data-content-type="article"
The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), more commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, required non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases proceeded through US immigration courts [1]. Introduced in January 2019 under the Trump administration and officially ended in August 2022, the policy was justified as a way to prevent fraudulent asylum claims and ease overcrowding at the border [2]. In practice, MPP outsourced US asylum responsibilities and denied many people access to fair legal processes. Though MPP ended two years ago, its legacy continues to shape the current immigration debate, normalizing the idea that the US can protect its border by endangering the vulnerable.
4 Min Read
overrideBackgroundColorOrImage=
overrideTextColor=
promoTextAlignment=
overrideCardHideSection=
overrideCardHideByline=
overrideCardHideDescription=
overridebuttonBgColor=
overrideButtonText=
promoTextAlignment=
data-content-type="article"
Few issues expose the values and divisions of American politics more clearly than the idea of social welfare. Critics argue that welfare programs create dependency and force citizens to subsidize others against their will. Supporters counter that it provides the necessities of life, prevents poverty, and builds national strength. These ideas are especially relevant in health care, where a sudden accident or illness can leave people financially devastated. While free-market advocates argue that deregulation ultimately lowers costs and expands access, the broader evidence suggests that guaranteeing a universal baseline of care, while allowing for private options, reduces poverty, promotes stability, and fulfills the moral obligation that every human deserves health care.
4 Min Read
overrideBackgroundColorOrImage=
overrideTextColor=
promoTextAlignment=
overrideCardHideSection=
overrideCardHideByline=
overrideCardHideDescription=
overridebuttonBgColor=
overrideButtonText=
promoTextAlignment=
data-content-type="article"
In 2022, as Russia invaded Ukraine, world leaders came together; billions of dollars in aid were pledged in weeks, and leaders openly supported Ukraine in their struggle for freedom. That response was an appropriate one: Ukraine deserved international support. Likewise, when Hamas brutally attacked Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, the world was justified in condemning terrorism and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself. What followed, however, revealed a stark hypocrisy: as Israel’s military campaign in Gaza claimed lives and displaced entire communities, many of the same Western leaders who had just spoken out for human rights fell silent. If human rights are truly universal, why does the Western world defend them so selectively? For Palestinians specifically, the message was clear: in the eyes of global conflict, not all victims are equal.
4 Min Read
overrideBackgroundColorOrImage=
overrideTextColor=
promoTextAlignment=
overrideCardHideSection=
overrideCardHideByline=
overrideCardHideDescription=
overridebuttonBgColor=
overrideButtonText=
promoTextAlignment=
