JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
SCOTUS Refuses to Ban the Texas Abortion Law
Brief #128 – Health & Gender
By S Bhimji
The topic of abortion has always been a contentious issue in the USA. In a recent Gallup poll that asked participants about the legality of abortion, 46% described themselves are pro-choice and 49% as pro-life. So no matter what decision the state or federal government makes, a significant number of people are going to be disappointed.
Supreme Court Overrules CDC on Issue of Eviction Moratoriums
Brief #127 – Health and Gender
By S. Bhimji
During the 2020 Covid pandemic millions of people lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands of businesses had to close; this led to a fear that if tenants did not pay their rent, mass evictions would follow. By Sept 2020, there were close to 22 million renters at risk for eviction and a separate census in July 2021 indicated that at least 7 million households had difficulty paying rent and were at risk for eviction.
What Have We Learned from Posting Police in Schools?
Brief #126 – Health & Gender
By S Bhimji
While much of the interest these days has been on the Covid-19 infections, with schools about to open, another topic also of great interest is the over-policing of schools. There are some who argue that we are over-policing the schools and that instead of having more police, we may be better off having more support staff and mental health therapists on board.
Taliban Takeover: The US’s Moral Obligation to Provide Refuge
Brief #128 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
As the Taliban rapidly took over Afghanistan amidst US withdrawal, the Biden Administration has vowed to help Afghans, targeting those who supported American military and diplomatic efforts, obtain Special Immigration Visas (SIVs). Approximately 550,000 Afghans are internally displaced and 18.4 million currently require humanitarian assistance in some capacity – women and children are among the majority of individuals immediately effected. Throughout the 20-year US involvement in Afghanistan, the US has allegedly resettled over 75,000 Afghans and their families through the SIV program and plan to continue.
COVID-19 Conspiracies and U.S.-China Relations
Brief #126 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
Recently the Chinese state media has been quoting Wilson Edwards, a Swiss biologist and whistleblower, stating that the United States had been politicizing the origins of the COVID-19 virus and pressuring scientists to keep the truth quiet. This was until the Swiss Embassy tweeted that Wilson Edwards does not exist and the Chinese media began removing the references. It quickly became clear that this was the most recent in a series of state-sponsored COVID-19 conspiracy theories coming out of China.
The Federal Trade Commission Needs an Office of Civil Rights
Brief #171 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On July 31, 2021 David Brody and Sara Collins of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law sent a letter to the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on behalf of their group and twenty-three other national advocacy organizations. This collection of organizations is calling on the FTC to address online discrimination, exploitation of personal data and abusive practices.
Two Bills, One Climate: Breaking Down the Climate Provisions in the “Hard” and “Soft” Infrastructure Bills
Brief #125 – Environment
By Jacob Morton
Democrats in Congress are looking to pass two landmark legislations, the “Hard” and “Soft” infrastructure bills. One is bipartisan, the other is not. Both have significant climate and environmental implications. Will these two bills usher in a new era of climate stewardship for the United States, or will they continue to line the pockets of the fossil fuel industry?
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Brief #125 – Health & Gender
By S. Bhimji
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.
Apple’s New Child Sexual Abuse Material Detection System: Responsible Prevention or Dangerous Precedent?
Brief #62 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
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.
A Needed Boost for Home Health Care Workers If Biden’s American Jobs Plan Passes Congress
Economic Policy # 117
A Needed Boost for Home Health Care Workers If Biden’s American Jobs Plan Passes Congress.
By Lily Lady Cook
May 26, 2021
Summary: President Biden’s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) will allot about $400 billion towards the caregiving workforce. In particular, funds will be allocated towards home health care workers, who provide services that run the gamut from short-term nursing care to longer-term daily visits. Many home health care workers are women, immigrants, or people of color. About 40% are on SNAP or Medicaid; their median hourly wage in 2020 was $13 with an average annual salary of $27,080.
Before the AJP was announced this spring, Biden tweeted about the state of inadequate compensation for home health care workers. He promised to give them a raise and decried their current situation as unacceptable. The pandemic—coupled with an aging population in America—has underscored the need for improvements in palliative care; according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2034, older adults will outnumber children under 18 by a factor of one million. Among the leading contributors to this trend are higher life expectancy rates and individuals having fewer kids. Furthermore, since baby boomers were one of the largest generations, their overall advancing age puts greater pressure on an already-strapped caregiving economy.
