Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The next step of the American Dream requires immigrants’ participation

Opinion

Migrants walking along the border

Asylum-seeking migrants walk along the US-Mexico border fence near San Diego.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Immigrants have long played an essential role in furthering the American Dream. They have shaped our democracy – eight members of the Constitutional Convention were born outside of the United States. They have developed, refined and spread transformative technologies – you can thank a Scotsman, Alexander Graham Bell, for the telephone. And, they have held us accountable to our ideals by exposing greed and corruption – Jacob Riis, a Dane, and Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, born and raised in Ireland, are responsible for a lot of “good trouble.”

Countless other examples are out there – and they all speak to the central role immigrants play in improving and transforming America. Despite those case studies having been shared and celebrated on numerous occasions, they deserve to be repeated more frequently and more loudly – especially because America’s future as an innovative, inclusive and democratic country hinges on continuing to welcome individuals from around the world.


In the Age of AI, the American Dream must undergo yet another evolution, focusing less on individual success and financial posterity and more on our collective well-being and resilience. That may sound like a bunch of buzzwords, but there’s a whole lot of substance behind the idea of resilience.

A resilient America learns from its mistakes. By way of example, instead of sitting on our hills and allowing social media platforms to wreak havoc on our elections, on our children and on our culture, a resilient America will coordinate and collaborate to direct emerging technologies toward the public interest. A resilient America methodically plans for natural disasters and prepares every Joe and Jane, Jack and Jill, José and Julia for worst-case situations. And, a resilient America updates its democratic institutions, norms and values to align with the times and to adjust to new challenges.

Realizing this new American Dream will be far easier if Congress reaches a compromise to welcome those who share that vision — subject to going through a fair and efficient naturalization process. As made clear by current debates related to migrants attempting to enter the U.S. via our southern border, the status quo is ill-suited to a world in which environmental shifts and technological disruptions will inevitably lead to more immigration. The need to regulate and understand artificial intelligence is a great example — this novel technology poses pros and cons that transcend borders and require analysis from a broad range of experts. If America tries to take on these challenges alone, there’s a good chance that we will miss out on the best policies and practices. If we instead aim to become a global hub for the brightest thinkers and tinkerers in this field, then we will have much better odds of detecting risks and dispersing benefits.

Thankfully, President Joe Biden’s administration has expressed an intent to recruit and retain AI experts from around the world. His executive order on AI specifically addressed reforms that would make it easier for researchers and developers to come to the United States. In practice, though, other planned policies may hinder that goal. As reported by Bloomberg, proposed changes to the H-1B visa program may contradict Biden's efforts to create an international AI talent pipeline. As it stands now, the regulation would rely on a narrow definition of "speciality occupation" to decide who may qualify for expedited entry into the country. This definition would not include individuals with a general degree such as engineering. The proposal should be scrapped or amended. Now’s not the time for drawing arbitrary lines that diminish our collective capacity to solve major problems.

From AI to whatever challenges lie ahead, a more resilient America will be much easier to achieve if we can tap into the world’s diversity of perspectives and expertise. This version of the American Dream is one that should transcend political lines and unite us all around a future in which more people have confidence in our institutions, our communities and our collective ability to withstand an increasingly chaotic and unpredictable world.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less