Majority Nationalism and the Trump Administration: Implications for Puerto Rico and Latinos

At the center of this work is the analysis of the consequences of implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as - the Iran nuclear deal) on divergent foreign policy approaches as the main indicators of the mismatch in relations between the United States and the European Union during the administration of the 45th US President Donald Trump. While the US unilaterally withdrew from this agreement, EU member states remained in it. The United States and the European Union, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, had completely different definitions of their own national security, insisting on their unilateral security, while failing to redefine the problem in the direction of mutual security. However, in addition, the US and EU member states, although both concerned about their own security due to the possible emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, instead of a complementary approach to the issue had a mutually competing one. Using the case study method, as well as the analytical-deductive method and the content analysis method, the author explains the difference in this approach through the concept of the strategic culture of the US and the EU and concludes that they are a consequence of the different understanding of international relations, but also due to the different identity characters of these two actors. The main thesis of the paper is that the US administration of Donald Trump, with its more realistic and Hobbesian view of international relations, and a different understanding of the US national interest in the Middle East, adopted a different approach to curbing Iran's nuclear armament ambitions compared to the approach of the European Union, which is conditioned by a more liberal and Kantian nature of its view on international relations. With unilateral foreign policy actions, Trump's administration risked causing damage and shaking its own credibility in relations with the European Union. On the other hand, the European Union remains committed to multilateralism and the preservation of the Iran nuclear deal. The subject of this research is the direction of the foreign policy actions of the United States and the European Union, in the period from the unilateral withdrawal of Trump's cabinet from the Iran nuclear agreement on May 8th, 2018, until the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, a general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on January 3rd, 2020 in the Republic of Iraq. The current state and perspective of contemporary transatlantic political relations in the context of unilateral withdrawal will be taken into consideration. In accordance with its new foreign policy agenda and strategy, and more inclined to a realistic view of international relations, the Trump administration risked deeper conflicts and divergence with the European Union over regional security issues. Thus, there was a threat to limit the further deepening and strengthening of the transatlantic partnership with the leading member states of the European Union, especially with the government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the government of the Republic of France. Additionally, the subject of research will be the patterns of behavior, embodied in speeches and foreign policy actions, which are consistent with the different approaches of the US and the EU to the problem of preventing the theocratic regime in Iran from developing its nuclear program. Accordingly, the focus will be on the period of the Trump administration, which, with its political will to break off with the legacy of the Obama administration, began to perceive Iran as a factor causing instability in the Middle East region. The Trump administration did not ratify the Iran nuclear agreement and continued to act under its obligations, solely because of the unfavorable benefits and a large number of shortcomings for the US. Thus, the paper will analyze whether the US administration of Donald Trump had a concrete foreign policy strategy in relations with the European Union and Iran. Also, the paper will try to answer the question of whether a unilateral or multilateral approach to regional security problems is more fruitful, taking into consideration the question of whether the unilateral approach of the only superpower in the world is more effective or, on the other hand, an international coalition of states is needed to suppress the Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Revolution and Power in Puerto Rican Nonfiction

Reading Regents and the Political Significance of Law

A History of Latinx Immigrant Activism

Since the inception of the open-door policy in 1978, China has progressively become more integrated into the global economy through trade, foreign direct investment, and, more recently, outward direct investment. This economic integration has gained momentum with initiatives like the ‘Go Global’ strategy, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, and the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013. China’s economic ascent, coupled with its increasing political influence and military power, prompted the United States (US) to initiate a strategy of rebalancing in the Asia Pacific region, starting with the Bush administration and continuing through the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. During the Trump administration, this rebalancing strategy was supported by decoupling strategy, ultimately leading to a trade war with China. Despite its intention to avoid the initiation of a new Cold War and to adopt a more moderate stance towards China, the US-China trade war has evolved further into a tech war under the Biden administration. Given this context, this article aims to outline the primary characteristics of the US economic policy towards China during the Biden administration, comparing it to the Trump administration and assessing its impact on both nations. The central argument of this article is that the primary characteristics of the US economic policy towards China under Biden administration are rebalancing and decoupling, carried over from the policies of the preceding Trump administration, and there are clear signs that these characteristics are deepening. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that the extensive decoupling measures enacted by the US have proven effective in diminishing China’s role in global industrial and supply chains, particularly in industries related to semiconductors and chipmaking equipment.