The future of the AJP hinges on a congressional battle, already underway with the Senate Republicans’ initial counter offer of a $568 billion infrastructure plan. Primarily, the Republicans are concerned with mitigating corporate tax hikes and paring down the climate-related components of AJP. While the Biden administration came back with a rejoinder of $1.7 trillion, this back-and-forth is not the only path forward. A senate reconciliation—as one omnibus bill or two smaller packages—could be used by democrats alone to pass the entire AJP, or to tack on elements that Republicans do not agree upon.
Analysis: It comes as no surprise that there is an insufficient supply of home health care workers, given their relatively low earning potential and how grueling the job can be. There is a list of 800,000 patients waiting for home services. Pandemic-related disinclination to enter nursing homes has certainly led to an increased demand for home care.
The AJP will expand services under existing Medicaid infrastructure, to ultimately support a higher quality of life for home health care workers. Moreover, the AJP proposes an expansion of the Money Follows the Person (MFP) program that permits some Medicaid users to easily move from nursing homes back into their homes.
Most voters (65%, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll) support raising corporate taxes to fund the AJP. But since Senate Republicans don’t always follow popular sentiment, it remains to be seen how the deliberations will pan out.
More specific changes should be made to improve the home health care worker experience, but it’s unlikely they will be addressed with a simple Medicaid expansion. For one thing, the wage capture of many agencies can count for more than half the cost to the client. This means that if the client pays $35 an hour to employ a home health care worker, the agency that directly employs the worker may see more than half.
Additionally, changes could be made to federalize the ability for independent contractors to collectively bargain through organizations of home care workers. With an outwardly pro-union leader in office, perhaps this will happen in the near term, and has already begun on the state level. Illinois, California and Minnesota already have existing groups to serve this purpose; unsurprisingly, home health care workers in those states all earn more than $15 an hour.
Although it’s no panacea, the AJP will affect the material circumstances of home health care workers in America. Just how drastic these changes will be depends on the outcome of congressional deliberations and whether there is a continued advocacy for additional legislation.
This additional legislation could cover the issues left unaddressed in the AJP, chief among them states without union representation for home health care workers. Federalizing a livable minimum wage and improving retirement benefits could also be the subject of subsequent bills. Finally, the swaths of middle-class families that need home care but do not qualify for Medicaid will certainly be another issue that lingers even if the AJP is passed in its entirety.
Engagement Resources:
–Donate to Charity Hospice, a non-profit that serves hospice patients in the Ohio area. Its mission is to serve patients who couldn’t otherwise afford to cover the costs related to a home aide or assisted living facility.
–Contact your Congressperson: Let the person who represents your state in Congress know that passing the American Jobs Plan with as much of the initial budget intact is important.
Gun Control Efforts in the U.S.
Brief # 15 Social Justice
Gun Control Efforts in the U.S.
By Erika Shannon
May 24, 2021
The fight for tighter gun laws in the U.S. is nothing new in recent years. We have seen upticks in the number of mass shootings here in the U.S., as well as cities like Chicago struggling with ongoing gun violence daily. Innocent lives are lost left and right as guns fall into the wrong hands; it’s clear that something needs to be done, but there is much debate on what that should be. President Biden has made promises to put efforts towards gun control, and we have seen a few executive orders laid out, but nothing substantial. Individual states are also implementing their own gun control regulations, when federal regulations are just not enough to curb gun violence.
President Biden issued executive orders regarding ghost guns, stabilizing braces, and red flag laws in April. Ghost guns are guns that are harder to trace due to them being made with 3D printers or gun kits, so efforts to get them regulated have been part of Biden’s mission. Stabilizing braces are accessories for pistols that allow the shooter to be more accurate while firing the weapon with only one arm, and they have been using in mass shootings recently. Red flag laws are laws that allow family or police to ask a state court to take firearms away from someone who may use the weapons to hurt themselves or others. More recently, the Justice Department has been working toward on a final proposal on President Biden’s executive order regarding stabilizing braces. It is slated to be finished in early June, with the hopes that soon stabilizing braces will not be able to get into the hands of people who wish to use them to hurt innocent people.
We also have seen the Justice Department acting on the President’s executive order about ghost guns, with another proposed rule in the works. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is hoping to update the legal definition of ‘firearm’ in an effort to crack down on the production of ghost guns. The proposed rule is attempting to redefine the term “frame or receiver,” and to classify firearm kits as complete firearms. The goal is to add serial numbers to the firearm receivers in easy-to-build firearm kits, so that they are subject to more regulation and oversight. The new proposal is also seeking to legally define the terms “complete muffler or silencer device” and “privately made firearms.” There is hope to target 3D gun printing with the new proposal, with a rise in the production of 3D printed firearms being used in crimes. The problem lies in the fact that since these guns are printed at private residences with 3D printers, they lack serial numbers and are often untraceable to law enforcement.
