JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Suggestions for Teaching About January 6th
Brief #65 – Education
By Lynn Waldsmith
As the House committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol gains momentum, teachers throughout the country are struggling more than one year later with how, or even if, to teach students about that pivotal event and its impact on our democracy.
Electric Vehicles and a Collision Course with Public Lands Management
Brief #133 – Environmental Policy
By Timothy T. Loftus
The race to electrify the transportation sector, now the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, will entail controversial decisions and tradeoffs involving the use and management of America’s public lands.
Ukraine: Back In The USSR?
Brief #141 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
Ukraine poses a threat in some ways to the stability of the borders around Russia as they have long sought entrance to the European Union and have also sought NATO membership. Russia sees these actions as threatening because it would bring Russia closer to the military alliances of the West that they have rejected since the days of the USSR.
Update on US-Russian Diplomatic Talks on Ukraine Crisis
Brief #140 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On January 10, 2022, US, its NATO allies and Russian officials began a week of talks in Vienna and other European cities in an attempt to de-escalate the rising tensions on the Ukrainian border. The meetings ended without any breakthrough and did not succeed in their key objective: removing the immediate threat of tens of thousands of Russian troops stationed at the Ukrainian border.
The Need for a Federal Statute To Combat Domestic Terrorism
Brief #180 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On January 11, 2022 Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has decided to create a new specialized domestic terrorism unit “to augment our existing approach” and “to ensure that these cases are properly handled and effectively coordinated” across the country. Previously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Security Division (NSD) did not have a group or unit dedicated to only domestic terrorism cases.
Students Abandon Class and Demand Remote Learning During COVID Spike
Brief #64 – Education Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
“Is my child safe in school?” This is a question that millions of parents ask themselves today. Remote learning vs. in-person. In-person vs. remote. Multiple pros and cons, dipped in wordy discussions without being resolved, challenge students and their parents to solve this dilemma on their own. On Monday, January 10th, the New York City Department of Education reported 11,825 students and 2,298 staff COVID cases.
The Future of Warfare
Brief #139 – Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
With the War in Afghanistan having come to an end and the neoliberal experiment of nation-building being tossed on the metaphorical scrap heap, the U.S. confronts a radically changing world in which traditional conceptions of warfare are both antiquated and ultimately disastrous.
Critical Race Theory a Critical Pedagogical and Political Issue
Brief #63 – Education Policy
By Stephen Thomas
Years ago, segregationists relied on the states to pass laws to exclude black students from their children’s schools. Today, their objective is to exclude blacks from the social studies curriculum. Either way, it is a movement centered on the debate about a crucial campaign issue that arose in the Virginia governor’s race and will rise again in the congressional mid-term elections and in state-level elections in 2022.
LGTBQ Nondiscrimination Policies Used to Mask Indecent Exposure Case
Brief #126 – Health Policy
By April Straughters
The conversation about nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQ community in public spaces recently became more complicated after a transgender woman was charged with five felony counts for indecent exposure after reportedly exposing herself at a popular Korean spa in Los Angeles.
Two Bills, One Climate: Breaking Down the Climate Provisions in the “Hard” and “Soft” Infrastructure Bills
Two Bills, One Climate: Breaking Down the Climate Provisions in the “Hard” and “Soft” Infrastructure Bills
Environment Policy Brief # 125 | By: Jacob Morton | August 22, 2021
Header photo taken from: Grist
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Yahoo News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On August 10, the Senate passed the $1 trillion bipartisan “hard infrastructure” bill, which directs a significant portion of its funding to various climate action provisions. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have taken it upon themselves to propose a much more aggressive $3.5 trillion budget resolution (aka the “soft infrastructure bill”) to effectively “overhaul the country’s climate, childcare, and health care laws through the budget reconciliation process.”
The “budget reconciliation process” is a special process, or tool, by which a budget resolution is proposed in the House of Representatives, and if passed, is sent to the Senate, where unlike most bills, only requires a simple majority (50 votes) to pass, cannot be stalled by a filibuster, and does not require the President’s signature. A “budget resolution” is basically a blueprint, established by Congress, to guide what the Federal government, as a whole, should set as its targets for income and spending over the next 5 to 10 years (in other words, what the Federal budget should be). A budget resolution that passes the reconciliation process, is not a law, but rather, a revision of how much money Congress can spend and where it can spend it.
Many Democrats in Congress feel the bipartisan “hard infrastructure” bill, which provides $1 trillion in funding, falls far short of what is actually needed to fund what they consider to be necessary infrastructure for the country. With this specific budget resolution, Democrats are proposing to reach beyond the 1 trillion dollars provided by the bipartisan bill, and side-step its conservative limitations, by re-writing the Federal government’s budget all-together. The process (“reconciliation”) could allow congress to spend an additional $3.5 trillion on a more robust package of infrastructure improvements and policies.
Essentially, congressional Democrats are hoping to take advantage of their majority in both chambers by using the “budget reconciliation process” to rewrite the Federal government’s budget to allow for even greater spending on issues that fall under a definition of “infrastructure” much broader than that accepted by Republicans in the bipartisan bill. The “hard infrastructure” bill, having passed its vote in the Senate now sits again in the House of Representatives where “Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a majority of the nearly 100-member Progressive Caucus have said they will not vote on it unless and until” Senate Democrats pass the $3.5 trillion budget resolution.
While we wait and see how these congressional battles play out, let’s take a look at the climate provisions included in the bipartisan “hard infrastructure bill” and those that have been included in the Democrat’s proposed budget resolution – the “soft infrastructure bill” – and what those provisions mean for Americans and our global commitment to fighting climate change.
Policy Analysis
Within the $1 trillion bipartisan bill, various climate provisions are included, and have been allocated over $300 billion in funding. The bill includes $47 billion to strengthen and increase the resilience of community infrastructure to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events. This will support and expand efforts already underway or planned, as well as fund new approaches, such as “next-generation water modeling activities and flood mapping at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would also receive funds to predict wildfires.”
$65 billion is devoted to modernizing a “smart” and “clean” electricity grid and expanding clean energy transmission capabilities. This includes investment in “grid-balancing technologies” to ensure that “clean” electricity is also reliable electricity; and $2.5 billion given to the Department of Energy (DOE) to enter “capacity contracts” with transmission developers that will “backstop their projects if there is insufficient demand for renewable energy.”
$6 billion is allocated for advanced nuclear reactor projects and to bolster struggling nuclear reactors. Plus, over $10 billion will be invested in carbon capture and storage technologies, with over $300 million of those dollars intended specifically for power plants; $8 billion for “clean hydrogen” research and demonstration; and around $5 billion “for projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure to harden and enhance resilience and reliability.”
Photo taken from: The New York Times
“Carbon capture and storage” refers to the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (usually from power plants and other heavy industry) before they are released into the atmosphere, and then transporting and storing that CO2, often in an underground geological formation. Injection of CO2 deep into the earth has been done for several decades, often as a tool for extracting even more oil from already tapped wells (aka enhanced oil recovery), but long-term storage of captured CO2 is a relatively new concept and its value as a climate change mitigation strategy is still debated.
