran on the promise that he would appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump kept that promise, nominating three Supreme Court justices who gave the court a 6-3 conservative majority that later overturned the right to an abortion in the Dobbs decision. More recently, Trump’s outward stance on abortion has become less staunch. In March, Trump suggested that he would support a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks gestation. However, in October, he tweeted that he would “not support a federal abortion ban under any circumstances.” When questioned on his abortion stance during the last presidential debate, Trump refused to answer whether or not he would sign a federal abortion ban, stating that abortion restrictions should be left to the states to decide. 

    Jill Stein: Stein strongly supports restoring abortion access nationally, stating “reproductive care should be part of a comprehensive system of healthcare” in an August interview. In an Instagram post on September 21st, she stated that “safe abortion access is a human right” and that abortion bans are “killing women.” In the same post, she criticized Democrats for failing to codify Roe v. Wade. 

    Cornel West: West is an advocate for “unfettered access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare,” including “safe and legal abortion.” In 2022, West participated in Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights protests for abortion access in front of the Supreme Court. West also strongly supports the national codification of abortion rights.

  • Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Background

    The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) is a bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would expand protections for voting rights in the United States. The bill was originally introduced in 2019 during the 116th U.S. Congress as the For the People Act (FTPA). After being blocked in the Senate, the FTPA underwent revisions and became the FTVA. Despite these changes, the bill still failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. Its current iteration remains stuck in committee today.

    The FTVA includes an expansive set of provisions that, were the bill to pass, would impact many different components of voter law.

    • Expanding ballot access: The bill includes a set of policies that aim to expand ballot access across the United States. These policies would require all 50 states to offer a minimum of two weeks for early voting, establish a standardized vote-by-mail system for all eligible voters, and provide more options for identity confirmation in states with voter ID requirements.
    • Expanding voter registration: The bill seeks to expand voter registration options by mandating that all 50 states offer online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. It also introduces a standardized review system for purging voter rolls to ensure eligible voters are not mistakenly removed during post-election voter roll cleanups.
    • Addressing election security: The FTVA focuses on enhancing election security by requiring voter-verified paper ballots and creating standard procedures for post-election audits. It would make threatening, intimidating, or coercing election workers a federal crime, and would also safeguard against interference with voters. The bill would create federal grants for the recruitment and training of non-partisan election officials.
    • Reforming campaign finance: The FTVA targets campaign finance reform, diminishing the power of super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations and strengthening the power of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It aims to eliminate dark money, or funds spent to influence elections that cannot be traced due to the anonymity of a donor, by incorporating provisions from the DISCLOSE Act to increase donor transparency. Additionally, the FTVA seeks to enhance FEC enforcement by requiring a majority vote to dismiss campaign fraud cases early and by extending the statute of limitations for campaign finance crimes from five to 10 years.
    • Addressing redistricting: The FTVA offers several policy directives to address redistricting, including a federal prohibition on “mid-decade” redistricting, or the practice of redrawing pre-established district lines using the same census information.  It also aims to ban partisan gerrymandering by defining gerrymandering through statistical analysis and authorizing legal challenges against it. Under the FTVA, states would be required to publish district map proposals, and the data used to create them, for public transparency. 

    Arguments in Favor of the FTVA

    Supporters of the bill emphasize its role in safeguarding against restrictive voting access laws. 

    They highlight the hundreds of state-level bills that aim to impose restrictions on voting access and argue that the FTVA offers a national remedy. Given that many argue strict ID requirements, inconvenient registration options, and limited voting methods disproportionately impact communities of color and disabled people, supporters see the FTVA as crucial for increasing equal access to voting in the U.S..

    Proponents also argue that the FTVA could increase trust in the American election system by providing a guardrail against administrative malpractice by state election officials. They hold that election certification has become increasingly political, with multiple election boards attempting to delay or refuse the certification of election results since the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since the FTVA contains provisions that limit election officials’ ability to interfere with local election administrators, supporters claim that the bill will restore trust in the legitimacy of election results. 

    Finally, proponents of the FTVA reject the argument that the bill upsets the power balance between state and federal authority. They point to the Election Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress authority over states’ voting procedures for members of the House and Senate. They argue that this clause allows the FTVA standards to override pre-existing state election standards in the case of federal congressional elections.

