JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Republican Party: Who’s Up Next?
Brief #19—Elections & Politics
By William Borque
With President Biden now leading this country, many analysts shifted their attention to the 2024 presidential election, where Republicans will once again have a chance to bring the balance of power back to their side of the aisle. The question, however, is who they will choose to lead their party in a key time that will decide the direction of the party for decades to come. Some suggest that they should re-nominate President Trump in an effort to revitalize his political and historical image after the tumultuous end to his presidency. Others suggest his son, Donald Trump Jr, a similarly polarizing and loud-mouthed public figure. Yet another suggestion, along the same vein, is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a well known Trump supporter and ardent conservative. DeSantis is seen as the favorite to secure the nomination, but there are still plenty of others who may sneak into the picture in the coming months and years.
The Complex US Relationship with Taiwan
Brief #114—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
For the last several weeks, the world’s focus has rightfully been on the horrific, American-backed Israeli assault on Gaza. Even as a ceasefire (hopefully) takes hold in that region, events continue to unfold elsewhere on the planet. One potential flashpoint remains the island of Taiwan.
The history of modern Taiwan is complex, and essentially begins with the Republic of China’s retreat to the island, in 1949, after effective defeat on the mainland by Mao Zedong and the People’s Liberation Army. The legal status of Taiwan (and the People’s Republic of China) has since been complex, and shifting. At this point, most states have some level of diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but stop short of full recognition. China does not recognize Taiwan as independent, per its “One-China policy,” and Taiwan typically has a limited status in international institutions.
A Needed Boost for Home Health Care Workers If Biden’s American Jobs Plan Passes Congress
Brief #117—Economics
By Lily Lady Cook
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.
Gun Control Efforts in the U.S.
Brief #15—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
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.
New Citizenship Policy For Children Born Abroad to Same – Sex Married Couples
Brief #162—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
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.
The Need for a Global Response to the Pandemic
Brief #106—Health & Gender
By Erin McNemar
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.
Cease Fire Agreement Between Hamas and Israel: What are Its Implications?
Brief #113—Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
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.
Should the US join the International Criminal Court?
Brief #112—Foreign Policy
By Ailin Goode
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.
The 2020 Census Report Shifts Seven Seats in the House
Brief #18—Elections & Politics
By Rosalind Gottfried
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.
President Biden Signs Four Executive Orders Aimed at Racial Equality
Brief # 6 Social Justice
President Biden Signs Four Executive Orders Aimed at Racial Equality
by Erika Shannon
February 1, 2021
POLICY SUMMARY
On January 20th, Joe Biden was finally sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. In his first week in office, there has been a flurry of executive orders being signed by the new president-elect; some of these are aimed at repairing what Trump may have broken, and others are aimed at making America a better and more inclusive place for all. Of the 24 executive orders signed by President Biden so far, four of them involve promoting racial equality. These four executive orders are comprised of: directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to “take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies,” directing the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons, reaffirming the federal government’s “commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation,” and combatting xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders. It is important to familiarize yourself with the executive orders being signed, as they are laying some of the groundwork for Joe Biden’s plans for his presidency.
The four executive orders regarding racial justice have all been prompted by specific problems in America. It is no secret that housing policies in the U.S. have been discriminatory for a long time, with minorities often being mistreated or denied access to affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods. While things such as the Fair Housing Act have been aimed at minimizing discrimination, there are still underhanded examples of mistreatment of minorities in the housing market. Studies show that real estate agents show fewer available homes and apartments to minorities than equally qualified white people. In turn, minorities housing options are restricted, which is a serious problem.
When it comes to private prisons, they are run much differently from public prisons. A study done by the Justice Department in 2016 indicated that private prisons see higher rates of assault, use of force incidents, and lockdowns than public prisons. These problems have caused people to become concerned with the way private prisons are operated, and this executive order aims to address that.