In addition to funding, the bill gives the DOE authority to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors,” allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to overrule states on power line regulations and where they can be placed. As well, the bill directs the secretary of energy to conduct a study on job losses associated with President Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The bill also includes $7.5 billion to develop electric vehicle charging stations across the country, though that is only half of the $15 billion President Biden had originally requested; and another $7.5 billion for clean buses and ferries, though experts say, “that is not nearly enough to electrify about 50,000 transit buses within five years, as Mr. Biden has vowed to do.” Other provisions found in the bipartisan infrastructure bill include:
- $39 billion to improve public transit options, plus an additional $66 billion invested in rail to fund much needed maintenance to Amtrak’s rail system and upgrades to the high-traffic Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston. This investment is intended to improve safety, efficiency, provide more transit options, and ultimately encourage more people to utilize public transit.
- $17 billion to be spent on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from trucks at port facilities and airports.
- $21 billion to plug oil wells that are still leaking methane gas and to clean up abandoned mines.
- $15 billion for removing lead water service lines across the country; though this falls far short of the $45 billion President Biden had originally proposed and the $60 billion water sector leaders are saying is actually needed to get the job done.
- Funding for various pet projects around the country, including “$1 billion for the restoration of the Great Lakes, $24 million for the San Francisco Bay, $106 million for the Long Island Sound and $238 million for the Chesapeake Bay.”
Photo taken from: Freightwaves
Though this is a significant investment in clean energy, the bipartisan bill contains only a fraction of the money President Biden had originally requested for major environmental initiatives. Additionally, many House progressives and environmentalists argue the bill simply “extends a lifeline to natural gas and nuclear energy.” For instance, Leslie Kaufman, senior climate reporter for Bloomberg news, points out that “Many of the bill’s provisions are on the oil industry’s wish list. The proposed legislation has more than $10 billion for carbon capture, transport, and storage, along with $8 billion for hydrogen—with no stipulation that the energy used to produce it comes from clean sources.”
According to Mother Jones News, “clean hydrogen,” as written in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, likely refers to what is known as “blue” hydrogen, which “involves splitting gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide and then capturing and storing the CO2 to ensure it doesn’t heat the planet.” The process, however, releases methane gas, “and uses a huge amount of energy to separate and then store the carbon dioxide, some of which escapes anyway.” According to a recent study published in the Energy Science & Engineering journal by researchers at Cornell and Stanford University, the production of “blue” hydrogen may actually create more greenhouse gases than burning coal or diesel.
Investing in hydrogen power as a potential alternative to traditional energy production, is not a blatant handout to fossil fuel companies in and of itself. According to Mike Fowler with the Clean Air Task Force, “[hydrogen] appears to be critical for decarbonization of ‘hard-to-electrify’ sectors such as long-haul heavy trucking, international marine shipping and some parts of heavy industry.” The problem lies, however, in the fact that a cleaner form of “green” hydrogen exists, “producing hydrogen from water with only renewable energy” instead of fossil fuels, but the bipartisan bill fails to explicitly direct its funding to that form of hydrogen power; likely to appeal to fossil fuel interests held among members of the Senate, as a compromise to secure votes for passing the bill.
Photo taken from: The Wall Street Journal
Carroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law, says, “We look at that bill and see massive giveaways to fossil fuel infrastructure that is incompatible with serious climate action.” Muffett adds, “Congress went out of its way to not specify ‘green’ hydrogen and so this funding just helps prop up the fossil fuel industry. The potential of these technologies is being routinely overstated even as the impacts are being understated.”
Climate action groups such as 350.org and Sierra Club, further criticize the bipartisan bill for giving a brand-new liquid natural gas plant in Alaska “billions in loan guarantees, while other waivers in the bill will weaken environmental reviews of new construction projects.” Natalie Mebane, Policy Director at 350.org, says of the bill, “Our Senate missed a major opportunity… While they could have led the way to a clean energy future, they chose to pour billions into the false promise of carbon capture and storage, further locking us into decades of new fossil fuel infrastructure which will ensure planetary and community devastation.” Mebane added, “Instead of facing the climate crisis, the Senate has chosen to invest billions into propping up the fossil fuel industry.”
Though skeptics warn of the nefarious compromises hidden within this bill (and the important details left out), the bipartisan work to pass it through the Senate is an accomplishment on its own. Nor is the bill entirely unpopular; a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found that 70% of Americans support the “hard infrastructure” bill, and a poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication “found 67% support among registered voters for a ‘major investment in the nation’s infrastructure.’” As Tracy Raczek, Senior Climate Advisor to the former U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, says, “When you look at greening infrastructure, greening cement, greening houses, retrofitting houses, truly transitioning our entire economy, you have an incredible job opportunity,” adding, “this is a middle-income job boom possibility.”
But while the bipartisan “hard infrastructure” bill is at least, a step forward, it certainly leaves much to be desired as far as doing what is necessary to prevent the planet from warming to an unmanageable degree. After all, the originally proposed bill was whittled down from $2.6 trillion to just $1 trillion. As Democratic Representative from New York, Jamaal Bowman says of the bill, “Though it includes important investments in hard infrastructure like our roads and bridges, it vastly underfunds public transit, [electric vehicles], and grid infrastructure,” measures vitally necessary to addressing the climate emergency.
It is precisely because of these shortcomings that Democrats in Congress have proposed the $3.5 trillion budget resolution, aka the “soft infrastructure” bill, with a particular emphasis on “social infrastructure;” an attempt to fill in the gaps left behind by the compromises made in the bipartisan bill. The proposed plan, presented to the Senate on August 9 by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bernie Sanders, is expected to be officially drafted by Democrat-led committees by September 15. Though the bill addresses issues ranging from creating universal pre-K and tuition-free community college, to lower prescription drug costs and immigration and border security, it also proposes significant funding for climate and energy programs across several industries. Here is a breakdown of the funding allocated to the committees tasked with drafting climate-related policies included in the $3.5 trillion budget resolution:
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee ($198 billion): To be used towards a clean electricity incentives program for utility companies; consumer rebates to weatherize and electrify homes; financing for domestic manufacturing of clean energy and auto supply chain technologies; federal procurement of energy efficient materials; climate research; research infrastructure for DOE National Labs; Hard Rock mining; and Department of Interior programs.
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee ($135 billion): For agricultural conservation, drought, and forestry programs to help reduce carbon emissions and prevent wildfires; clean energy investments; agricultural climate research; and Civilian Climate Corps funding. The funds allocated to this committee, however, must also be shared with programs that advance child nutrition and debt relief.
- Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee ($83 billion): For investments in technology and transportation; National Science Foundation research and technology; and coastal resiliency and healthy oceans investments, including funding for the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund.
- The Environment and Public Works Committee ($67 billion): For low-income solar and climate-friendly technologies; clean water affordability and access; healthy ports and climate equity; EPA climate and research programs; federal investments in energy efficient buildings and green materials; Appalachian Regional Commission; investments in clean vehicles; and a methane polluter fee to reduce carbon emissions.
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ($37 billion): For electrifying the federal vehicle fleet (USPS and non-USPS); electrifying federal buildings; federal investments in green materials; and resilience. The funds allocated to this committee must also be shared with border management investments and improvements to our cybersecurity infrastructure.
- Indian Affairs Committee ($20.5 billion): For Native energy programs; Native resilience and climate programs; and a Native Civilian Climate Corps. The funds allocated to this committee are also to be used towards Native health, education, and housing programs and facilities, as well as BIA programs and Native language programs.
