As a person hoping to immigrate to the United States, being selected means being able to set your roots for generations to come in the United States while being able to revisit your home country. Similar to any other lottery selection process, people who win will have their lives transformed, and the many who are not selected yearly prepare for the next application cycle. In Iran, there was always a dichotomy between the vocalized public outlook on American politics and immigration to the West, but nearly one million Iranians apply annually to the lottery regardless, and that number grows yearly. This is additionally surprising, as the lottery system is not discussed in the media, so it was either spread by word of mouth or informal communication methods such as social media platforms. This is the case for many of the nations that receive the largest numbers of winners, the majority being African nations such as Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia. 

However, the validity of the Diversity Visa has recently been heavily questioned by former U.S. President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as much of the Republican party. Many believe new immigrants with Diversity Visa take jobs away from American citizens. Similarly, Donald Trump and many other Republicans have been harsh towards illegal immigration and even the granting of visa or citizenship to people hoping to enter the United States. While the nation is tackling issues of mass illegal immigration and concerns over border safety, the United States is continuing to offer a gateway of legal immigration to citizens from many lesser developed countries who don’t necessarily possess a helpful skill such as H1-B visa holders, have the stable family structure of sponsored citizens, nor the ability to get a job and contribute to the nation’s economy. Donald Trump even made it clear he would not endorse any form of migration from many Middle Eastern countries during his often-referred to–“Muslim ban.” Trump also implemented and extended lesser-known policies, known as Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, under the guise of protecting the U.S. labor market after COVID-19 broke out. These proclamations led to the further destruction of the American lottery system, and to this day, many people who were selected for the lottery during this time are still upended. They have no residency in the U.S. and are uncertain if they’ll ever be able to immigrate. President Joseph Biden has not taken the necessary steps to grant these people who have already selected their citizenship either.

Another point of criticism about the lottery visa selection is that it doesn’t allow for application from certain countries, which are Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (including Hong Kong SAR), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its territories, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Venezuela and Vietnam. This is mainly because those nations sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the previous five years. So while many Mexican individuals wait their turn to be allowed into the country, people immigrating from global powers such as France can still apply for the Diversity Visa. Many believe this is rather unfair, as people hoping to immigrate cannot control their chances of selection or the overall number of immigrants from their country.

However, there is no question that the Diversity Visa allows the rest of the world to preserve their perspective of the United States as a global superpower. As people in many countries do not even have American embassies or regular access to the resources required to apply for a mere visa, people in nations such as Iran are capable of building a new life for themselves far away from home and securing a new form of citizenship. It continues the narrative of the United States being the “place to be” and a “land of opportunity,” and also allows the United States to benefit from the diversification of interested populaces. 

The validity of the Diversity Visa in this nation remains in limbo, but there is no question that this lesser-known method of immigration has transformed many lives, such as mine, and given hope to ordinary people that they have the opportunity to immigrate. As changes around national immigration policy continue and we examine the 2024 U.S. presidential election, it will become clear whether this nation is heading down a track to eliminating access to this pivotal resource.

The Dutch houses line the streets everywhere, adorned with beautiful large windows that don’t ever have any curtains or any sort of cover. Not only can anyone walking on the street see the minimalist and rustic decor outside of the home, but any passerby also has an open gateway into the home and a personal look at how the inhabitants choose to decorate their home. 

As I walked down the street at night, I could see into the windows of all of the homes and apartments that line the streets, and got an intimate look at the families dining inside or the elders watching TV. When I mentioned the open windows concept and how beautiful, yet exposed, the interior of each home is, my instructors just laughed and said “Yes, they’re just displaying how normal they are.” 

Following an intense night of reading up on Dutch norms, I came to recognize that the intention behind this open exposure was to demonstrate the normalcy of the families that lived within these homes. Many believe this practice is rooted in the values of Calvinism, which insists that an honest person will not need to deceive people or hide. To many Dutch people, this display of getting breakfast or working in their home office is a demonstration of their ability to “be normal” and show that they are accepted into Dutch standards during their personal time, as well in their public lives. In a culture where demonstrating decency is so valued, leaving your windows open is a primary example of showing your possessions and the decent living standards you set for yourself.

