Search

Begin New Search Topic Domestic politics Political Geography North America

11. U.S. Politics and Foreign Policy after the Midterm Elections

Author:
Andrzej Dąbrowski
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Democratic Party won a majority in the House of Representatives in the U.S. “midterm” elections, although the Republican Party retained its majority in the Senate. The Republicans’ defeat will weaken President Donald Trump, who will have to seek common ground with the Democrats, for example, on the budget. The Democrats will try to undermine Trump administration policy using the powers of Congressional oversight and by obstructing legislation sent to the House by the Republican majority in the Senate.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Government, Politics, Elections, Domestic politics, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Protecting Electoral Integrity in Cyberspace: The US Midterm Elections in 2018

Author:
Samuele Dominioni
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
Elections, when free and fair, are regular and legitimate occasions to vie for power in a democratic country. In order to compete and to be elected, political competitors, usually organized into parties or movements, must follow the democratic principles that rule electoral competitions. There are numerous international regulations that set worldwide standards for democratic elections, which have been adopted by many countries and that constitute the concept of electoral integrity.[1] This refers not only to management of the so-called e-day (election day), but also includes many provisions that must be respected throughout the electoral cycle.
Topic:
Elections, Cybersecurity, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. Redefining American Families: The Disparate Effects of IIRIRA’s Automatic Bars to Reentry and Sponsorship Requirements on Mixed-Citizenship Couples

Author:
Jane Lily López
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
With passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the goal of discouraging illegal immigration and the legal immigration of the poor triumphed over the longstanding goal of family unity in US immigration policy. This shift resulted in policy changes that prevent some mixed-citizenship families from accessing family reunification benefits for the immigrant relatives of US citizens. Two specific elements of IIRIRA — (1) the three- and 10-year bars to reentry, and (2) the minimum income thresholds for citizen sponsors of immigrants — have created a hierarchy of mixed-citizenship families, enabling some to access all the citizenship benefits of family preservation and reunification, while excluding other, similar families from those same benefits. This article details these two key policy changes imposed by IIRIRA and describes their impact on mixed-citizenship couples seeking family reunification benefits in the United States. Mixed-citizenship couples seeking family reunification benefits do not bear the negative impacts of these two policies evenly. Rather, these policies disproportionately limit specific subgroups of immigrants and citizens from accessing family reunification. Low-income, non-White (particularly Latino), and less-educated American families bear the overwhelming brunt of IIRIRA’s narrowing of family reunification benefits. As a result, these policy changes have altered the composition of American society and modified broader notions of American national identity and who truly “belongs.” Most of the disparate impact between mixed-citizenship couples created by the IIRIRA would be corrected by enacting minor policy changes to (1) allow the undocumented spouses of US citizens to adjust their legal status from within the United States, and (2) include the noncitizen spouse’s income earning potential toward satisfying minimum income requirements.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Citizenship, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

14. Immigration Policy and Agriculture: Possible Directions for the Future

Author:
Philip Martin
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Presidential candidate Trump in 2016 promised to prevent unauthorized migration and deport unauthorized foreigners in the United States, and President Trump issued executive orders after taking office in January 2017 that could lead to a 2,000-mile wall on the Mexico-US border and the removal of many of the 11 million unauthorized foreigners, including one million who work in US agriculture. This paper emphasizes that, especially agriculture in the western United States, has long relied on newcomers to fill seasonal farm jobs. The slowdown in Mexico-US migration since 2008-09 means that there are fewer flexible newcomers to supplement the current workforce, which is aging and settled. Farm employers are responding by offering bonuses to satisfy current workers, stretching them with productivity-increasing tools, substituting machines for workers, and supplementing current workforces with legal H-2A guest workers. Immigration policy will influence the choice between mechanization, guest workers, and imports. Several factors suggest that the United States may be poised to embark on another large-scale guest worker program for agriculture. If it does, farmers should begin to pay Social Security and Unemployment Insurance (UI) taxes on the wages of H-2A workers to foster mechanization and development in the workers’ communities of origin by dividing these payroll taxes equally between workers as they depart and commodity-specific boards. Worker departure bonuses could be matched by governments in migrant-sending areas to promote development, and commodity-specific boards could spend monies to reduce dependence on hand labor over time. The economic incentives provided by payroll taxes could help to usher in a new and better era of farm labor.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