Photo taken from: Public News Service
One component of the budget resolution that is particularly noteworthy, is the proposed clean electricity incentives program for utility companies, originally referred to as the National Clean Energy Standard. The standard would be similar to the renewable energy requirements that have already been adopted by 30 states, but instead of being a regulation, it will be structured as an incentive. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been tasked with drafting the legislation (as part of the $198 billion budget the committee has been instructed to allocate), but now with a new name, the Clean Electricity Payment Program. Instead of simply requiring utility companies to use clean energy sources, the federal government will pay them to use clean energy.
Democratic Senator from Minnesota, Tina Smith, says the payment program “would encourage utilities to add cleaner electricity generation like wind and solar,” and “because [the federal government] is paying utilities to add clean power, it allows us to keep utility rates stable,” thus it won’t raise customers’ electric bills or their taxes. Adoption of the program could also mean lots of new construction jobs in the zero-carbon electricity industry.
Sam Thernstrom, chief executive officer of the bipartisan, nonprofit Energy Innovation Reform Project, however, says, “energy standard legislation would not qualify for the reconciliation plan,” because “any legislation in that package must be related to taxes, spending or debt policy.” Thernstrom adds that even if the program did qualify, “Because reconciliation limits a bill’s reach to 10 years, a clean energy standard passed through budget reconciliation could be scrapped after a decade.”
Though the intention behind the legislation may be positive, environmental groups worry that producers of fossil fuel generated electricity who simply install carbon capture systems will be considered “clean energy.” Jeff Brady, with NPR news, points out that “Both infrastructure packages include support for carbon-capture systems that likely would be installed on gas or coal power plants.” As Natalie Mebane with 350.org continues to argue, funding carbon-capture systems for fossil fuel producers is unacceptable; “It is an excuse for the fossil fuel industry to continue existing and polluting our world.”
While the true impact of this budget resolution will certainly be determined by those contentious details, Senator Bernie Sanders argues that not only will this “be the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor since FDR and the New Deal of the 1930s, … It will also put the U.S. in a global leadership position to combat climate change and make our planet healthy and habitable for future generations.” Even so, Sanders admits the $3.5 trillion resolution “doesn’t go as far as it should, but it is a major step forward in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.”
Photo taken from: Twitter
Convincing all 50 democrats in the Senate to vote for the budget reconciliation, however, may prove difficult. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for instance, represents one of the most coal-rich states in the country and is often a hard sell on any new climate or energy policy. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) has stated that she opposes the level of spending in the bill, and other Democrats have expressed similar reservations. In the initial agreement reached by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the White House, it is stated that the $3.5 trillion will be “fully offset by a combination of new tax revenues, health care savings, and long-term economic growth.”
The agreement, however, “prohibits new taxes on families making less than $400,000 per year and on small businesses and family farms.” A draft of the final bill should be presented around September 15, along with an initial vote. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and progressive House Democrats say they will not pass the pending $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill until the Senate passes the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
350 (350.org) – Standing up to the fossil fuel industry to stop all new coal, oil and gas projects and build a clean energy future for all. 350 is an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL.org) – Since 1989, CIEL has used the power of law to protect the environment, promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
Sierra Club (Tell Congress to act!) – There is a very narrow path to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius … and that path is rapidly closing.
Tell Congress to pass a bold infrastructure bill to help avoid global climate catastrophe!
References
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Bhatia, A., & Bui, Q. (2021, July 28). The infrastructure plan: What’s in and what’s out. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/07/28/upshot/infrastructure-breakdown.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-stimulus-biden&variant=1_show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&context=STYLN_TOP_LINKS_recirc.
Cochrane, E. (2021, August 10). Senate passes $1 trillion Infrastructure Bill, Handing Biden a Bipartisan win. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/us/politics/infrastructure-bill-passes.html.
Cochrane, E., Flavelle, C., & Rappeport, A. (2021, August 3). What’s in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/us/politics/infrastructure-bill.html.
Brady, J. (2021, August 11). Proposed clean ENERGY standard could end power PLANT greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/11/1026831067/proposed-clean-energy-standard-could-end-power-plant-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by.
Korte, C. (2021, July 26). Democrats hope to pass a clean ENERGY standard that will force utilities to go green. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clean-energy-federal-standard-democrats/.
Memorandum to Democratic Senators, RE: FY2022 Budget Resolution Agreement Framework (reconciliation instructions). (2021, August 9). https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MEMORANDUM%20for%20Democratic%20Senators%20-%20FY2022%20Budget%20Resolution.pdf
Michelson, J. (2021, August 17). Will current infrastructure bills avert dire un climate forecast? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2021/08/17/will-current-infrastructure-bills-avert-dire-un-climate-forecast/?sh=4b4ad46457cd.
Milman, O. (2021, August 13). Infrastructure bill includes up to $8 billion for “CLEAN” tech worse than coal. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/08/joe-biden-infrastructure-bill-blue-hydrogen-worse-than-coal-study-emissions-climate-change/.
Treene, A. (2021, August 9). Senate Democrats release $3.5 trillion budget resolution. Axios. https://www.axios.com/senate-democrats-budget-resolution-86d24aea-38a0-4ec2-847f-f9dbd1c7d59f.html?utm_medium=partner&utm_source=verizon&utm_content=edit&utm_campaign=subs-partner-vmg.
What the budget resolution is, and isn’t. The Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. (n.d.). https://gai.georgetown.edu/what-the-budget-resolution-is-and-isnt/.
Wilkins, B. (2021, August 10). Bipartisan infrastructure bill rebuked for funding false climate solutions. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/08/10/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-rebuked-funding-false-climate-solutions.
Johnson, J. (2021, August 9). Sanders hails $3.5 trillion resolution as Most ‘Consequential’ proposal since the New Deal. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/08/09/sanders-hails-35-trillion-resolution-most-consequential-proposal-new-deal.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Health & Gender Policy Brief # 125 | By: S Bhimji | August 20, 2021
Header photo taken from: Corporate Europe Observatory
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: WFMY News 2
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Most Americans have no idea that there is a federal National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). This program has become very relevant recently because the government is urging all American adults to get the Covid vaccine. Rarely some people may develop an adverse reaction to a vaccine in an adult or a child and they may turn to the NVICP for monetary compensation.
The NVICP was first created in 1986 by Congress after there were several lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of vaccines. In turn, the manufacturers stated that without federal protection, they would no longer make vaccines.
Over the past 35 years, this federal trust fund has paid out billions of dollars in damages to Americans who have suffered adverse reactions to the vaccines.
How does one apply for compensation?
- If you have developed a vaccine-related adverse reaction like arm injury, nerve injury, brain infection, paralysis, or other problem that is directly attributable to the vaccine, you can get compensated.
2. The first step is to see a healthcare provider who can provide a medical statement that your injury is directly related to the vaccine.
3.The next step is to see a personal injury lawyer who will file a lawsuit in the US Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC against the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Resources.
4. The case will be reviewed by the attorneys from the Justice Department and physicians from the Dept of Health & Human resources.
5. In some cases the Justice Department along with the Dept of Health and Human Resources may deny the claim; in this case, the Court of Federal Claims will determine if compensation for the injured party is appropriate.