This mindset is not only limited to the open exposure of nearly every window in the street. Slowly but surely, I started to see how this “be normal” mentality surrounded me everywhere in the Netherlands. When someone next to me was walking the wrong way on the street, an old lady told her to “do normaal.” When my friend talked a little too loud at brunch, the man next to us similarly said “nou nou,” a signal that you’re behaving outside of the norm and you need to adhere to Dutch norms. Even the bread at the grocery store labeled “normal” bread is priced much higher than cultural bread and other bread types that have more ingredients and labor costs associated with them. There seems to be constant signaling and expectation of how one can fully adhere to the Dutch norms and not ever stand out.

Coming from the United States where showing extravagance and individuality is valued and seen as desirable, the Dutch interest in behaving within a thin spectrum of what is considered “normal” is not just intriguing but unusual. Shouldn’t you desire to stand out from the crowd? How will you succeed if you don’t? 

After living here now for a month (wow, so long…) I have also learned how this acceptance and expectation of normalcy is also embedded into the governmental structures at hand. Mark Rutte, the current Prime Minister of the Netherlands, has now held the position for more than 12 years. This officially makes him the longest-serving democratically elected leader in Europe. His center-right politics and his efforts to keep things as they are, combined with his personal love of all things Dutch such as biking and waffles, keep the voters on his side year and year again. His ability to not only avoid causing conflict but also his ability to fade into the background is seen as a positive. This is not to say he is not charming or successful at swaying the public opinion, as he has held power for so long and been able to accomplish a lot during his time. 

However, his center politics are more fascinating because not only is he able to keep power, his government has maintained its position for so long and he has avoided following the path of extremism making waves through the EU right now. He has even been nicknamed “Teflon Mark” because nothing seems to stick to him and his image as his control continues. His political positions have been characterized by pragmatism, which is in line with Dutch culture that prefers practical solutions to ideological ones. His approach has helped to maintain a sense of stability in the country, which has been attractive to many Dutch voters.

However, his approval ratings have recently taken a dip in recent years. In 2021, his government resigned after a scandal involving the child welfare benefit system. Essentially, due to negligence and a lack of oversight, many were wrongly accused of tax fraud. Rutte’s involvement in this situation and many people’s impression that he tried to hide these incidents affected his political strength. But, despite this major incident, he was still subsequently re-elected and still holds the position. For many across the globe who know the impact that one major scandal has had on a politician’s past, this situation seems unfathomable. The ongoing approval of such a center politician for so long in a government signals the uniqueness of the Netherlands in maintaining a status quo and pursuing the ideals of normalcy.

And when we look at the decisions of the Netherlands internationally this past decade, this expectation of normalcy is also prevalent. The demonstrated resistance to incoming EU members and against the widening process of the EU is also attributed by many to be a result of Dutch complacency. As the European Union is in the process of deciding how to stop the influx of international immigrants, whether it be through greater border control or increased security measures within, there is still a demonstration that being outside of normal within the Netherlands carries greater weight. Dutch citizens are coming to believe that as the demographics of the Netherlands change, holding onto that same feeling of normalcy will also be a different experience. 

So, from the amount of houses exposed to the public or the type of bread bought, social customs show the stagnant growth for the Netherlands in terms of pioneering social acceptance. When the lines between expecting normalcy and expecting sameness begins to blur, it becomes clear that the Netherlands might not be as socially liberal as it might initially seem. 

These ideas of adhering to a status quo can often skirt the line of desirable and discriminatory.  It will be interesting to see how the government changes in the future and in a post-Brexit world, and how the role the Netherlands plays in European politics might shift with new developing powers.

However, this option might soon be inaccessible as well. According to Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz, the Starbucks corporation is initiating the process of closing its doors (and restrooms) to non-customer visitors. Starbucks boasts 15,000 locations in the United States, and for a long time has had accessible restrooms. While this decision by Starbucks might appear insignificant, it will hurt many metropolitan cities dependent on using the Starbucks locations as their one and only accessible restroom. For people who are unable to afford a 5-dollar drink in order to gain access to the restroom, there are no other alternatives; for many homeless individuals today, it is a daily reality that they have to search the city for a public restroom until finally having to resort to public urination instead.