    Arguments Against the FTVA

    Arguments against the bill largely concern the efficacy of its provisions. Both a study by American University in 2008 and a study from the University of Wisconsin found that early voting, a provision of the FTVA, decreased voter turnout. Critics argue that these studies suggest the early voting provisions in the FTVA may hinder rather than encourage voter turnout, making them obsolete. In addition, evidence from Princeton University indicates that making Election Day a federal holiday – another provision of the FTVA – would privilege middle- and upper-class voters. Opponents use this to argue that the FTVA might not promote equal access to voting to the extent its supporters claim. 

    Opponents also argue that the FTVA’s provisions encroach on states’ rights, because they would transfer consolidated power over election procedures to the federal government. Given that the states currently have the right to pass their own election laws, critics claim states might lose freedom to control their own election standards if the FTVA were to pass. 

    Conclusion

    After its reintroduction by Senator Amy Klobuchar in July 2023, the current iteration of the FTVA was referred to committee, where it remains today. Given that support and opposition for the bill run largely along partisan lines, the likelihood of the FTVA being passed likely depends on the composition of future congressional sessions.

  • Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    What is SB 7066?

    On June 28, 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law. Previously, convicted felons in Florida could only regain voting rights through a special appeal to the state’s clemency board. In 2018, Amendment 4 was passed, granting voting rights to most convicted felons, excluding those convicted of violent felonies like murder or sexual assault. SB 7066 was then enacted to clarify the terms of Amendment 4.

    SB 7066 requires convicted felons to pay all legal and logistical fees, known as Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs), accumulated during trials or prison time before they can vote. While Amendment 4 allowed over 1.4 million non-violent felons the right to vote in Florida, SB 7066 mandates that all terms of their sentencing, including LFOs, must be completed before they can register to vote.

    Arguments in favor of SB 7066 

    Proponents argue that SB 7066 is necessary to clarify the language of Amendment 4. Amendment 4 stated that individuals could vote after completing their imprisonment, probation, or parole. However, critics claimed that the amendment lacked clear language for restoring felon voting rights broadly, leading to unfair and inconsistent enforcement. Without SB 7066, each Florida county might interpret the amendment differently, causing statewide inconsistency.

    Proponents of SB 7066 argue that the bill supports the principle that voting rights can be restricted for ex-felons who have broken the law. In the United States, a person’s right to vote can be legally revoked if they commit a crime, just as other freedoms can be restricted when they are jailed. Supporters believe that voting is a privilege and can be rightfully denied to those who have shown disregard for the law.

    Arguments against SB 7066

    Critics of SB 7066 highlight the confusion caused by its implementation. There is currently no uniform system to inform ex-felons if they have met all voting requirements. Consequently, ex-felons who attempt to vote but are ineligible under Amendment 4 or SB 7066 risk arrest, as state law makes it illegal to vote if one is not eligible. Critics cite the arrest of 20 individuals ineligible due to violent felony convictions as evidence of the bill’s ambiguity. Additionally, the uncertainty may discourage individuals from voting if they are unsure about their eligibility.

    Critics argue that SB 7066 discriminates against individuals and restricts hundreds of thousands of voters. Since the bill requires the payment of all LFOs, many see this as a form of voter discrimination akin to a poll tax. They point out that SB 7066 effectively undoes Amendment 4, as only an estimated 360,000 of the 1.4 million restored voters are eligible due to unpaid LFOs. Additionally, critics contend that the bill disproportionately impacts Black people and people of color, who are convicted of felonies at higher rates than white individuals and tend to have lower incomes.

    Constitutional Controversy over SB 7066 

    Following the passage of SB 7066, the bill faced court challenges on claims of unconstitutionality. Florida lawyers and voting rights groups filed lawsuits to block or eliminate SB 7066, arguing that requiring convicted felons to pay off their LFOs to vote violated their constitutional right to expression and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished poll taxes. In the case of Jones v. DeSantis, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it was constitutional to require payment of LFOs if the felons had the financial capacity to pay but that ex-felons who were “genuinely unable” to pay could not be denied the right to vote. However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Hinkle’s decision, ruling that there was no constitutional violation. As a result, SB 7066 remains part of Florida law.

    Conclusion

    Since the passage of Florida’s SB 7066, there has been controversy surrounding whether or not such a piece of legislation proves to be a positive or negative contribution to their democratic processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill clarifies the vague language of Amendment 4 while enforcing that felons must take responsibility for their actions before regaining their rights. On the opposing side, critics assert that SB 7066 creates mass confusion in determining voter eligibility and discriminates against individuals while significantly limiting the number of eligible voters.