PR in the Philippines

The Cato Institute has long advocated for a visa system based on price, a "gold card" concept. My colleague Alex Nowrasteh suggested in 2019 that such a system, where immigrants pay a fee for the right to live and work in the U.S., "would create a dynamic, market-based, merit-based, relatively more economically efficient, and self-regulating system that would serve the ever-changing American economy." However, President Donald Trump's attempts to program are unlikely to prove fruitless. On April 4th, President Trump unveiled his "Trump Gold Card," proposing to sell it to immigrants for $5 million in exchange for U.S. legal permanent residence. While Trump displayed a physical card, the proposal's feasibility is questionable. Selling legal residency has potential, but Trump's specific plan is unlikely to attract buyers. President Trump insists he can begin issuing gold cards soon without Congressional approval. However, two major hurdles stand in the way. Firstly, the President lacks the authority to grant lawful permanent resident status. The Immigration and Nationality Act clearly defines who is eligible for a "green card," the document signifying permanent resident status. Whether someone could sue to block the Trump Gold Card is debatable. (Who could credibly claim harm from wealthy foreign immigration?) Regardless, this lack of legal basis compounds the second issue: limited demand for a $5 million green card. Although Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick estimates 37 million people globally could afford the Gold Card—and Trump aims to sell 1 million—only about 1.5 million non-Americans possess net assets (excluding their primary residence) exceeding $5 million. Many economists argue that attracting this group to the U.S. would benefit the country. However, these wealthy individuals are unlikely to simply donate their fortunes for the opportunity to reside here. If they are thriving financially in their current locations, they have little incentive to relocate. Furthermore, U.S. tax law acts as a deterrent. Many high-income earners abroad will be hesitant to move to the U.S. due to worldwide income . Trump is , therefore, to only tax gold card holders on U.S.-sourced income. However, the President cannot unilaterally alter U.S. tax law without Congressional action. Even if the legal uncertainties weren't enough, better legal avenues already exist for wealthy individuals willing to relocate. They can easily obtain visas allowing visits of up to six months while maintaining residency elsewhere. If permanent residency is the goal, easier options exist. Individuals with "sustained national or international acclaim" an extraordinary ability green card. Those lacking such fame could invest a small portion of their wealth to gain it. The EB-5 investor visa also exists. Through EB-5, immigrants can gain permanent residence by investing in a rural or economically distressed area and creating 10 jobs within two years. EB-5 requires less capital, and the investment is eventually recovered, unlike the Gold Card, which represents a complete loss. In 2024, fewer than 5,000 investors . President Trump is aware that EB-5 is easier, so he's . Of course, terminating a green card category via executive order is as unlawful as creating one, but it would create grounds for lawsuits and potentially halt the entire policy (including the new "gold cards" replacing EB-5). Issuing Trump's gold cards, changing tax law, and ending the EB-5 investor visa are all likely illegal. Even if the President secures Congressional approval or circumvents judicial review, few high-net-worth immigrants will surrender their fortunes to Trump. Limited demand for Trump's gold card from wealthy Chinese, Saudi, and Russian businessmen who value freedom in the U.S. over prosperity under their current regimes. However, Trump is unlikely to receive support from his own party for encouraging immigration from these groups. Many Republicans have to EB-5 immigration by wealthy Chinese, fearing communist infiltration. Unfortunately, Trump is also undermining the gold card's potential by who . This means customers would pay for a card that could be revoked due to political disagreements with the President, eroding trust and reducing demand. If Congress gets involved, a revised gold card could succeed. If President Trump wants $1 trillion in revenue, Congress should set that target and incrementally reduce the gold card price until sufficient demand is generated. Such a dynamic threshold would eventually raise revenue and make Trump's idea viable. Hopefully, the President is open to revisions.