Puerto Rican migrants have resided in the United States since before the Spanish-Cuban-American War of 1898, when the United States took possession of the island of Puerto Rico as part of the Treaty of Paris. After the war, groups of Puerto Ricans began migrating to the United States as contract laborers, first to sugarcane plantations in Hawaii, and then to other destinations on the mainland. After the Jones Act of 1917 extended U.S. citizenship to islanders, Puerto Ricans migrated to the United States in larger numbers, establishing their largest base in New York City. Over the course of the 1920s and 1930s, a vibrant and heterogeneous colonia developed there, and Puerto Ricans participated actively both in local politics and in the increasingly contentious politics of their homeland, whose status was indeterminate until it became a commonwealth in 1952. The Puerto Rican community in New York changed dramatically after World War II, accommodating up to fifty thousand new migrants per year during the peak of the “great migration” from the island. Newcomers faced intense discrimination and marginalization in this era, defined by both a Cold War ethos and liberal social scientists’ interest in the “Puerto Rican problem.” Puerto Rican migrant communities in the 1950s and 1960s—now rapidly expanding into the Midwest, especially Chicago, and into New Jersey, Connecticut, and Philadelphia—struggled with inadequate housing and discrimination in the job market. In local schools, Puerto Rican children often faced a lack of accommodation of their need for English language instruction. Most catastrophic for Puerto Rican communities, on the East Coast particularly, was the deindustrialization of the labor market over the course of the 1960s. By the late 1960s, in response to these conditions and spurred by the civil rights, Black Power, and other social movements, young Puerto Ricans began organizing and protesting in large numbers. Their activism combined a radical approach to community organizing with Puerto Rican nationalism and international anti-imperialism. The youth were not the only activists in this era. Parents in New York had initiated, together with their African American neighbors, a “community control” movement that spanned the late 1960s and early 1970s; and many other adult activists pushed the politics of the urban social service sector—the primary institutions in many impoverished Puerto Rican communities—further to the left. By the mid-1970s, urban fiscal crises and the rising conservative backlash in national politics dealt another blow to many Puerto Rican communities in the United States. The Puerto Rican population as a whole was now widely considered part of a national “underclass,” and much of the political energy of Puerto Rican leaders focused on addressing the paucity of both basic material stability and social equality in their communities. Since the 1980s, however, Puerto Ricans have achieved some economic gains, and a growing college-educated middle class has managed to gain more control over the cultural representations of their communities. More recently, the political salience of Puerto Ricans as a group has begun to shift. For the better part of the 20th century, Puerto Ricans in the United States were considered numerically insignificant or politically impotent (or both); but in the last two presidential elections (2008 and 2012), their growing populations in the South, especially in Florida, have drawn attention to their demographic significance and their political sensibilities.

Background Immigrants comprise a sizable proportion (15%) of the population living in the United States (U.S.). Given these proportions, it is imperative that we understand immigrant experiences of well-being and stress toward improved well-being and integration. Methods To examine the experiences of first- and second-generation immigrants using a comparative approach, we utilized data from two surveys collected under Trump (n = 490) and Biden (n = 306) administrations. Both studies employed non-probability quota and convenience sampling techniques. Questions about experiences of stress (PSS-4), discrimination (Everyday Discrimination Scale), resilience (Brief Resilience Scale), border stress (Border Community and Immigration Stress Scale), immigration policies (general questions) were included in the surveys. Each study sample included diverse racial groups across both immigrant generations. We report frequencies, descriptive statistics, and ANOVAs/post hoc test results. Results Findings highlight that levels of both stress and discrimination among non-White participants under the Trump administration were significantly higher than those of White participants, though neither relationship was significant under the Biden administration. Further, White participants exhibited higher resilience under the Trump administration, but not under the Biden administration. Discussion and Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study to comparatively examine immigrant experiences under the two most recent federal administrations. This study is seminal in highlighting discussions and making policy recommendations to limit immigrant exclusion, curtail exclusionary policies regarding travel bans, and improve pathways to citizenship, enhancing immigrant integration in the U.S. Roles of social workers in supporting immigrant communities and pathways for future research with immigrants are discussed.

