Reforming the immigration visa system is crucial for the future of the United States. In late 2019, Rep. John Curtis (R‑UT), supported by Gov. Gary Herbert, introduced a bill to create a state‐based visa system. Curtis’s proposal adopts a major component of the Canadian immigration system: visas sponsored by individual states rather than the federal government. Under the legislation, the federal government maintains control over admissions, security checks, and other necessary criteria, while the state governments gain power to select individual migrants and regulate their activity within the state. Each state would get an average of 10,000 visas a year: 5,000 guaranteed for each state and an additional number assigned based on population.
With the partisan gridlock that has characterized Washington politics for at least the past two decades, can and should states lead the way on immigration by utilizing a state‐based visa system? Join the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh for a panel discussion with Representative Curtis and Governor Herbert for a policy deep dive on how state‐based visas can reform our nation’s broken immigration system.
Needle exchange programs are a proven means of reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users. They are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general of the United States, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, needle exchange programs are legally permitted to operate in only 30 states and the District of Columbia. Drug paraphernalia laws make them illegal elsewhere.
Critics of needle exchange programs claim they “enable” or “endorse” illicit drug use. “Not‐in‐my‐backyard” attitudes fuel opposition in local communities. Experts will discuss the efficacy and role of this harm‐reduction strategy as well as the political challenges to its widespread adoption.
Even before Donald Trump’s election, foreign policy thinkers were beginning to realize that American grand strategy had to change. After more than 15 years of war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Americans’ enthusiasm for foreign adventures had expired and many believed that public support for traditional American leadership of the liberal international order had expired along with it. The big question was: What would come next?
During the third year of the Trump administration, the 2020 Democratic candidates have offered a range of arguments about what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy today and where it should be headed. Some of these hew fairly close to the traditional, pre‐Trump approach, while others represent more significant departures from the status quo.
Come hear a panel of distinguished experts discuss the state of the foreign policy debate within the Democratic Party and the future of progressive foreign policy.