With proposed gun control laws, there is always going to be opposition to it in the U.S. The most fervent opponent to gun control is the National Rifle Association (NRA). Most of the NRA’s budget goes into lobbying efforts. Their total yearly spending is around $250 million dollars, making them one of the largest and most powerful special interest lobby groups here in the U.S. The NRA vehemently opposes all forms of gun control, and believes that more guns will in fact make the country a safer place. Their efforts to thwart gun control as of late have consisted of town hall meetings, TV ads, digital ads, and mail campaigns.
The problem with the NRA is that they defend an often-disputed interpretation of our Second Amendment: that U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms without any government oversight. This is a dangerous, loose, and outdated approach to the Second Amendment, but one that the NRA unfortunately stands by.
It is important for individual states to take action towards gun control, since moves the federal government can take are limited.
Some individual states have been drafting legislation to help gun control efforts. Just this month, the Oregon state legislature passed Senate Bill 554, which requires Oregon gun owners to securely lock away their firearms when they are not in use with either a trigger lock or cable lock. There will be fines associated with failing to secure firearms. Colorado is following in Oregon’s footsteps and a similar law is expected to take hold on July 1st regarding locking firearms when not in use. Colorado has also signed a law that will go into effect in September and require gun owners to report a lost or stolen firearm to law enforcement within five days of realizing the weapon is missing.
Unfortunately, there are also states that are taking a step backwards when it comes to gun control. Montana’s Governor, Greg Gianforte, signed a bill that would prohibit state and local law enforcement in Montana from enforcing federal bans on firearms, ammunition, and magazines. While the Governor is seemingly trying to protect Second Amendment rights, he is actually just making it more difficult for local and federal law enforcement agencies to collaborate on issues related to gun access. Senators in Missouri have also recently passed a bill to block their police from enforcing federal gun laws, which is just another misstep in the fight to prevent mass shootings and homicides here in the U.S.
It is clear that it will be awhile before there is a remedy to the problem of gun violence in our country. While limiting access to guns is one route to take, it also is necessary to educate Americans on the importance of gun safety. A mix of these two approaches is going to be the only way to curb what can only be called a plague on America. Innocent lives will continue to be lost until politics are put to the side and a sensible gun control solutions at the federal and state levels are put forth.
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
- To find out how to get involved in the fight for gun control, visit the Brady Center website or the Everytown for Gun Safety website.
New Citizenship Policy For Children Born Abroad to Same – Sex Married Couples
Policy Summary: On May 18, 2021 the United States State Department announced new policy guidance and interpretation for U.S. citizenship transmission to children born overseas through assisted reproductive technology.
Under the old rule children who had been carried to term by a surrogate and been born outside the United States were considered to be “born out of wedlock” and could not be granted U.S. citizenship even though the child’s legal parents were married at the time of the baby’s birth. Additionally, children who were born abroad needed to have a genetic or gestational relationship to the U.S. parent.
Due to the complex maze of immigration laws and definitions regarding a valid marriage and biological connections of parents to children the State Department applied the rules in a manner that placed same – sex couples at a disadvantage. In Maryland, a same – sex married couple were denied a passport for their daughter because she was born from a surrogate overseas and was only biologically related to one of her parents. The State Department therefore declared she was a baby born out of wedlock and not eligible for U.S. citizenship. In California, one boy of twin boys conceived by a same – sex couple was declared not eligible for U.S. citizenship since his genetic material came only from the parent who was not a U.S. citizen. Both couples brought lawsuits which the Trump Administration opposed because of their opposition to same – sex marriages.
With the new policy announced by the U.S. State Department the updated rule will now state that children born abroad to parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and married to each other at the time of the baby’s birth will have U.S. citizenship if they have genetic or gestational ties to any of their parents, not just the U.S. citizen parent. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) lays out the requirements for the eligibility of babies born outside the U.S. to get U.S. citizenship at birth. The framework is built on whether the baby is born in wedlock or not and then is divided even further under those categories using the citizenship status of either parent. The structure worked fairly well until the definition of marriage, specifically same – sex marriages, and the use of assisted reproductive technologies created uncertainty.