6. One does not have to be a US citizen to file a claim for vaccine injury
7. There is no age limit and anyone who got the vaccine and suffered an adverse reaction can file a claim
Before one can claim an adverse reaction or injury to the vaccine, the following criteria need to be met:
- The symptoms should have lasted more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine or-
- The individual required hospital admission and/or surgery or-
- The individual died as a result of the vaccine
The NVICP covers the following vaccines:
- Haemophilus influenzae
- Hepatitis A and B
- Human papillomavirus
- Influenza
- Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
- Meningococcal
- Pertussis
- Pneumococcal conjugates
- Polio vaccine
- Rotavirus
- Tetanus
- Varicella (chickenpox)
Policy Analysis
The plaintiff should consult with a personal injury lawyer to determine if he or she has a vaccine case against the government. The lawyers do not charge upfront fees but do take a certain percentage of the award. In addition, the lawsuit must be filed within 36 months since the appearance of the first symptom or within 2 years, if death occurred following the vaccine administration.
In 2020, 1,191 claims were filed with the NVICP , a slight decrease from the 2,592 cases in 2003. Since 1988, more than 50% of claims have been dismissed and in about 2/3rd of cases where compensation was awarded a direct role of the vaccine and injury was not established.
The compensation will cover the legal and medical expenses, loss of future earnings, and up to $250K for pain and suffering. If the individual died, there is a death benefit of $250K. In 2020, the average payout was about $250K.
Photo taken from: Vaccine Injury Law Project
Even though many victims consult with a lawyer, this is not necessary. One can file the claim directly with the court by paying a filing fee of $250; the fee is waived for those unable to pay. To win compensation, one has to have a chronology of the events following the vaccine including all records of prior vaccinations records as well as a medical report.
It is anticipated that Congress will add the Covid vaccines to the list within the next few months. Besides Covid, other vaccines not covered include shingles, Pneumovax, anthrax, rabies, smallpox, yellow fever, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236419/
Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-injury-compensation-programs
Apple’s New Child Sexual Abuse Material Detection System: Responsible Prevention or Dangerous Precedent?
Apple’s New Child Sexual Abuse Material Detection System: Responsible Prevention or Dangerous Precedent?
Technology Policy Brief # 62 | By: Scout Burchill | August 26, 2021
Header photo taken from: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Earlier this month, Apple announced three new features to protect children and crack down on child sexual abuse material (CSAM). While these new features, which will be rolled out on all iPhone and iPad devices in the coming months, may be well-intentioned, a number of security researchers and civil rights groups are raising the alarm about their potential to open the floodgates to increasing government and corporate surveillance.
The least controversial feature only affects Apple’s search application and Siri. The company announced that it will introduce systems to help users report CSAM, and will also provide warnings and links to mental health resources for users who search for topics related to CSAM. The remaining two initiatives, however, are far more controversial. One includes new parental control features on Apple’s iMessage application. If parents with a family account opt-in, on-device image scanning technology will be activated on their child’s device to identify and obscure any sexually explicit images shared via iMessage. If they really want to see or send such material, they will have to confirm it, and if a child 12 or under makes this choice, a warning alert will be sent to their parents.
The final and most controversial new feature will make use of similar technology, using users’ personal devices to scan their iCloud Photos pictures for CSAM. In the event that CSAM is identified, Apple will report it to their moderators, who will then review the details of the images and notify authorities if necessary. Apple claims that by disabling iCloud Photos the local scanning system on a user’s device will be completely deactivated.
The main reason a large number of security researchers and civil liberties advocates are raising red flags is that the system Apple has unveiled scans images locally on users’ iPhones or iPads. This is entirely different from normal CSAM scan systems, which run remotely, only checking files uploaded and stored on a company’s server. In effect, they argue, people’s personal phones are being equipped with the technology to surveil and monitor them, and once this technology is installed, there is no limit to what it can be used for. In short, the slow creep toward unchecked surveillance is paved with good intentions.
Policy Analysis
Before unpacking the possible downstream effects of this type of technology, let’s take a brief look at how it actually works. Apple’s CSAM scan system uses a tool called NeuralHash, which breaks each picture into a string of numbers corresponding to the visual information and characteristics of the image.
Think of it as a program that creates a numerical map of images. On its own, this “map” is incomprehensible and does not provide enough information to reconstruct the image, but it does allow the unique numerical hash, as the string or “map” of numbers is called, to be compared with a registry of hashes that include illicit CSAM content compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). If a match is found, a “safety voucher” is created by the user’s personal phone and uploaded to iCloud Photos along with the image.
After a certain amount of these “safety vouchers,” the images become decrypted and sent to human moderators who then review them for CSAM. Up until the human moderators, the entire process is intended to be encrypted, meaning the data is undecipherable or secretive to ensure the security of users’ personal information and details.
Photo taken from: WSWS
Photo taken from: 9to5mac.com
So why would Apple choose to create this local image scanning system that operates directly on user’s personal devices instead of a remote one that scans users’ files stored on company servers, like Facebook, Reddit and other tech companies?
The answer to this question is currently the source of a lot of heated disagreement. On one hand, by designing their CSAM system to scan images locally, Apple can retain total control over the data. Scanning and analyzing data on cloud servers can open the door for third party players to access it. For example, iCloud is powered by Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. So by building CSAM scanning systems directly into Apple devices, Apple is arguing that the entire process will be more secure.
However, accepting this argument also requires placing A LOT of trust in Apple, the company. And this is exactly what security researchers and privacy advocates are concerned about. From their perspective, these new features are a Trojan Horse. Once the local scanning system becomes built-in to Apple devices, a permanent backdoor will be wrenched open, allowing for surveillance capabilities that far surpass the system’s original intent.
According to security experts, once this scanning system is integrated into Apple’s devices, it could easily be adapted to detect any number of things governments around the world would foam at the mouth for. The slow creep from CSAM to videos of violent terrorism might be rationalized as necessary interventions, but what about the tracking and detection of LGBTQ+ people or the textual analysis of documents and protest signs? These hypotheticals are not far-fetched possibilities, particularly in a number of repressive regimes around the world. As the past two decades of the War on Terror’s securitization politics prove, compromises on civil liberties made in times of exceptional circumstances or states of emergency are extremely hard to reverse and tend to further incentivize governmental overreach. In other words, it’s a slippery slope.
Even Apple’s own reassurances that our personal data is safe in their hands is far from reassuring given Apple’s recent history. There are still many questions surrounding Apple and other tech companies’ willingness to hand over the personal data of reporters, Democratic lawmakers, and sitting White House officials to Trump Administration lackeys investigating the steady stream of leaks seeping out of the Trump White House. In China, Apple has already made many disturbing concessions to the government, even as it now urges Americans not to worry. Bending to the Chinese government’s demands, Apple now stores all its Chinese users’ data in China on state-owned servers, and the company has even abandoned the encryption technology designed to keep personal data secure, handing over the digital keys to government data centers. Furthemore, it actively aids the Chinese government in censoring the App Store.
Photo taken from: OLTNEWS
While there is no disputing the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse, Apple’s new features reflect an incredible about-face for a brand built on prioritizing and protecting user privacy. Not too long ago, in 2016, Apple was widely celebrated for refusing to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of the terrorist behind the mass shootings and attempted bombing in San Bernardino, California. In a letter to the public, Apple argued:
“…the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.”
