Nativism, Racism, and Immigration Policy
This piece examines how U.S. immigration policy has historically functioned as a vehicle for racial hierarchy and nativist ideology rather than neutral regulation. Drawing on scholarship by Tichenor, Masuoka and Junn, Spiro, and Wong, it argues that laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, and the Immigration Act of 1924 translated racialized fears and eugenic theories into formal legal boundaries that defined who could enter, naturalize, and belong. By tracing the linkage between whiteness and citizenship from the Naturalization Act of 1790 through the National Origins Quota System, the paper demonstrates how immigration statutes institutionalized a racially preferred vision of Americanness. Ultimately, it contends that contemporary immigration debates remain shaped by this legacy, as racialized assumptions about national identity continue to structure both policy design and the uneven distribution of citizenship in the United States.
Abbey RaysmanDigital Writer '25 - '26
A Budget of Neglect: U.S. Assault on Humanitarian Aid
This piece evaluates the Trump Administration’s proposal to cut the U.S. International Affairs Budget by 85 percent, arguing that the reduction represents both a humanitarian setback and a strategic miscalculation. Drawing on research in global health and economic development, it contends that U.S. foreign aid improves public health outcomes, encourages domestic investment in recipient countries, strengthens national security, and expands export markets. Ultimately, the piece frames humanitarian assistance not as charity, but as a core instrument of American stability and prosperity that the proposed cuts would dangerously undermine.
Caid CampbellDigital Writer '25 - '26
Dictatorship, Democracy, and the Foundations of Sustained Growth
This piece challenges the claim that dictatorships produce superior economic growth by avoiding democratic gridlock. Drawing on new institutional economics, particularly North, Wallis, and Weingast’s distinction between Limited Access Orders and Open Access Orders, it argues that the key difference between regime types lies not in average growth rates but in stability and institutional resilience. While authoritarian regimes can generate rapid short-term expansion through rent creation and elite coordination, they struggle to provide secure property rights, open competition, and credible commitment, resulting in volatile and fragile growth. Democracies, by contrast, sustain long-term prosperity through impersonal institutions, adaptive efficiency, and competitive markets that generate innovation and reduce the frequency of severe economic downturns.
Can The President Actually Remove a Federal Reserve Board Member?
This piece examines whether a president can legally remove a Federal Reserve Board member or chair, using President Trump’s public threats toward Jerome Powell as a contemporary case study. It situates the controversy within the longstanding principle of central bank independence and analyzes the statutory and constitutional limits on presidential removal power. Drawing on the Federal Reserve Act and Supreme Court precedent, particularly Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Seila Law v. CFPB, the paper argues that a Fed chair may only be removed “for cause,” not for policy disagreements. Ultimately, it concludes that absent misconduct or a major shift in legal doctrine, presidential frustration with monetary policy does not provide sufficient grounds for removal.
Liam PetersonDigital Writer '25 - '26
Reflecting on Citizenship Research: What the Trump Administration Means for Immigration Scholarship
This reflection connects research on second-class citizenship and legal consciousness to recent immigration policy shifts under the Trump administration, examining how executive actions reshape both formal legal status and everyday lived experience. It argues that these policies intensify insecurity for mixed-status families by reinforcing uncertainty around rights, belonging, and legal protection. At the same time, the piece highlights how this instability complicates immigration scholarship, as citizenship increasingly functions as a fluid and contingent condition rather than a stable legal category in the United States.
Anna HullUWJPS Editor '25 - '26
Bridging the Divide: The Power of Student Lobbying
The piece examines student lobbying as an effective response to political polarization, emphasizing its capacity to promote civic engagement, dialogue, and constructive policy change. Through historical examples such as Title IX and contemporary initiatives like Huskies on the Hill, it demonstrates how student advocacy brings together individuals across disciplines and political perspectives. In doing so, the piece argues that student-led lobbying not only influences legislation but also strengthens democratic participation by fostering compromise, communication, and mutual understanding between citizens and lawmakers.
Kaitlyn O'Connor
UWJPS Editor '25 - '26
Reflection on the Regulation of Giants: What Should We Expect with Antitrust and Trump 2.0?
This piece examines the uncertain future of antitrust enforcement under a second Trump administration, contrasting Trump’s prior selective approach to Big Tech with the more aggressive antitrust agenda pursued during the Biden administration. It explores how shifts at the DOJ and FTC, a business-friendly stance on AI regulation, and the involvement of figures like Elon Musk may signal a rollback of robust enforcement, raising broader questions about whether antitrust policy will be driven by market principles or political considerations.
Isaac GreyUWJPS Director of Public Relations '25 - '26
Cultural Implications of Grant's Pass V. Johnson
This piece argues that Grants Pass v. Johnson enables the criminalization of homelessness by dismantling prior Eighth Amendment protections that limited punitive camping bans when no shelter was available. It contends that the Court’s reasoning obscures how such ordinances effectively punish the status of being unhoused, rather than discrete conduct. More broadly, the decision is framed as reflecting a cultural and political willingness to marginalize unhoused individuals by removing them from public view instead of addressing the structural causes of homelessness.
Dylan Bianchi
A Relativist's Approach to Disability in Global and Comparative Perspectives
This reflection on a disability studies course examines how disability is understood across cultures in the Global South, emphasizing relativist and intersectional approaches to rights-based advocacy. Through case studies of organizations such as CREA and VIHEMA, it argues that effective international disability work must be community-driven, culturally responsive, and led by disabled individuals themselves. The piece concludes that meaningful progress depends on resisting Western universalism and respecting local social models of disability.
Julia Blount
Assistant Editor '25 - '26