The issue of citizenship for children born abroad with assisted reproductive technologies created unique problems for same – sex married couples. Because of opposition to gay marriage the door was thrown open to deny citizenship to children based on interpretations of key words contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. While gay marriage has been socially accepted and even approved in case law by the U.S. Supreme Court, there were still officials who could claim they did not approve of gay marriage. And so, without a “valid marriage” they could claim the baby was “born out of wedlock” which would give officials a basis to refuse U.S. citizenship for the baby. The State Department had also previously required a genetic tie to the U.S. citizen parent of a baby born abroad but that requirement caused a problem in the California case above where one of the twin boys was genetically related only to the non – U.S. citizen parent in a same – sex marriage.
What became clear was that the citizenship rules were not suited to respond competently to the situation of same – sex households conceiving children in unique circumstances in the U.S. And, the rules could be interpreted in a way that could prevent and even discourage couples from entering into a same – sex union because of the uncertainty as to whether their child would be a U.S. citizen. The updating of the interpretation and application of Section 301 of the INA by the State Department will help clarify how Section 301 will be applied to same – sex couples. They may have children who may have been born abroad, maybe with the aid of a surrogate and maybe with the baby not having both parents genetic material. But that does not mean these children should be deprived because they are being raised in a same – sex household. This new interpretation better reflects the realities of modern day married life and will not exclude same – sex couples and their children from the benefits that all married families and their children receive from having U.S. citizenship. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – infopage on requirements for acquiring citizenship at birth under Section 301 of the INA divided by citizenship and married status of parents.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) – chart showing how determination for citizenship of children born abroad is applied according to relevant legal authorities.
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.
The Need for a Global Response to the Pandemic
Brief # 106 Health and Gender Policy
The Need for a Global Response to the Pandemic
By Erin McNemar
May 24, 2021
Policy
As COVID-19 restrictions are being lifted all across the United States, it’s important to remember that the pandemic is not over yet. As more and more people across the country gain access to the vaccine, the United States is seeing a steady decline in the number of infections, deaths and hospitalization. It’s easy for people who are experiencing mask fatigue to quickly support the lightening of restrictions. While the United States seems to be experiencing positive trends in getting rid of the virus, it’s also important to remember that the rest of the world is not experiencing the same thing.
One thing that makes the coronavirus disaster so unique is that this crisis impacted the whole world. All around the world, people saw lockdowns, their loved ones getting sick and were afraid of what the future would hold. Although the United States is seeing the number of cases decrease, other countries, such as India, Japan, and Brazil, are seeing a surge. With this virus impacting the whole world, there is a need for a global response in addressing the pandemic.
Analysis
For some, this may seem like a conversation that is happening too late in the game. With many countries seeing a decline in COVID-19, why are we having this conversation now? This argument I do understand. Back when businesses were shutting down and citizens were going into lockdown, there should have been a conversation around global response. However, the challenge with that became how little everyone knew about the virus.
Despite the pandemic shutting businesses and schools down in March, a mask mandate was not introduced in Massachusetts until May. The coronavirus pandemic was nothing like anything scientists or health officials had ever seen. Obviously in the beginning, there were some missteps. However, it is hard to come up with a plan to deal with something no one has ever dealt with before. For many of these officials, the coronavirus was a big unknown.
Once again I’ll raise the question; why does a global response matter now? Things are opening back up and people seem to be ready to move forward with their lives. This question comes back to the reason why many Americans are now seeing these restrictions lifted; the vaccine. The question also relates to the fact that as long as Covid 19 and its variants are spreading in different parts of the world, the greater the risk that people in highly vaccinated countries may still be exposed and contract the virus or one of its mutations.
As more of the United States population has received the vaccine, the cases, deaths and hospitalizations are trending down. The need for a global response comes from the need to make sure the vaccine is being distributed to countries that need it. If countries such as the United States have additional vaccines, there needs to be a plan in place to insure other countries have access to the surplus. At first, a global response was needed to focus on how to stop the spread of the virus. The answer was the vaccine. Now world leaders must work together on a global response to distribute the vaccine to their citizens.
Engagement Resources
- To follow the global spread of COVID-19, click
- See how many people have been vaccinated in the United States.
- Learn more about the
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Cease Fire Agreement Between Hamas and Israel: What are Its Implications?
Brief # 133 Foreign Policy
Cease Fire Agreement Between Hamas and Israel: What are Its Implications?
By Reilly Fitzgerald
May 21, 2021
Policy Summary:
Last week I wrote a U.S. RESIST NEWS Brief regarding the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict with some thoughts on how the United States may respond. This Brief is a continuation of that updated with information from the past week, and focuses on a newly agreed upon cease fire agreement.