Now, only five years later, Apple’s newest features seem to represent a stark reversal of priorities.
Leaked internal memos reveal an air of scorn and dismissiveness toward security researchers and privacy advocates, characterizing their outspoken concerns as the “screeching voices of the minority.” But according to recent reporting, even some of Apple’s own employees are pushing back on the idea. To make matters worse, in less than a couple of hours after Apple’s NeuralHash script was published for the public to test its security themselves, a “hash collision” was discovered, meaning two entirely different images were found to produce the same hash.
Hash collisions have the potential to render entire encryption systems ineffective and unsecure. In response, Apple downplayed the significance of the development. Apple’s attempts to brush aside criticism and minimize legitimate concerns belies a real arrogance and abandonment of principles that the Apple of yesteryears at least paid lip service to. The reality is iPhones have always been insatiable collectors of personal information, but in recent months, the mask is finally starting to slip and the illusion of privacy and security is fading fast.
Plenty of people online have been expressing fear and outrage at the prospect that Apple will soon be scanning their photo library, and perhaps picking out pictures of their beloved son or daughter taking a bath or leaping through backyard sprinklers and flagging it as CSAM. This outrage is understandable, even though many would still argue it is an acceptable price to pay to target those who sexually abuse children.
Photo taken from: Forbes
However, I want to conclude instead by briefly bringing attention to a crucial node in this system, and every other content moderation system, that is always overlooked. The team of human moderators who review CSAM and other disturbing content daily.
Through their labor, societies protect themselves from the darkest corners of human existence. These workers do not receive glamorous tech salaries and yet they are subjected to unimaginable emotional and psychological trauma.
Their stories are rarely, if ever, told, shrouded in the secrecy of Non-Disclosure Agreements and the reality of a contracted and fractured workforce. While thinking about how to create more secure and ethical systems of content moderation that protects the privacy and civil liberties of users, let’s not forget about them, too.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Center For Democracy and Technology
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Take control of your online privacy:
https://globalprivacycontrol.org/#about
Sources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Apple’s Announcement
https://www.apple.com/child-safety/
Apple’s Letter to Public from 2016
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/
Open Letter Against Apple’s New Policies
https://appleprivacyletter.com/
Good Explainer:
The Secret Lives of Content Moderators
Apple’s Concessions in China
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html
Apple Hands Over Data to Trump Administration
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/us/politics/justice-department-apple-donald-mcgahn.html
Apple Employees Resist
Problems Detected In Apple’s NeuralHash System
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/18/apples-csam-detection-tech-is-under-fire-again/
The “Screeching Voices of the Minority” Internal Memo
https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/06/apple-internal-memo-icloud-photo-scanning-concerns/
Capitol Riot Prosecution Updates
Capitol Riot Prosecution Updates
Social Justice Policy Brief # 24 | By: Erika Shannon | August 23, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Hill
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Jurist.org
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On January 6th of this year, several hundred people, attempting to disrupt the counting of electoral votes, breached the United States Capitol Building. The frenzy was caught on camera, Congressmen were whisked away, and some people even lost their lives. This insurrection itself was planned and executed by far-right white supremacist hate groups who could not live with the fact that former President Donald Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. The Department of Justice lists over 600 individuals who have been arrested and charged.
The Department of Justice ascertains that 165 defendants have been charges with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees; six individuals have been arrested on charges that relate to assaulting members of the media; 495 have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds; 235 have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding; 40 defendants have been charged with conspiracy.
The process of actually bringing the cases to trial is taking longer than expected. According to NPR’s database, over 40 people have pleaded guilty to one or more charges; only six people have actually been sentenced. There was the initial idea that it would be easy to prosecute those who were responsible for the insurrection. However, all of the collected information (videos, pictures, GPS locations, livestreams) has overwhelmed prosecutors, who are struggling to sift through the evidence and build cases. There is the suggestion that Department of Justice officials are having issues finding prosecutors to assign to cases, ,which is slowing down the process as well.
The Department of Justice has laid down a framework for carrying out prosecutions, which divides defendants from January 6th into three different categories.
The first category are cases described as “tourist cases,” a term derived from a quote by republican representative Andrew Clyde from Georgia. This term encompasses those who went inside the Capitol Building and walked around, but did not damage property or assault law enforcement. The second category of defendants is made up of those who broke into the Capitol, damaged property, and attempted to stop the certification of the 2020 election results.
Some of their charges may include civil disorder or assault. Prosecutors have not yet defined the third category; however, it is comprised of people who investigators believe are connected to right-wing extremist groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters. Many of their charges are more complicated than others and hinge on whether or not the assault on the Capitol was planned in advance.
Photo taken from: Emptywheel
The ongoing status of the cases are updated regularly on the Department of Justice website, as well as NPR’s database with information on the January 6th riots. There are upcoming trials for individuals such as Dona Bissey, Andrew Bennett, and Cindy Fitchett, who have pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol Building.
In addition to upcoming trials, we are still seeing people being arrested to this day over their involvement in the Capitol riots. Within the past ywo weeks two more defendants were arrested in a nine-person case involving assault on law enforcement. Steven Cappuccio of Texas and David Mehaffie of Ohio were arrested and charged with federal offenses that include assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers, obstruction of an official proceeding and civil disorder, along with other charges.
In addition to the continuing arrests and charges being filed, the FBI is still looking for additional people involved with the Capitol riots. There is currently a $100,000 reward available for information leading to the location, arrest, and conviction of whoever is responsible for placing pipe bombs near the capitol the day before the insurrection. Even with all of the photographic and video evidence regarding the events on January 6th, there are still some key players at large and yet to be identified by authorities.
The road to prosecuting everyone involved with January 6th Capitol riots will be a long one; there’s still evidence to comb through and hundreds of people involved. The Department of Justice has many unanswered questions about the riots, such as whether or not the attack was planned in advance. FBI investigators continue to evaluate the hundreds of thousands of tips they have received since the attack in an attempt to piece together what unfolded that day and who exactly was involved.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- To submit a tip to the FBI or view media related to the case, click here.
- Visit the Department of Justice website to view updates on the defendants in the Capitol Breach cases.
What Happens When It’s Too Hot To Work?
What Happens When It’s Too Hot To Work?
Environment Policy Policy Brief # 124 | By: Katelyn Lewis | August 20, 2021
Header photo taken from: iStock
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: The Guardian
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Around 32 million people in the United States’ workforce are risking their health for their jobs on hot summer days – a scenario likely to increase dramatically by mid-century if there is slow or no action to reduce global emissions, a new analysis finds.
The Union of Concerned Scientists report found outdoor workers – including construction workers, farmhands, emergency responders, roofers, and landscapers – are likely to triple or quadruple their heat exposure by 2065, putting at risk $55 billion in income as the number of days with a heat index above 100*F are projected to increase.
“Outdoor workers have up to 35 times the risk of dying from heat exposure than does the regular population,” the report cites. “With climate change making days of extreme heat more frequent and more intense, the number of hours and days when outdoor work is unsafe will increase further unless employees and employers are willing and able to adapt to changing conditions.”
As it stands, less than 10% of outdoor workers lose work days to extreme temperatures. But the report projects that number could increase to as much as 60% of workers losing at least a week of work due to heat by 2050 if no action is taken to curb emissions. The fall-out from no action would cost an average outdoor worker about $1,700 each year, equating to about $55 billion lost annually for all outdoor workers.
