research paper

Immigration policies in the United States remain a paramount topic in shaping the nation’s sociopolitical culture in the status quo; nuances in public sentiment pertaining to both immigration and are imperative in recognizing the broader implications of this issue. To gauge public sentiment on this and associated issues, a poll was conducted titled Taking America’s Pulse 2016 Class Survey. The Survey organization was the German data and analytics firm, Growth from Knowledge (GfK) Group, and was sponsored by Cornell University faculty members, Peter K. Enns, Ph.D., Professor of Government, and Jonathon Schuldt, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Communication. This research will examine two (2) questions from the referenced 2016 poll, Question I, “Do you think the number of immigrants admitted into the US is too high, too low, or about the right amount?” and Question II, “Would you support or oppose a proposal to increase penalties for undocumented immigrants who overstay their visa in the US?”. This secondary data analysis further studies the aforementioned questions by examining respondents’ political party affiliation.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008, often referred to as the “bank bailout of 2008”, was an act of Congress that created a billion-dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase distressed assets during the Financial Crisis. The EESA was one of the “bailout measures” taken by congress to help repair the economic damage of 2007-08. Although the EESA is a fiduciary-centered act of congress, its long-term implications affected everyday Americans through its policy impacts. One central question in this policy evaluation is to analyze whether the EESA bailout unjustly assisted prominent banks and broker-dealers or whether the EESA was essential to ensure the prevention of the U.S. financial system from collapsing. Because the Financial Crisis of 2007-08 had such a broad impact, especially since many distressed assets were within the residential market [of average Americans], analyzing this Act through research and policy evaluation is especially fitting. This Policy Evaluation explores public policy in emergency circumstances, implications outside the financial sector for the public, and the overall synthesis between major financial markets and institutions and the American general public.

With the increasing polarization of dialogue in the American political atmosphere, public sentiment has progressively become indispensable to U.S. governmental affairs; bearing heightened importance for continued interdisciplinary study in Psychology & Political Science. With the rise in political engagement, there have been growing concerns about the behavioral and cognitive qualifications of government officials, especially officials who are elected to hold public office. This research examines Americans' attitudes toward the likeliness of public officials' conduct to be a factor in vote choice. Correspondingly, by expanding the umbrella of Political Psychology to explore perceptions of the behavioral sciences - this study also examines Americans' viewpoint for the disqualification of public officials due to cognitive decline.