Ever been so tired you skipped your skincare and went straight to sleep? Imagine doing it every night. Most people would worry about buildup, bacteria, oily skin, and breakouts. But a movement against elaborate skincare routines is emerging: doing nothing at all. No cleansers, exfoliants, moisturizers—or even water. This counterintuitive "caveman method," which involves "caring" for your skin by ignoring it, is gaining popularity on social media. One person's post went viral after she stopped washing her face to repair her skin barrier, even though it led to flaky skin with dead cells. What really happens when you stop washing your face? Is it safe? We consulted dermatologists. Is the “caveman method” good for your skin? The idea behind this method is that many skincare products can strip the skin's natural oils, disrupt its pH, and alter its natural microbiome. The caveman theory suggests that avoiding all of this will restore your skin to its "natural" healthy state. However, whether this method benefits your skin, or anyone's, is complex, according to Dr. Nicole M. Golbari, a dermatologist at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine. "Each face has a unique microbiome," she says. "We all have bacteria, fungus, and even microscopic mites on our faces. While that might sound alarming, these microbes are normal and needed for healthy skin." However, not washing your face can cause yeast and bacteria overgrowth, leading to issues like seborrheic dermatitis and inflammatory acne. , an overgrowth of Malassezia fungus, can cause yellow scale buildup and inflammation around the cheeks, eyebrows, and nose. Not cleansing also leads to dead skin cells and oils clogging pores. "Skin bacteria thrive in clogged pores, causing inflammatory pimples, pustules, and cysts," Golbari adds. The risks and benefits of not washing your face The risks of not washing your face usually outweigh the benefits, says Dr. Asmi Berry, a Los Angeles dermatologist. "Skin minimalism can be good, but skipping all cleansing isn't the answer," says Berry. She says skipping soap is okay for those with very dry or sensitive skin if they still rinse with water—but avoiding both allows buildup that can clog pores, worsen acne, or trigger dermatitis. Besides health concerns, unwashed skin simply doesn't look its best. Dead skin cell buildup can make skin look dull, uneven, and feel rough. Clogged pores can become over time if not cleaned. Pollutants left on the skin can also that contribute to premature aging. "The only benefit might be less disruption to the skin barrier, but you can achieve that with a gentle cleanser," Berry adds. A dermatologist-approved method for keeping skin clear A balanced approach involving and listening to your skin's needs promotes long-term skin health, Golbari says. She advises testing new products on a small skin area before applying them to your whole face to check for sensitivity. Regularly clean makeup brushes and sponges with a gentle cleanser or mild soap to prevent bacteria buildup. She also suggests using a mild face wash suitable for your skin type and looking for terms like "gentle," "pH-balanced," "fragrance-free," and "non-comedogenic." Remember that "skin health often comes from within," she adds—so staying hydrated and eating fruits and vegetables can help maintain a healthy glow. Doing nothing won't work. "For most people, completely stopping skin cleansing, especially facial cleansing, will lead to premature aging, clogged pores, dullness, and breakouts," Golbari says.

Few phrases carry as much arrogance and frustration as "I told you so." Jordan Conrad, founder and clinical director at Madison Park Psychotherapy, explains that it feels like you're reveling in someone else's misfortune. It's akin to implying you're superior or that they'd be better off if they followed your instructions, which is an unpleasant message. However, there are times when highlighting that foresight could have prevented the outcome is beneficial, but it needs to be done with kindness and effectiveness. Conrad advises considering your relationship with the person and your goals for the conversation. Are you aiming to inflate your ego or genuinely help them learn and improve? If a colleague could benefit from reflecting on their decisions, a thoughtful conversation might be helpful, especially for teenagers, but only if they're open to it, he warns. We consulted experts for alternatives to saying "I told you so." “I was worried it might turn out this way. I’m sorry that it did.” This phrasing acknowledges the possibility of a different outcome while allowing the other person to maintain their dignity. Dana Caspersen, a conflict engagement specialist and author of Changing the Conversation: The 17 Principles of Conflict Resolution, notes that it expresses your concern and empathizes with their situation. She adds that we're all prone to errors and our actions are experiments. She suggests adding, "You gave it a shot, and now we know," to show appreciation for their efforts and encourage future success. “I remember us discussing this possibility—let’s figure out what we can learn from it.” Malka Shaw, a licensed clinical social worker, suggests this is a good way to point out foresight without being condescending. It also shifts the focus to solving problems rather than assigning blame. She says it presents an opportunity for mutual growth. If you're tempted to say "I told you so" to a coworker, consider if you were clear about your expectations. Taking responsibility can help prevent similar issues in the future. “What prompted you to go in a different direction?” Instead of asserting your correctness, become curious about the other person's perspective. Mention that you recall discussing the outcome, then ask why they chose a different path or what they'd change next time. Farah Bala, founder and CEO of Farsight, a consulting agency, believes curiosity is powerful. It offers a safe space for them to acknowledge a mistake and creates an opportunity for learning and improving their process. “Do you want my help in situations like this?” Conrad suggests that these conversations are often most difficult with teenagers. Instead of immediately saying "I told you so," even gently, ask if they