“Even with adaptations to climate change, outdoor workers could be forced to choose between their health and a paycheck,” the report says.
Policy Analysis
The report artfully points out another aspect of climate change that will negatively alter our workforce and economy: extreme heat.
At least 384 U.S. workers died from environmental heat exposure in the last decade, according to an investigation by NPR and Columbia Journalism Investigations. While that number may sound low, their examination of federal data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found the three-year average worker heat deaths to have doubled since the early 1990s, and – with no federal heat standard set – it remains a growing statistic for an entirely preventable situation.
In March, congressional Democrats introduced a bill directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to provide standards related to extreme heat, such that employers would be required to provide adequate water, shade, and rest breaks for outdoor workers. No action has been taken on the bill in either the Senate or House of Representatives at the time of this new brief.
People at particular risk to the effects of extreme heat are outdoor workers as well as people who already have chronic illness, those who face health disparities, or those dealing with health inequities on a daily basis.
Photo taken from: Inova Children’s Hospital
Symptoms of heat stroke include extremely high temperature; red, hot, and dry skin; a rapid, strong heartbeat; and mental confusion and unconsciousness. Meanwhile, heat exhaustion can present itself in heavy sweating; cold, pale, and clammy skin; a fast, weak pulse; tiredness or weakness; muscle cramps; dizziness; headaches; fainting; and nausea or vomiting, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ analysis points to a few assumptions and limitations in its calculations – such as whether the use of U.S. Census data may over- or underestimate migrant and undocumented workers in outdoor occupations, or if some outdoor work comes with a mixture of indoor tasks.
Still, the argument remains: With global warming, more days with higher temperatures pose higher risks for those who have outdoor jobs, which disproportionately affects Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino communities.
It presents a potential growth in workforce disparities as the world warms, for jobs indispensable to feeding, building, and serving our communities.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Public Citizen –
Article Resources & Additional Reading
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Warning Signs and Symptoms of Heat-Related Illness (Sept. 1, 2017) –
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/warning.html
National Public Radio – Heat is Killing Workers In The U.S. – And There Are No Federal Rules to Protect Them (Aug. 17, 2021) –
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association – June 2021 was the 5th warmest June on record for the globe (July 13, 2021) –
https://www.noaa.gov/news/june-2021-was-5th-warmest-june-on-record-for-globe
PBS – Farmworkers are dying in extreme heat. Few standards exist to protect them. (Aug. 6, 2021) –
The Guardian – Too hot to work: the dire impact of extreme heat on outdoor US jobs (Aug. 17, 2021) –
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/17/outdoor-jobs-us-heat-impacts
U.S. News & World Report – Beating the Heat, For Your Health (July 6, 2018) –
Union of Concerned Scientists Too Hot to Work: Assessing the Threats Climate Change Poses to Outdoor Workers (Aug. 17, 2021) –
https://ucsusa.org/resources/too-hot-to-work#read-online-content
Vox – Extreme heat is killing American workers (July 21, 2021) –
https://www.vox.com/22560815/heat-wave-worker-extreme-climate-change-osha-workplace-farm-restaurant
A Case for Getting Rid of the Filibuster
A Case for Getting Rid of the Filibuster
Elections and Politics Policy Brief # 26 | By: Ryan Campbell | August 20, 2021
Header photo taken from: Long Wharf Theatre
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs here
Photo taken from: City Journal
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After recent Supreme Court rulings against the Voting Rights Act, many want to pass new voter rights laws, however, the path is blocked by the filibuster.
The filibuster is a political procedure in the US Senate (as well as other governmental bodies) where a Senator or Senators may speak for as long as they want on any topic that they choose (i.e. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) once filibustered by reading from Green Eggs and Ham). This will allow the party (or individual) to essentially run out the clock and deny the party moving in favor of the legislation an opportunity to ever have said legislation voted on. This can only be broken if 60 senators vote for “cloture,” or a motion to bring debate to an end.
A cloture motion can only be used for budgetary matters, and so does not apply to every bill. Should this threshold not be met and cloture not be available, any Senator objecting to the legislation could bring the business of the Senate to a halt by invoking the filibuster, never allowing a vote on the legislation to happen.
This occurs in an age when laws can be increasingly tailored to look nondiscriminatory on the surface, but in reality be sophisticated attempts to undermine voting in indirect ways. This can be most clearly seen in the issue of the “poll tax.”
Considering how a vote on voter rights legislation would not be eligible for cloture and would be all but impossible to get around a filibuster in these divided times, the only realistic way of preventing continued voter discouragement is by doing away with the filibuster.
Policy Analysis
Currently, the hottest topic in legislation is essentially building on the Voting Rights Act, a law which has been drastically weakened recently by the Supreme Court. This law was previously used to prevent discrimination, and after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act by removing “pre-clearance,” the US saw a wave of laws passed that would have previously have gone through a rigorous Justice Department test.
This weakening happened in two recent cases where Arizona law banned the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than a relative or caregiver and threw out any ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The question of enforcing the Voting Rights Act came before the Supreme Court, and the Court held that states with a history of discrimination no longer had to get advanced clearance from the Justice Department for changes in how their elections are run.
Photo taken from: Georgia Recorder
The filibuster has a long history of being the result of a race to the bottom of those who are the last holdouts against civil rights: it lets one Senator take the heat, often on an issue wouldn’t affect them, and the rest of the Senators in their party to not deal with the issue. Although the filibuster is, as lawyers would call, “facially neutral” (that is, not intended to benefit or hinder a group within the language of the law) the way in which it has been used has been incredibly slanted against civil rights.
The filibuster has a long history of being the result of a race to the bottom of those who are the last holdouts against civil rights: it lets one Senator take the heat, often on an issue wouldn’t affect them, and the rest of the Senators in their party to not deal with the issue. Although the filibuster is, as lawyers would call, “facially neutral” (that is, not intended to benefit or hinder a group within the language of the law) the way in which it has been used has been incredibly slanted against civil rights.
A particularly relevant example of a facially neutral law would be the “poll tax.” A poll tax, which began in the 1890’s, was a way to use the law to keep Black voters from voting essentially as a voting fee. There would often be carve outs to allow poor southerners (and these laws were typically in the part of the South that would later be covered by the Voting Rights Act) to still vote. This would include clauses that grandfathered in anyone who had voted before the Civil War, which, while again facially neutral, heavily discriminates against Blacks who were enslaved and not registered to vote prior to the Civil War.
Photo taken from: Eisenhower Presidential Library
As an example of how a facially neutral procedure is used to cover facially neutral laws, the record holder for longest filibuster, made at a time when you had to be on your feet speaking the entire time, was South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957, a law that has become a cornerstone of American civil rights legislation.
States are still continuing to pass restrictive voting laws, and there seems to be no change in the stances in the Senate to allow for updated voter rights legislation to be passed. With mounting political pressure to act and the near certainty of a filibuster in the senate, the question now is whether voter rights legislation will be the pressure needed to attempt to change or do away with the filibuster.