This ongoing scarcity of public restrooms in the city is the result of many corporations closing their bathrooms off from non-paying customers and the sustained lack of public restrooms in such densely populated areas. As many urban mayors and other political figures boast that their plans will help the homeless population, this has not materialized any new public areas to take care of business. This results in the homeless and those unable to afford to endorse private businesses having no option but to urinate on the street regularly, creating a slew of health and public safety issues. 

Even when action has been taken to eradicate America’s public urination issue, the support and maintenance of these programs have been weak and unresponsive. In 2018, Mayor Eric Garcetti tried to set up restrooms in homeless hotspots to help alleviate this problem. After setting up restroom stations in Skid Row for three months, they were quickly removed because the city did not have the infrastructure to continue supporting the process. So why do we as Americans let this public safety issue go unnoticed? And how can major metropolitan cities in the United States not support the local efforts of eradicating public urination?

Public urination creates unsanitary conditions for city dwellers and can create long-term effects of health issues and exposure to disease if left on the streets.  discussions around homelessness must be desensitized in order to create a recognizable difference. Furthermore, public urination is not only a crime but can classify someone as a sex offender. One of the easiest ways to give a sense of normalcy and security to the struggling homeless populations in major cities is allowing them the privacy of a bathroom. It is as easy as installing and maintaining operating porta-potties in areas with high foot traffic and little restroom access. With the proper funding and care to these programs, states could pass effective legislature that funds these projects and provides a temporary solution to a part of a major problem. Politicians and local activists need to prioritize the push for public restrooms as a way of helping homeless people work out of their situation and to protect the greater safety of the American people. 

This threat of nuclear escalation is neither new nor surprising. Putin has made similar statements in the past, namely stating that “the world is nothing without Russia,” and therefore, using nuclear resources to defend Russia is necessary. However, with the massive costs of this conflict and increasing Russia-West tensions, such threats are beginning to bear more impact than ever.

Moreover, Russia recently took over a Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant following strenuous attacks. Zaporizhzhia, currently Europe’s largest power plant, now sits under Russian control. 

As Russian attacks move further into Ukrainian territory, the shelling and the sensitivity of the nuclear force in the plant may pose a threat. Many in the West and around the world are watching intently as Russia inches closer and closer to risking the lives of millions with its continuous pressure on the plant. 

With many of Putin’s threats materializing into consistent attacks on this region, nuclear threats like these become more worrisome. With such a large nuclear arsenal at its disposal and Russia’s repeatedly-expressed interest in using them to win the war it started at any cost, many Western powers are looking intently at the course of action by Putin’s government.

U.S. President Joe Biden has not stayed unresponsive to Putin’s attempts at nuclear provocation. Biden is warning Russia that there might be a “wider danger” in the threats by the Russians, and something that the West should not turn a blind eye to. In an interview with CNN, Biden stated, “It would be irresponsible for me to talk about what we would or wouldn’t do” if Russia follows through with any nuclear threat.

If Russia was to actually exert its force on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and continue to move forward with a “strike first” mentality, it would risk challenging the United States and its allies to a nuclear match-off. Approximately 90 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States, and their excessive — yet accessible — supply has kept them at a stalemate for the past 80 years. 

If Putin chose to make good on his threats, he would have to recognize that the United States is well-equipped to retaliate at any second. However threatening Putin’s words might be, they seem insufficient to realistically push him to take nuclear action. 

To better understand Putin’s ideas and the threat’s validity, one must also look at his long-term history of empty promises and unfulfilled threats of nuclear usage. 

Even with the strain of the ongoing conflict, Putin is considered by many to be acting erratically and irrationally. However, the threat of retaliation when it comes to nuclear force is something even Putin cannot pretend to show defiance to. 

But this issue is not simply a matter of rationality for Putin or Russia. While the use of nuclear weaponry to further this particular war is not likely, the wielding of such a threat would have dire consequences if it materialized, and should not be taken lightly. 

It would be in the best interests of both Russia and Putin to back away from nuclear use. But, that simply may not be enough to hold him back. 

With the world’s gaze on him and increased doubt on whether Russia can actually win this fight and maintain its position of power, Putin might be willing to take any measures necessary to win back control.