want your help in similar situations. This assesses their willingness to accept your input. If they're open to it, you can say, "I think I can help you avoid certain things, but it's your choice, like when I suggested X, and it seems like that would have helped." “Is there some way that I can talk to you in the future that would make my suggestions easier to hear? When having a serious discussion with a loved one, such as a child or spouse, Conrad suggests using this question to start a conversation about better communication. Gently mention that the outcome could have been avoided and ask if they want your help in the future. Discuss how to make your advice more appealing, especially for someone who values independence. He adds that you must remember that loved ones will make mistakes and you need to accept that. “I guess my crystal ball was working when we originally discussed this.” Sometimes, humor can lighten the mood, but only if the other person can laugh at their mistakes. Shaw emphasizes that you need to know the person and be sure they'll take it as a joke. If it backfires with a grumpy person, don't say we didn't warn you. Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email  ```

Adelys Ferro, director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, described the Trump Administration's February announcement to end temporary protected status (TPS) for nearly 600,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. as a “beyond betrayal.” This sentiment is understandable, as naturalized Venezuelans played a key role in Donald Trump's victory in a key county, leading Florida Democrats to label it a “day of reckoning.” In Doral, Florida, a city with a large Venezuelan population, Trump received 61% of the vote, a significant shift from 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the municipality with 68%. In 2024, Trump gained support from Hispanic voters, particularly men, across the U.S. Puerto Ricans aided his win in Pennsylvania, and he also made gains with Cuban voters, who already leaned Republican. Trump's firm stance on immigration was well-known. He even acknowledged the support he received from Latinos on border issues at a Miami rally in November 2022, stating that it was the "exact opposite" of what people expected. This raises the question: Do Latinos support what appears to be an aggressive approach against large segments of the Hispanic community, or are there signs of "buyer’s remorse?" The answer is complex. The "Hispanic Voter" is diverse, leading to varying opinions. Venezuelans, a particularly targeted group, seem to be shifting their views. Many initially supported Trump due to their aversion to leftist ideologies, associating Kamala Harris with figures like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. They hoped Trump would remove Maduro from power, with some even envisioning military intervention. However, the administration's initial move toward Maduro's regime was a , which involved negotiating for the release of six imprisoned Americans. Shortly after, in early February, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced the first round of for Venezuelans, citing improved conditions in Venezuela. This claim, suggesting the country is safe for exiles despite Maduro's continued , is seen as both false and insulting to Venezuelans. The Trump Administration has also made moves that affect as well. In March, Trump ended a "parole" program (established by Joe Biden) that allowed over 100,000 Cubans to live and work in the U.S. This decision is perplexing, given that older Cubans are a more established and influential voting group for Republicans. The Administration appears to be counting on the anti-immigrant sentiment of older Cubans, and, for now, . However, there seems to be a , with reports of mass deportations and detentions during routine immigration check-ins. The consequences for the Cuban community, their families, and businesses remain to be seen. The Trump Administration is taking a gamble with a key Republican demographic in Florida. Adding to the complexity is the shocking to El Salvador’s maximum-security prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT). Utilizing an old law, Trump has deported hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador without due process. He has even hinted that American citizens (referred to as ) could be next. Some deportees were sent in error, such as ; others, like , a gay hairdresser with no criminal record, had no gang affiliations. These individuals, , now face inhumane conditions with little hope of release. As the footage of these deportations circulates, it will test Trump's claim that Latinos support his strict immigration policies. Finally, the economy is a key factor, with Trump's economic message cited as a reason for his gains with Hispanic males. While the Administration may believe they have secured this group as part of their base, a POLITICO suggests otherwise. In 2024, Latinos were more likely to "split the ticket," voting for Trump as well as Democratic candidates. This should be a warning for Republicans and a motivator for Democrats seeking to regain lost ground. Republicans will likely be hurt by that have proven disastrous, as Latinos, who often earn less, will be disproportionately affected by rising prices. This, combined with the of mass deportations on the workforce (millions of Latinos, both documented and undocumented, are crucial to industries like farming, construction, and retail), creates a difficult situation for the Republican Party as they try to maintain their support among Hispanic voters. The mid-term elections in November 2026 will be telling. Two things are apparent: Democrats can no longer take the Hispanic vote for granted and must move beyond identity politics to focus on real issues like the economy. Republicans will have to defend their record during Trump's first two years without his influence at the top of the ticket. will be closely watched, and a new shows that Hispanics largely disapprove of Trump's performance (72%, the highest disapproval rate after Black Americans). However, these are just numbers. The true measure of Latinos' regret over their role in Trump's rise to power will be revealed at the ballot box.