An article is an attempt to study «special relationships» between the United States and Great Britain. The author mentioned that the presidential elections in the USA and the fact that Donald Trump became a new president reflected on the relationships between the United States and Great Britain. The attention is given to the role of personality in states’ relationships. The article illustrates that Donald Trump`s populism in his speeches played a negative role for making stable relationships with the UK. More specifically, Donald Trump's criticism of London's mayor Sadiq Khan, Scotland Yard evocated a negative social reaction in Great Britain. As shown in the article, the citizens of the United Kingdom were shocked by Donald Trump`s islamophobia and his Facebook post of the far-right organization «Britain first». Indeed, it was the reason for massive protests during Donald Trump's official visit to the United Kingdom in 2018. The reference should be made to the fact that in 2016 the UK citizens decided to leave European Union. Despite the fact that Donald Trump approved this decision he criticized British prime-minister Theresa May for soft Brexit. As shown in the article contrary to the strong criticism of the British government Donald Trump visited Great Britain three times during his presidential term. These official trips were directed on normalization of Anglo-American relationships. Queen Elizabeth twice met Donald Trump and they both mentioned that special relationships are important for their countries. Research has shown that during Boris Johnson’s premiership US-UK relations became stronger. This factor is due to close Trump`s and Johnson's political views. The article illustrates that the United States and Great Britain still have special relationships. Countries have strong intelligence, military and nuclear cooperation. Both the US and the UK are still key economical partners and they are interested in safety relationships.

This paper discusses the bilateral relationship between Indonesia–United States due to immigration policies during the Donald Trump administration in the period 2017-2021 and the immigrant community in the United States and the relationship between the two. The formulation of the problem is what motivates the United States to decide its immigration policy and second is how Indonesia responds to the United States' policy, especially the problem of immigrants from Indonesia. The immigration policy discussed in this paper is the Executive Order signed by Donald Trump in 2017 regarding the ban on people from seven Muslim countries who, according to the United States, are supporting countries. The writing method uses literature study and data presentation or literature review. This paper shows that Donald Trump's immigration policy has an impact on immigrants from seven existing Muslim countries and prospective immigrants who will go to the United States. The impact on the main target, in terms of bilateral relations with Indonesia, did not show a significant effect, although there was a decrease in the number of students studying in the United States of around 17% due to this policy. However, the Indonesian government considers Donald Trump's policy only to maintain security in the United States. Indonesia and the United States after Donald Trump's Immigration policy The US Ambassador asked the Indonesian government that the policy was not aimed at Muslims but for US security to limit immigrants from Indonesia who would receive protection from the Indonesian Embassy in the United States.

This paper seeks to examine the relationship between extremist mobilization and elite cues. Specifically, I explore how political elites can mobilize fringe extremists by looking at a specific example where Trump's 2016 candidacy mobilized members of the White extremist alt-right by appealing to their sense of White in-group identification. It will first be shown how the alt-right was responsive to Trump's rhetoric by performing interrupted time series analyses on blog texts from the prominent extremist Daily Stormer. Then, I will incorporate results from a survey experiment showing how White identity motivates those high in alt-right sentiment to support candidates who use racialized and White identity-related rhetoric. Finally, I connect these observations using data from the 2016 ANES pilot to show how White identity uniquely motivated primary-era support for Trump, showing how Trump was distinct in his appeal to those high in White identity. Across these last three analyses, I also show how out-group animus in the form of racial resentment consistently fails to predict the unique support that Trump received from the alt-right. Overall, this paper shows how White identity can result in White extremist support for a mainstream political candidate.

The United States’ Policy towards the World Trade Organization during the Presidency of Donald Trump
 The purpose of this article is to analyze the United States’ policy towards the World Trade Organization (WTO) during the presidency of Donald Trump. Given the stated aim, research questions allow to identify the significant priorities of American foreign policy within the Organization, trade policy challenges, and the current and future survival ofthe global exchange system. Hence, the article is focused on: the importance of the WTO for the global exchange system; the role and capabilities of the United States (US) in the Organization’s analysis; and identification of main priorities and challenges of the US foreign policy towards the WTO in the context of the current trade rivalry with China and itsimpact on the WTO’s future. The main hypothesis of the article indicates that the current US trade policy weakens the possibilities and further functioning of the WTO. The main theoretical perspective of the article is based on institutional liberalism and the theory of comparative advantage. The article has been developed by applying historical, institutional, and legal systemic and content analysis methods (in particular, government, WTO, and think tank reports and analyses).