A particularly relevant example of a facially neutral law would be the “poll tax.” A poll tax, which began in the 1890’s, was a way to use the law to keep Black voters from voting essentially as a voting fee. There would often be carve outs to allow poor southerners (and these laws were typically in the part of the South that would later be covered by the Voting Rights Act) to still vote. This would include clauses that grandfathered in anyone who had voted before the Civil War, which, while again facially neutral, heavily discriminates against Blacks who were enslaved and not registered to vote prior to the Civil War.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Prospects for the Biden Agenda
Prospects for the Biden Agenda, Part 2
Elections and Politics Policy Brief # 25 | By: William Bourque | August 19, 2021
Header photo taken from: Business Standard
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Reuters
In this series U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter William Bourque examines the feasibility of implementing the different components of President Biden’s ambitious policy agenda. In Part 2 of the series we examine prospects for passage of Biden proposals in the areas of infrastructure and immigration.
Infrastructure
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For President Biden’s Administration, infrastructure has been a top priority, as clearly shown by the release of the “American Jobs Plan” which is one of the Presidents’ cornerstone policies. The plan aims to increase American jobs while repairing infrastructure which was thrown to the wayside because of President Trump’s “wall”. Biden plans to modernize 20,000 miles of highways, roads, and main-streets, while also repairing 10,000 of the most out of date bridges in America. Additionally, a large portion of repair will be done to “the 10 most economically significant bridges in the country in need of reconstruction.” Evidently, this is a problem that needs to be dealt with and Biden has made it clear that it is at the very top of the to-do list. In fact, the American Jobs Plan is one of the main priorities of the new $3.5 trillion budget the Senate laid out recently. Luckily, infrastructure is one of the more bipartisan issues that we currently face, so Biden shouldn’t have too much trouble pushing the more pressing infrastructure issues through. Look for much of this work to begin next year, once the delta variant of the coronavirus is more controlled.
Immigration
The Biden Administration has faced some of its harshest critics in recent months because of the practices in use at the United States’ southern border. During the Trump presidency, it was evident that refugees fleeing persecution weren’t being treated as humans. It seems as though the Biden administration hasn’t perfected their approach to the border yet, but it is a work in progress. The Administration outlined their plans in a press release on July 27th, saying “We will always be a nation of borders, and we will enforce our immigration laws in a way that is fair and just. We will continue to work to fortify an orderly immigration system.”
One of Biden’s main goals with the border is to redirect funds that were being used towards Trump’s wall to more useful projects, such as funding the border patrol officers on the front lines. Also, the Administration has stated that they intend to slow the expedited removal process of those arriving at the border. Essentially, this mean that folks who arrive at the border will have a chance to have their circumstances heard before a decision is made on their immigration status.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
This allows families to reunite and those fleeing persecution to have a stable, safe place to stay while their case is heard. Biden is also putting some of the border wall funds towards improving the United States human trafficking investigation operations. This is something that the Trump administration had neglected because of the obsession over the wall, and is certainly long overdue. Finally, the communications team at the White House will be put to work on immigration, releasing messages that encourage and “promote safe, legal, and orderly migration.” The Biden administration certainly has a lot of its plate, but they will be eager to maintain their campaign promises.
Mexico Sues U.S. Gun Manufactures Over Illegal Trafficking
Mexico Sues U.S. Gun Manufactures Over Illegal Trafficking
Social Justice Policy Brief # 23 | By: Zack Huffman | August 19, 2021
Header photo taken from: NPR
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Los Angeles Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The government of Mexico is taking several US. gun companies to federal court, claiming that they have negligently allowed illegal gun trafficking to flood Mexico with firearms.
The lawsuit lists seven Massachusetts-based gun manufactures as well as a wholesale firearm distributor as defendants, and demands millions of dollars in reparations, and for the defendant companies to implement a strong monitoring system to track trafficked guns.
Before any trial starts, Mexico will have to establish that it has proper standing to sue in a US. court, but if they fail at that, the pretrial process will allow the country to possibly expose negligent practices of the defendant companies as well as the overall problem of gun trafficking into Mexico from the United States.
Policy Analysis
From 2007 to 2012, the number of guns manufactured in the United States, more than doubled, according to data from Mexico’s lawsuit. At the same time, homicides in Mexico also spiked at the same rate, indicating a corollary between the two.
A 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office found that from 2014 to 2018, 70% of all illegal guns seized by Mexican federal authorities were originally from the United States. The report noted that proper data was lacking, because guns seized by state and local authorities in Mexico were not submitted to the US. for tracing.
The report listed recent efforts from the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ICE and the State Department to crack down on gun trafficking, but noted that data from those efforts was lacking.
“However, none of the agencies have fully developed performance measures for their efforts to disrupt firearms trafficking to Mexico, and thus they have limited ability to assess progress,” said the 56-page report.
Photo taken from: Central Oregon Medical Society
“Every year, about a half million guns — many of them semiautomatic assault rifles — are illegally trafficked from the United States into Mexico. In 2019, those guns were used to murder 17,000 people in our country — that’s 46 funerals every day for a year, an unendurable tragedy for many heartbroken families,” wrote Alejandro Celorio Alcantara of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an August 14 op-ed.
Celorio Alcantara also argued against the concept of firearms simply being tools as an oversimplification.
“Hammers are not evil in themselves,” he wrote. “But we would all rightly condemn a hardware store that continued to sell heavy-duty hammers to customers with a known track record of using them to kill and create mayhem.”
Mexico’s government has tight regulations that make it difficult for anyone to legally obtain a gun, according to the 139-page lawsuit. The country only has one legal gun store, and it issues fewer than 50 gun permits a year.
The Mexican government estimates that about half a million guns are illegally trafficked into the country from the United States and the named defendants account for about 68% of those illegal guns.
The lawsuit targets those companies’ distribution systems and what the lawsuit describes as a total lack of monitoring. It also alleges that the manufacturers deliberately design and market weapons that are desirable to Mexican cartels, including Barrett’s sniper rifle or Colt’s “El Jefe,” “El Grito,” and “Emiliano Zapata 1911” editions of .38-caliber pistols.
Photo taken from: Common Dreams
The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign nation can pursue legal action against an American individual or company about 150 years ago. The case, known as “The Sapphire,” involved France attempting to retrieve damages after a boat collision with a private American ship.
Mexico’s government is seeking a court order mandating that gun manufacturers “abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico.”
Specifically, Mexico wants these companies to create a stronger system for monitoring the distribution of their guns, incorporate all available safety features into their firearms, and fund studies, programs and advertising campaigns that address unlawful trafficking.
The National Shooting Sport Foundation, which is a gun industry advocacy group, criticized the lawsuit as unfairly targeting American businesses.
“Mexico’s criminal activity is a direct result of the illicit drug trade, human trafficking and organized crime cartels that plague Mexico’s citizens,” said NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane in a release statement. “It is these cartels that criminally misuse firearms illegally imported into Mexico or stolen from the Mexican military and law enforcement. Rather than seeking to scapegoat law-abiding American businesses, Mexican authorities must focus their efforts on bringing the cartels to justice.”
Regardless of Mexico’s success in court, the legal action could provide an opportunity to publicly discuss the problem of gun trafficking outside of the United States.
Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, of the Center for US.-Mexican Studies UC San Diego, told NPR that she believed the lawsuit was an effort to respond to US. concerns over drug trafficking with the counter point that Mexico is suffering from gun trafficking.
