Cato Events Podcast

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scientists and citizens often focus on the dark side of our biological heritage, such as our capacity for aggression, cruelty, prejudice, and self‐​interest. But natural selection has also given us a suite of beneficial social features, including our capacity for love, friendship, cooperation, and teaching.

Beneath all our inventions—our tools, farms, machines, cities, nations—we carry with us innate proclivities to make such a good society. Indeed, our genes affect not only our bodies and behaviors, but also the ways in which we make societies, and therefore ones that are surprisingly similar worldwide.

Using many wide‐​ranging examples— including diverse historical and contemporary cultures, communities formed in the wake of shipwrecks, commune dwellers seeking utopia, online groups of both people and artificially intelligent bots, and even the tender and complex social arrangements of elephants and dolphins that so resemble our own—Christakis demonstrates that, despite a human history replete with violence, we cannot escape our social blueprint for goodness.

In a world of increasing political and economic polarization, it’s tempting to ignore the positive role of our evolutionary past. But Christakis shows how and why evolution has placed us on a humane path—and how we are united by our common humanity.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.

The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.

The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.

The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.

The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.