Pedro A. Malavet relies heavily on cultural theories to study the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, especially Latina/Latino Critical Race Theory. In chapter 1 he attempts to explain this theoretical framework and how it informs his writing. “Lat Crit” scholars such as the author “have identified many forms of discrimination that target Latinas/os in the United States, despite their legal U.S. citizenship. Language, for example, has often been used as a cultural marker to discriminate against Latinas/os” (p. 22). The author claims these forms of discrimination are ultimately racial; Puerto Ricans are just one of many groups who have been “racialized” as Latinos.Chapter 2 studies the legal relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States during the Spanish and American colonial periods. The Spanish American War, ended by the Treaty of Paris, transferred sovereignty from Spain to the United States; although the treaty terminating Spanish citizenship, it did not define legal citizenship within the context of the United States. Instead, it expressly reserved this power for the U.S. Congress; implicitly, it was initially left to the courts to decide (p. 25). The U.S. Supreme Court during the 1901/2 term classified Puerto Rico as an “unincorporated territory of the United States, part of the United States under the ‘territorial clause’ but subject to absolute congressional legislative authority under that provision and the ‘necessary and proper clause’ of the U. S. Constitution” (p. 38). Today, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but that citizenship is expressly inferior — second class — at least as long as they choose to reside on the island (p. 42).Chapter 3 concerns Puerto Rican political culture. The author describes the diverse and sophisticated ideologies of Puerto Rican political parties. The reasons for the paradox of a U.S.-dominated island “that cannot be independent and cannot become a state may be found in the ‘American’ desire to possess the island, on the one hand, and its rejection of the Puerto Ricans and their culture, on the other” (p. 99). In chapter 4, the author states that Puerto Rican cultural nationhood resides in its linguistic heritage, and despite concerted and consistent efforts by the U.S. government to destroy this culture, the existence of Puerto Rican cultural citizenship has resulted in the construction of Puerto Ricans as “others relative to ‘real Americans,’ that is the people of the United States. To attain justice and full citizenship, this ‘othering’ must differentiate and empower, not marginalize” (p. 101).In chapter 5, the author explains his theorization of a new reality of citizenship and nation, by using “critical race theory in general and Lat Crit theory in particular to critique and reform liberalism, to recognize that if it chooses to value group identity, it will not be at odds with a communitarian vision of citizenship.” He adds, “the purpose of this book is to empower Puerto Ricans by redefining their citizenship and, necessarily, their ‘nation’ ” (p. 117). He then uses chapter 6 to affirm that the international legal regime is totally powerless to enforce any rule against the United States, especially in relation to Puerto Rico’s status, and the U.S. – Puerto Rican colonial relationship could be resolved only through U.S. internal law and legal and political systems. The author concludes that Puerto Rico has the choice of negotiating with the people of the United States “a postcolonial future that is consistent with contemporary theories of justice that ensure a legal respect of culture(s) and a multicultural political coexistence” (p. 161).Malavet is a lawyer and academic. He wrote this book to describe a problem between United States and Puerto Rico that dates back 107 years. He uses historical documents, such as the Treaty of Paris of 1898, U.S. Supreme Court Insular cases 1901 – 2, and acts of the U.S. Congress, as well as theories of cultural criticism, to examine the relations between Puerto Rico and the United States. The result, I believe, is a great contribution to American, Puerto Rican, and Latin American history, because it offers both a legal and a cultural perspective. He says Puerto Rico is a constitutional problem that United States has to resolve with justice. To my mind, the author devotes too many pages to theoretical explanations, but I understand his motivation in employing this framework to help Americans understand Puerto Ricans and the relations between United States and Puerto Rico.

Reproductive Injustice at the Southern Border and Beyond: An Analysis of Current Events and Hope for the Future.

The 2000 census counted 3,406,178 Puerto Ricans living in the United States, bringing the total for those living in Puerto Rico and the United States to 7,333,403 million (U.S. Bureau of Census. (2000). Overview of race and Hispanic origin. We the people: Hispanics in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office). The label “Puerto Rican” is not a race but a self-identifier. A Puerto Rican might be born in Puerto Rico or in the United States from Puerto Rican parents. A Puerto Rican might be first-, second-, third-, or even fourth-generation in the Unites States or 20th-generation in Puerto Rico. As long as they identify themselves as Puerto Rican, they are Puerto Rican. The label Puerto Rican has many different connotations to both Puerto Ricans and non–Puerto Ricans. For the purpose of this entry, Puerto Ricans, whether born in Puerto Rico or in the United States, are defined as a multiracial and multicultural ethnic group with more than 500 years of history. The discussion in this entry provides a brief overview; for more in-depth reviews please see the following references: (Anderson, R. W. (1965). Party politics in Puerto Rico. Stanmford, CA: Stanford University Press.; Fitzpatrick, J. P. (1987). Puerto Rican Americans: The meaning of migration to the mainland (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Lewis, G. K. (1963). Puerto Rico: Freedom and power in the Caribbean. New York: Harper & Row; Morales. (1986). Puerto Rican poverty and migration: We just have to try elsewhere. New York: Praeger).

Migration, Acculturation, and Sexual and Reproductive Health of Latino Adolescents