In the last week, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has escalated in several ways. The first being that the scale of violence from the Israeli military and government, towards the Palestinians, has increased dramatically. Initially, we saw clashes with police and rioters; and then, the Israelis started to drop bombs and target specific buildings – one building that was destroyed housed the Associated Press along with other journalists. According to various news sources, the Israelis targeted approximately 20 media outlets during their bombardment of Gaza. The bombing has killed over 200 people, and injured many others. Also, it is worth noting that the Hamas rockets being fired into Israel have killed more than 10 Israelis as well.
However today a cease fire between Israel and Hamas was reached this past Thursday brokered by Egypt. According to a New York Times article the proposed peace plan, that accompanies the cease fire, will include actions such as Israel ending strategic attacks and bombardments on Palestinian critical infrastructure and ceasing their targeting of senior members of the Hamas organizations; while Palestine would also have to end the demonstrations along the Palestine-Israel border, end their long usage of digging tunnels into Israel, and also end their rocket attacks against Israeli citizens and property.
Analysis:
The White House’s response to this on-going conflict has been a markedly neutral response, calling for a cease-fire on both sides. The White House has issued support for Israel’s ability to defend itself, while also condemning Israel’s actions of expansion into Palestinian territory. The Biden administration has taken a less direct and less involved path forward than previous administrations have on issues similar to this; however, the Biden administration needs to be careful on how hands-off they want to be and the signal that is being sent around the globe by following such a course of action. President Biden has had phone calls with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu where he told the Israeli PM to prepare a significant “de-escalation”.
President Biden’s response to this situation has received some interesting commentary from domestic political opponents and allies. Conservatives and Republicans that are friendly toward Israel are calling on the President to do more to support Israel and their ability to fight back against Hamas (which many prominent Republican politicians refer to as a terrorist organization). Also, the President is being called on by Democrats to be more pro-Palestinian and more overtly anti-Israeli. The President is caught in a tough position domestically which has international implications based on who (or which side) he chooses to appease.
The White House has pledged to help both Israel and Palestine to recover from the violence in a manner that is similar to their neutral diplomatic response throughout the conflict. The United States should be careful as to how their fairly hands-off diplomatic role, may look around the world as China has become a very loud critic of US foreign policy throughout this conflict.
Engagement Resources:
- https://www.cfr.org/ – The Council on Foreign Relations is a think-tank that provides regular expert analysis of ongoing global events.
- https://pax.peaceagreements.org/ – Run by the University of Edinburgh as a tracker of global peace agreements and ceasefires. This is a great site for historical information regarding past peace agreements
Should the US join the International Criminal Court?
Brief # 112
Should the US join the International Criminal Court?
By Ailin Goode
May 17, 2021
Summary:
Relations between the U.S. government and the International Criminal Court have shifted back and forth between cautious support and straightforward opposition with each administration since the founding of the ICC in 2002. While the Biden administration is proving more tolerant of the Court than his predecessor it remains to be seen whether-or-not the United States will reconsider its current abstinence from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established and governs the ICC.
Early in April, Biden revoked Executive Order 13928, the purpose of which was to allow the Trump administration to impose sanctions and visa restrictions on ICC personnel, including Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. The sanctions were removed to signal the new administration’s shift from threat to diplomatic engagement. The White House also recently vocalized support for reforms to the ICC that States Parties are currently considering.
The Biden administration continues to condemn the ICC’s investigation into potential war crimes by U.S. military forces and the CIA in Afghanistan and possible war crimes committed by Israel in Palestine on the grounds that neither the U.S. nor Israel are under ICC jurisdiction, objecting to what it calls “the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties.” However, the Rome Statute does allow both investigation and prosecution of members or non-States Parties (states that have not ratified the Rome Statute) if they are accused of committing acts worthy of investigation on State Party territory. Both Afghanistan and Palestine are member states of the ICC.
Analysis:
The International Criminal Court was founded in 2002 as a court of last resort to investigate extreme violations of international law and prosecute individuals accused of international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The Court was established in accordance with the Rome Statute which was the result of a diplomatic conference held in 1998 by the United Nations General Assembly. The United States was one of seven countries to vote against the treaty including China, Israel, and Iraq.
In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute, but Congress did not ratify it, choosing instead for the United States to act as a supportive observer before agreeing to submit to its jurisdiction. After Clinton, each presidential administration has responded to the ICC in different ways.