Thus far, the case does not include any emergency motions so new developments are likely to come slowly. Much of the useful information that may come to light through this case will likely come during the pretrial, when evidence, reports, and other pieces of vital information are submitted. Even without a positive verdict for Mexico, that information is likely to be the most valuable thing to come out of it this case – assuming it can hold the public’s interest that long.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
The Government Accountability Office’s report on gun trafficking into Mexico
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-322.pdf
Washington Post:
Op-ed explaining the lawsuit by Alejandro Celorio Alcantara of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Justia
Summary of The Sapphire case
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/164/
The National Shooting Sport Foundation
NSSF Responds to Mexico’s Civil Lawsuit Against US Firearm Manufacturers
NPR:
Mexico’s Suit Against US Gun Companies May Seek More Than A Court Win
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/07/1025636092/mexico-lawsuit-united-states-gun-companies-analysis
Alarming Reports Regarding Poor Conditions of Detained Migrant Children in Biden Administration Emergency Shelters
Alarming Reports Regarding Poor Conditions of Detained Migrant Children in Biden Administration Emergency Shelters
Immigration Policy Brief #127 | By: Kathryn Baron | August 17, 2021
Header photo taken from: Reuters
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As of early August 2021, nearly a third of migrant children detained in government custody are being held in emergency shelters. Migrant teens are housed in long trailers with little space for recreation, and some reports allege they have to wash their clothes in bathroom sinks and occasionally endure bouts of food poisoning. Some reports have circulated that even children kept in facilities for more than 2 months, do not receive clean bedding and clothes. A lawyer with a Texan nonprofit organization that offers pro-bono legal services to migrants stated children he met with felt “confined, distressed and like they are being punished.”
The average stay time has fluctuated between 2 weeks and a month, with some closer to 60 days. There are not enough case managers to accelerate the process of safely releasing detained migrant children. In some of the larger emergency shelters, like Fort Bliss in Texas, tent camps are overcrowded and distraught. Immigration advocates express concerns for detained children’s mental health and risk of contracting COVID-19.
Unaccompanied migrant children are defined as migrants below the age of 18 who do not have lawful status in the US and no parent or legal guardian to care for them. This does not necessarily mean they entered the US alone; minors who are separated from their families and/or abandoned by fellow migrants or human smugglers at the border may also be deemed unaccompanied minors.
Photo taken from: Council on Foreign Relations
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the first federal agency to handle these cases. DHS is primarily responsible for 1) apprehension, 2) processing, and if necessary, 3) deportation. Once minors are deemed unaccompanied, Health and Human Services (HHS) becomes responsible for them throughout their time in federal custody. They are placed in transition camps until a judge has determined whether there entry into the U.S. is legally justifiable.
If so they are placed in group homes, foster care, and/or federal facilities (state-licensed, federally funded independent, and emergency unlicensed influx) to provide education, social, health and legal services. The USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ) rules on asylum cases while the Justice Department handles other immigration cases.
If a migrant child loses, they are deported by ICE to their country of origin; if a child wins, they may legally stay in the US; and if a child becomes a legal adult while their case processes, they may be released or detained in adult facilities for the remainder of their court proceedings. There are currently about 17,000 migrant children in federal custody right now, a huge spike from the 120 at the beginning of the pandemic (March 2020).
Policy Analysis
Contractors are employed to oversee and monitor the camps – with little to no training in childcare or guidance regarding their roles. These contractors are responsible for monitoring large tents, sometimes with up to 1,500 children. In practice, what they do is more aligned with crowd control than youth care. Many of these contractors also lack Spanish and/or childcare skills or experience. Many of the migrant children are monitored for escape attempts, panic attacks and self-harm as a result of detention and trauma associated with immigration.
Photo taken from: AP News
These alarming reports sound an alarm to hold the Biden Administration accountable for their campaign promises, upholding the provisions of the 1997 Flores Agreement that ensures migrant children’s rights throughout the immigration process.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- First Focus on Children: a Washington, DC based advocacy organization dedicated to making children and their families a priority in federal policy and budget decisions.
Congress Focuses on the Security of Judges in the Wake of Brutal Attack
Congress Focuses on the Security of Judges in the Wake of Brutal Attack
Civil Rights Policy Brief # 170 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | August 15, 2021
Header photo taken from: ABA Journal
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Stacker
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On July 16, 2021 both of New Jersey’s Senators – Bob Menendez and Cory Booker – introduced The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 in the U.S. Senate. Four additional Senators co – sponsored the bill – Dick Durbin (D-IL), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA). A companion bill was simultaneously introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ).
The Anderl bill seeks to safeguard and protect members of the federal bench and their families and judiciary staff from violent acts and threats that arise in the course of their work. The bill is named after the son of New Jersey federal judge Esther Salas after a violent attack by a disgruntled lawyer at their home. On June 19, 2020 Roy Den Hollander arrived at their home dressed as a delivery person. He knocked and when the door was opened he shot and killed Judge Salas’ twenty year old son Daniel Anderl. He also shot her husband Mark who was wounded but would eventually survive the attack. Judge Salas was in the basement of her home and was not injured by the assailant. The assailant, who later died of a self – inflicted gunshot wound, had been able to target Judge Salas and her family by retrieving publicly available information on the internet to find her home address as well as pictures of her home and personal vehicles.
The Anderl bill would shield the personally identifiable information of judges and their families in online databases. It would also prohibit government agencies from posting identifiable info on their website and authorize a mechanism for a judge to request removal within seventy – two (72) hours if personally identifiable information is published. Additionally, the act authorizes funding for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO), the U.S. Marshals Service and DOJ so that those departments can monitor and track online threats, maintain records, investigate complaints and address acts of aggression. Grant funding is also authorized for state and local governments to cover costs for programs that prevent release of personally identifiable information for judiciary staff at the state and local level. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The Anderl bill is a move to protect those who work in the federal judiciary and should be approved and signed into law as soon as possible.
The highlight of the bill is the way the bill is designed to shield personally identifiable information of judges that can be found online, such as social security numbers and addresses. This is key because the availability of that information online is one way the assailant of Judge Salas’ family was able to locate her home address. Information like that can be available for free on federal databases and on third party websites from data collectors at minimal cost.
One thing that this bill does is allow federal judges to perform their duties free from intimidation and harassment. Judges often have to make tough calls and decisions that will usually leave one party upset and frustrated at the outcome. The fact of the matter is that inappropriate communications and threats against judges have been increasing. According to the U.S. Marshals Service these inappropriate communications have skyrocketed from 926 incidents in 2015 to 4,261 in 2020.
Photo taken from: GovTrack.us
With such a steep rise in threatening communications against judges and court staff, shielding personally identifiable information is necessary for the judges to perform their work free from undue influence as well as for their personal safety.
“Scrubbing” and removing personally identifiable information online is one way to protect judges and court personnel but it is also the ability to monitor persons and threats before they are acted on that can prevent these kinds of attacks. Hiring intelligence analysts and more marshals and being able to monitor persons of interest can go a long way in preventing these incidents.
Overall, the Anderl bill is an important and an overdue law and due to the wide bi – partisan support it has it should be quickly passed and signed into law. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
United States Courts – official website of U.S. Courts discussing need to protect judiciary personnel.
American Bar Association (ABA) – association’s infopage on judicial security resources.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.