15. National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,[1] the legal immigration system,[2] and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation’s economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

16. Why Andrew Puzder as U.S. Secretary of Labor is the Wrong Choice

Author:
Elizabeth Kirchhoff
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Human Rights Education, University of Denver
Abstract:
We are living in a tremendously important time in history, and the decisions being made by our social, economic, and political leaders today will go on to affect the trajectory of our societies for generations. With this in mind, the protection and promotion of human rights are even more crucial. And yet, while the Trump Administration’s cabinet already contains many problematic figures, Trump’s choice for U.S. Secretary of Labor is especially disturbing. Simply put, from a human rights perspective, there are many reasons why the Trump Administration’s nomination of Andrew Puzder as U.S. Secretary of Labor is the wrong choice.
Topic:
Human Rights, Labor Issues, Domestic politics, and Socioeconomics
Political Geography:
United States and North America

17. How buzz on Russia dossier undermines bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington

Author:
Andrei Korobkov
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
The buzz surrounding the so-called “Russian trace” in the U.S. elections, started by former presidential candidate from the Democratic party Hillary Clinton during her 2016 failed presidential campaign, continues to evolve. New accusations spring up, leading to new investigations. Started in mid-2016 by Clinton’s claims about the Russian hackers, who allegedly disclosed information contained on the Democratic Party National Committee servers, it increasingly targets the members of President Donald Trump’s inner circle, including some of his family members. Appointed to deal initially with a narrow set of issues, the Independent Prosecutor Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director, has to deal with the quickly expanding set of claims and accusations.
Topic:
Intelligence, Bilateral Relations, Elections, Domestic politics, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

18. SITREP: What We Talk About When We Talk About Brazil

Author:
Dick Virden
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Just a few years ago Brazil was a feel good story. Its economy was soaring at a rate to rival China’s. Its charismatic president, Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, was among the most popular leaders anywhere, a rags-to-riches phenomenon. In 2014, when the Council on Foreign Relations chose its “Great Decisions” topics for the next year, one was “Brazil in Metamorphosis.” Unfortunately, the country has slipped back into its cocoon. The Samba music has stopped. Instead of being on a roll, Brazil is mired in an awful slump. Or as Frank Sinatra put it, riding high in April, shot down in May. What sort of country is this anyway?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Corruption, Government, Economy, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, North America, and United States of America

19. TACIT AMENDMENTS

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway, Haley Nix, Saurrabh Sanghvi, and Sara Solow
Publication Date:
11-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
As a general rule, the President is “‘without authority, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to modify a treaty provision.’”2 Thus, in amending a treaty, parties effectively sign and ratify a new treaty, to which the standard treaty processes apply. However, numerous treaties have established procedures for modifications to the regime that do not rise to the level of formal amendments to the treaty. This report focuses on such “unratified treaty amendments”—which include what are called “tacit amendments.” Unratified amendments are amendments to treaties that are made without formal Senate ratification.3 They have proven a useful tool in creating robust treaty regimes in a changing world. Just as the use of executive agreements in general has expanded rapidly in the past century,4 treaty regimes increasingly have adopted amendment processes that do not require a full ratification process. And just as executive agreements have raised questions about Senate prerogatives, so too have unratified amendments. There are two primary ways that the U.S. government modifies underlying treaties through an unratified amendment5 —first, through the use of executive agreements; and, second, through the use of tacit amendments. Part I describes how each process works. It argues that both pass constitutional muster so long as the Senate has provided its clear advice and consent to the use of such processes (although not necessarily to the substance of the modifications) in the first instance. Part II outlines and evaluates the various ways in which the Senate has responded to attempts to modify treaties by executive agreement or by tacit amendment in the past. It concludes that the Senate’s requirements of prior notice and its focus on technical provisions, while not always easy to achieve in practice, are sensible ways to maintain Senate prerogatives. Part III concludes.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Domestic politics, and Federalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America