In 2002 President Bush informed the U.N. that his administration had no intention of ratifying the Rome Statute and in fact, actively opposed it. The U.S. government pushed for multiple bilateral immunity agreements with different states and passed the American Service-Member’s Protection Act in an effort to ensure that American citizens and military personnel would be immune to investigation and prosecution from the international court. However, the Bush administration did vocalize support for the ICC’s prosecution of Sudan in reference to the Darfur genocide.
The Obama administration also stated support for the Sudan investigation and returned the U.S. to its position of cooperative observer. President Obama also withdrew the international pressure the Bush administration had exerted on Bilateral Immunity Agreements and in 2010 the United States was the only non-State Party (non-member of the ICC) to pledge to help both the ICC and other countries prosecute “atrocity crimes.”
After Trump was elected, the administration, once again, altered its stance on U.S. relations with the ICC, shifting back to the open opposition of the Bush administration. President Trump went so far as to revoke ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s visa in 2019 and in 2020 he imposed sanctions on the ICC. This action was thought by some to be retaliatory as the ICC had just authorized an investigation into the possibility that the U.S. military had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
The ICC currently has 123 member states, many of which are Democracies and allies of the United States. If the U.S. were to join it would reinforce the country’s stated commitment to upholding human rights including, freedom, peace, and justice for victims of violence. It would also display an attitude of global cooperation signaling a change from the isolationist policies of the Trump administration.
There are some critics that see the ICC as a threat to America’s sovereignty, however, the United States has already been involved in multiple international courts over the years with no notable risk.
In addition to the ongoing Afghanistan investigation, the ICC has also been recently called upon to investigate “crimes against humanity” perpetrated on U.S. soil by police against Black Americans. The request comes after the release of a 188-page report compiled by a global commission of human rights experts detailing systemic violence against the Black community.
Should the Biden administration submit to these investigations it would add credence to the promise of social justice that was widely responsible for their election into office. It would also indicate that the U.S. is drawing a hard line against racially motivated violence as well as global violence.
Engagement Resources:
www.hrw.org – “Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses happening in all corners of the world. We are roughly 450 people of 70-plus nationalities who are country experts, lawyers, journalists, and others who work to protect the most at risk, from vulnerable minorities and civilians in wartime, to refugees and children in need.”
https://www.icc-cpi.int/ – The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.
The 2020 Census Report Shifts Seven Seats in the House
Brief # 18 Elections and Politics
The 2020 Census Report Shifts Seven Seats in the House
Rosalind Gottfried
May 17, 2021
Policy
The first report from the 2020 census data was released in April after delays stemming from issues related to the Corona virus. This first report is utilized to inform decisions relating to the reapportionment of the 435 seats in the House; it includes data through April 1, 2020 and as such is missing data reflecting deaths from the Covid 19. The new census shows the lowest population gain in recorded US history. The current population, based on the number of all living persons including Native Americans, is 331,449,281. This reflects an increase of 7.4% from the 2010 census, the second lowest since the reported 7.3% recorded in the decade of the 1930s. Thirty seven states grew more slowly than in the previous decade while three states lost population. This trend is attributable to lower birthrates; higher death rates, and slowed immigration.
The Demographic shifts have led to the exchange of 7 seats in the house. States losing a seat included California, Illinois, Michigan, NY, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Texas gained two seats while Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon picked up one each. While California lost a seat, it is still the most populous state and is reflective of trends in the nation and trends predicted to continue in the near future. California saw a loss of 1.7% in population 2019, compared to 1.3% in 2017, due to the millennial delay of parenthood; reduced immigration; and less incoming migration. Immigration was .4 and .5 from 2010-15 and with Trump it went to<.1 of the US population.
Most telling is the increased population shift to the sunbelt, encompassing the southeast and southwestern states. In 1970 these states accounted for 48% of the American population; now the corresponding figure is 62%. Florida has overtaken NY as the third most populous state and Georgia and North Carolina have displaced Michigan to take the eighth and ninth places. The decline in population in states tending to vote Red states has led many experts to predict a shift to Blue.
Analysis
These initial reporte emanating from the 2020 census were delayed due to the pandemic; the next set of reports is anticipated in August. Future data will address many more specific issues such as race; ethnic composition; immigrant status; employment; household income; education and provide more detail. What can be noted from the broadly based initial population trends is the slowing of the growth of the population and the fact that by 2030 the youngest baby boomers will be over 65 years old, swelling the senior population. Additions to this group will outpace both birth rates and the numbers added to the labor force. There is a consensus among demographers that if the US is to sustain its population, it will have to depend on immigration. Immigrants not only contribute to the labor force but tend to be younger and so also represent the potential to swell the fertility rate. The government should prioritize immigration reform if it is to meet the challenge.