Following Monday's election, the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister , secured a narrow victory against and the Conservative Party, marking their fourth term. The election was largely dominated by and his perceived threats, overshadowing other important issues. Even Carney’s background in climate action failed to make it a central focus, as recent polls indicated that climate change was not a top priority for Canadian voters. This represents a significant change from previous elections. Jennifer Winter, a professor at the University of Calgary specializing in climate policies, noted that the election did not primarily revolve around climate change. Instead, the main narratives centered on Trump, U.S. tariffs and their impact on Canada, and the rising cost of living. However, the Liberal Party's win suggests a continuation of existing environmental policies, including mandates for zero-emission vehicle sales and regulations for clean electricity and fuel. Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, stated that the victory implies maintaining the policies implemented by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. Carney's career has spanned both the private sector and climate advocacy. He became a U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019 and launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero in 2021, aiming to unite financial institutions in supporting the transition to a net-zero economy. Harrison believes that his experiences influenced many of the Liberal’s campaign proposals, particularly the commitment to sustainable investment guidelines. Carney has expressed his aim to make Canada a leader in both clean energy and oil and gas. Harrison suggests this shift reflects Canada's desire to reduce reliance on natural resource imports from the U.S. He seems to be advocating for a pipeline to serve Canada's domestic oil demand rather than new pipelines for exporting Canadian oil to other markets. After succeeding Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister in March, Carney's initial actions included abolishing the country's carbon tax, a contentious climate policy that imposed a fee on consumers of fossil fuels. This initiative was often blamed for the increasing cost of living, despite the fact that received more money in rebates than they paid in the tax. Experts emphasize the importance of Carney finding a replacement for the carbon tax. Green suggests that the key question moving forward is whether Canada can still meet its emissions reduction goals without consumer emissions pricing, and if so, what alternative measures will be implemented. This is expected to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. Some argue that the government needs to adopt a more ambitious approach. Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, points out that Canada was not on track to meet emission reduction standards even with the carbon tax. He believes the new leadership presents an opportunity for Canada to embrace more ambitious policies. Smith recommends improving existing policies and adding new ones to ensure the country meets its emission reduction commitments. While the focus has been on the future of the consumer carbon tax, he suggests prioritizing solutions with greater potential for reducing emissions, such as accelerated methane reduction policies or a national carbon market, advocating for a broader perspective. ```

The Trump administration is taking steps to lower car prices for American consumers by lessening the burden of tariffs on imported vehicles. President Trump stated, "It's a little bit of help," during a rally in Michigan, where he will celebrate his first 100 days in office. "We just wanted to help them enjoy this little transition, short-term.” In late March, Trump imposed tariffs on all imported automotive goods entering the U.S., effective April 3. He had also targeted key auto production materials. According to a White House spokesperson, the new measures mean these tariffs won't be added to the existing 25% tariff on cars, potentially lowering production costs for U.S. manufacturers. A separate 25% tariff on imported car parts is still scheduled to take effect on May 3, but efforts are being made to soften the blow for consumers. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick commented, "This deal is a major victory for the President’s trade policy by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically.” Reports suggest the President will soon sign an executive order related to these measures. While details are scarce, it's expected to incentivize manufacturers to relocate operations to the U.S. to avoid tariff costs. What will this mean for consumers? U.S. car dealerships have voiced concerns about the potential impact of auto tariffs on their businesses and the necessity of passing those costs onto customers. Following the widespread implementation of global tariffs on April 3, some international car manufacturers have faced temporary job cuts, suspended car shipments to the U.S., and increased prices. The U.S. represents a significant portion of global sales for many international automakers. In 2024, 39% of Honda's international sales were in the U.S., while Nissan, Porsche, and Kia saw 28% of their international sales in the U.S. Given the U.S.'s substantial consumer market share, American buyers could be significantly affected if automakers pass on tariff costs. One analysis suggests that a 25% tariff on auto parts could increase the average cost of a car in the U.S. by $4,711. How are U.S. car makers responding? The White House announcement is a positive sign for U.S.-based automakers. The Trump administration has emphasized increasing U.S. production as the primary reason for tariffs, but domestic companies are still likely to experience some impact from the tariffs. Manufacturers like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis may view this as a potential reprieve from rising production costs. Some estimates suggest tariffs could cost these three companies $42 billion. Ford stated: “While we further assess the impact of the tariff policies on our North American operations, we look forward to our continued collaboration with the U.S. Administration to strengthen a competitive American auto industry and stimulate exports,” General Motors CEO Mary Barra also expressed approval of the Trump Administration's actions. “We believe the President’s leadership is helping level the playing field for companies like GM and allowing us to invest even more in the U.S. economy.” ```