Learn More References
https://www.brookings.edu/research/census-2020-data-release/
Biden Administration Enables Task Force to Reunite Immigrant Families Separated during Trump Administration
Immigration Policy Brief #123
Biden Administration Enables Task Force to Reunite Immigrant Families Separated during Trump Administration
By Kathryn Baron
May 14, 2021
Policy Summary
The Department of Homeland Security will establish a Family Reunification Task Force with the mandate of reuniting families who were separated during the Trump Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy. The Task Force will be led by Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, and involve substantial interagency coordination with the Department of Justice (settlement negotiation efforts), the Department of State (system for processing in-country requests for travel documents to enter the US), and the Department of Health and Human Services (facilitate services and support for effected families). The Task Force is expected to deliver a progress report by June 2, 2021.
More than 5,000 children were separated from their families from July 2017 to June 2018. In March 2021, there were an estimated 5,700 unaccompanied children in US Customs and Border Patrol custody; the number has since decreased to just below 700.
Analysis
Who will be reunited and in what order largely correlates to ongoing negotiations in an ACLU federal lawsuit in San Diego, to stop the forcible separation of families and hold the US government accountable for its actions during the Zero Tolerance Policy era. So far, the Biden Administration has announced parents from four different families will be allowed to cross the US border and rejoin their children, after being deported to Central America and Mexico. The parents will return on a Humanitarian Parole while immigration authorities consider long-term options for legal status.
The Task Force will also attempt to establish a database of separated families, amend inaccuracies in their files, and build a comprehensive process to locate families and give them opportunities for reunification. In line with the restorative undertone of the Biden campaign, this method of transitional justice is crucial to any immigration reforms that may follow in the coming months and will ideally serve as the basis for restorative justice in several sectors of the American political and justice system.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
After Intense Pressure Biden Raises Refugee Cap from Historically Low Trump Administration Figures
Immigration Policy Brief #122
After Intense Pressure Biden Raises Refugee Cap from Historically Low Trump Administration Figures
By Kathryn Baron
May 14, 2021
Policy Summary
Under the Trump Administration, the US held a historically low refugee cap of 15,000. On the campaign trail President Biden vowed to increase the limit for this fiscal year to 62,500 and ideally, to 125,000 for the following year. Biden emphasized the low Trump-era cap did not accurately depict America’s values as a “nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”
However several weeks ago Biden reversed course and said the US would keep the Trump-era level of only 15,000. After facing intense backlash from Democrats and civil society, Biden agreed to increase the number. His ability to reverse course reflects Biden’s flexibility and willingness to respond positively to those who disagree with him.
Analysis
Biden now says that the US will admit 62,500 refugees in this fiscal year but cautions that that that this target is a ceiling. However he vows to nearly double the 62,500 number in following years. The US will accept the most refugees from Africa (around 22,000) for this fiscal year.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
Trump’s Comically Bad Communications Platform and the Power of Engagement and Deplatforming
Technology Brief #47
Trump’s Comically Bad Communications Platform and the Power of Engagement and Deplatforming
By Scout Burchill
May 15, 2021
Summary
After four months of radio silence, former president Donald Trump is back in the social media game, sort of. After hyping a return on a platform of his own, Trump finally launched a new section on his website called From the Desk of Donald J. Trump, touting it as “a place to speak freely and safely.” Billed as a “communication platform,” the new feature on his website is basically a micro-blog that Trump uses to post messages in his trademark Twitter style.
Quite in line with the Trump brand, Trump’s Desk is a far shot from what it was originally hyped up to be and suffers from a number of comical technical issues. For one, there is no way to respond to or interact with any of Trump’s messages. Also, for each message there is an accompanying like button that serves no discernable purpose. When the site feature was first launched, tech savvy observers noted that it was not even coded with any action. At the time of writing, however, it seems to have been updated to turn red when clicked.
Additionally, the platform is very poorly integrated to work with Twitter, so even though Trump’s Desk allows Twitter users to share Trump’s messages on Twitter, which, in a way, would allow Trump to bypass his current Twitter ban, the interface is horrific. When shared on Twitter, most of Trump’s message becomes cut off and replaced with an ugly, blue link to Trump’s website and a giant image of Trump signing what appears to be a very large Bible.
Since Trump’s ban from Facebook and Twitter, the former president’s power to insert himself in the national discourse has diminished considerably. Social media interactions about Trump have fallen 91% since January. Google search traffic as well as Trump’s visibility and mentions on cable news have plummeted to levels not seen since before he began his presidential run in 2016. In total, Trump’s new communications platform has received 212 thousand engagements (meaning likes, shares and comments on the big social media platforms), whereas previously a single tweet or post of his would easily rack up hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. Towards the end of the 2020 election, Trump’s Facebook served as his own private media company, garnering 336 million interactions, utterly dwarfing Biden’s 48 million as well as mainstream news outlets like The New York Times and NBC, which garnered even less.
While many people may feel a marked improvement in their mental health as their Twitter feeds and Facebook timelines have become noticeably saner without Trump, the ability of a handful of tech companies to multilaterally silence a former president is a serious exhibition of power. Without a shadow of a doubt, deplatforming works for certain individuals, and is perhaps even more effective than most people predicted. Even though Trump’s waning influence in our national politics is certainly worth celebrating, the power of tech companies to deplatform is definitely not.
Analysis:
The trick to ending Trump’s madness-inducing spell over the nation’s collective consciousness was always to simply stop feeding into it. Trump’s political and cultural power is directly tied to engagement. For years, journalists woke up, checked Twitter and then proceeded to report the daily news starting with what Trump tweeted at some ungodly hour of the night. This became the norm. Entire cable shows were dedicated to obsessing over his inflammatory tweets and speculating about social media platforms’ responsibilities to stop the sitting president from spreading dangerous messages. During the 2016 presidential election, CNN would cut to shots of an empty podium where Trump would soon be scheduled to speak, ginning up their captive audiences’ outrage reflexes for maximum effect after a short commercial break.
The playbook was always predictable. Trump mouthed some horrendous opinion or outright lie and then commentators would play it over and over again while clutching their pearls in righteous indignation. Cable news outlets like CNN, MSNBC and Fox, as well as mainstream publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post raked in massive profits during Trump’s presidency and saw ratings soar to unprecedented levels. No surprise then that since Trump’s virtual disappearance, profits and ratings have plummeted.
While Facebook enabled Trump to maintain an organizing and fundraising infrastructure, Twitter was Trump’s not-so-secret weapon. With the twiddle of his thumbs he controlled media narratives and succeeded at putting himself at the center of everything. If there was a culture war issue simmering at the surface of America’s deeply polarized society, Trump’s tweets doused it in gasoline.
Herein lies Trump’s real power, engagement. Trump completely lacked a coherent political vision or ideology What Trump did have though was unrivaled cultural power through the constant engagement he fostered with those who loved him as well as those who hated him. He empowered his supporters with his whole-hearted willingness to own the libs and curse in the face of the political establishment. On the other side, Trump Derangement Syndrome became a pejorative diagnosis to describe those obsessed to the point of madness over his antics and cruelty. Engagement was central to this power dynamic because through engagement Trump’s followers were made to feel empowered and his detractors exasperated and powerless.
It’s hard to celebrate Trump’s deplatforming as a victory for American democracy or a viable solution to the harms posed by people who espouse dangerous ideas. No matter which side of the political spectrum you may fall on, the success of Trump’s deplatforming should be alarming. The fact that a few companies have the power to multilaterally silence a former sitting president is not a sign of a healthy democracy or media ecosystem. Needless to say, Trump is not the only political figure to be silenced. Left leaning individuals and communities have been suppressed, as well, and historically, deplatforming movements have overwhelmingly targeted individuals deemed to be socialists or communists. Palestinian voices, too, are systematically erased by Big Tech companies, demonstrating that any idea or opinion that challenges power and does not serve the status quo is liable to be punished or suppressed. When the power to deplatform some and amplify others becomes so concentrated and so potent, the real danger resides in the power itself. Even though Trump may be gone for now, our information ecosystems are still sick.
Engagement Resources:
Accountable Tech
American Economic Liberties Project
https://www.economicliberties.us/big-tech-monopolies/
Center for Humane Technology
Sources:
If you want to engage with Trump’s new communications platform, you can find it at his website
Aviv Ovayda’s Proposal to Facebook Oversight Board
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UUefNIiTZL7vvBvhtcZ9lfYSN2gA_4WH7kQm_uA_QSI/edit
Trump’s Hyped Return to Social Media
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-social-media-platform-return-adviser
Data on Trump’s Decline After Social Media Bans
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trumps-blog-isnt-lighting-internet-rcna890
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/06/trump-media-era-ends-not-with-wow-whisper/
https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-social-media-attention-d6829513-644d-4235-9090-20284862e009.html