The United States was essentially built on stolen land, and over the years that fact has fallen by the wayside. Native Americans still face threats to their land, with things like the Dakota Access Pipeline that intrude on native lands.
The final executive order on Asian and Pacific Islander xenophobia is directly related to coronavirus. With the virus’s supposed origins being Wuhan, China, there has been a lot of negativity surrounding Asians abroad, as well as Asian Americans. For a while, there was a period of time where people were not patronizing Chinese restaurants in American cities, which was hurting Asian Americans financially. While Trump was in office, he used the harmful rhetoric of referring to coronavirus as the “China virus,” which only further alienated Asians and Pacific Islanders. These four executive orders look like they are going to be a step in the right direction, but it is a bit early to tell if President Biden will follow through with his promise of promoting racial equity.
POLICY ANALYSIS
President Bieen’s executive orders regarding racial equity are important for a few reasons. First and foremost, they’re important because our former President, Donald Trump, did nothing to promote racial justice in the U.S. If anything, his refusal to condemn white supremacy has exacerbated racial tensions; at the very least, it has made many of his racist followers come out of the woodwork and act on their racist ideals.
There is a long way to go before there is a bigger sense of inclusion for minorities in the U.S. For example, while the executive order to close private prisons is good, there are far bigger problems regarding race in our justice system. The whole justice system needs reform, and something must be done to address systemic misconduct in police departments across the country. Here in America, there are actually only 14,000 inmates still located in private prisons; this constitutes only around 9% of total people incarcerated. It is clear that the bigger problem has not yet been tackled, but there is hope that our new President will right some of the wrongs that have plaguing minorities in America for centuries. Taking any course of action is better than sitting back and letting things go on as they are. While President Biden has signed many executive orders in his first week, these four regarding racial equity are a big change from what we’ve seen in the past four years with Trump in office. There is optimism that Biden will continue to take bigger steps towards racial equity for all here in the U.S.
Engagement Resources
- To learn more about housing discrimination or report an incident, visit the National Fair Housing Aliance website.
- To get involved in the fight for prison reform, there are resources available at the Prison Policy Initiative and Fair Fight Initiative
- To report an incident or find out more about combatting Asian xenophobia in the US, visit Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
A U.S. RESIST NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
AMERICANS ON AMERICA: WHAT MY COUNTRY MEANS TO ME
BY LINDA F. HERSEY
Americans on America is a U.S. RESIST NEWS investigative report series in which we interview ordinary American on the values they believe their country stands for, and what their country needs to do to live up to those values.
# 3 Yemer Augilar ( Son of Guatemalan Immigrants ) – Safety is the most important value for them; living in a California community where they are not threatened by gang violence and can help provide the basics for their siblings here, as well as their mother back in Guatemala.
Jaime Aguilar left his wife, children and the only home he had known to make a new life in America, without the entrenched poverty and threats of violence that were all too common in Guatemala.
After 15 back-breaking years working menial jobs, Aguilar saved enough money and processed the needed paperwork to bring his three children to his adopted home of California.
But Aguilar only had a short time with his children, now young adults, after he suffered an aneurysm in 2019 that rendered him unresponsive and in need of constant care. Jaime Aguliar passed away in December 2020.
Today, Aguilar’s eldest son, 25-year-old Yemer, is the chief breadwinner working at a menial job.
There are an estimated 1.3 million people from Guatemala making their home in the United States, according to federal statistics. Guatemalans are the sixth-largest Hispanic population in the United States.
The Aguilars’ story – which Jemer told to U.S. Resist News in a series of interviews, with the help of a translator — shows that each immigrant’s journey is unique, rarely linear and not easy.
Limited Job Skills and Education
The promise of a middle-class life that brought European immigrants to the United States in the early 1900s is not the reality that many immigrants from Central America experience today. While there is opportunity, prosperity eludes workers who may not speak English with fluency and lack job skills and/or a college degree.
There is no clear path to follow. Yet Yemer Aguilar is determined to continue his father’s efforts to build a life in the United States, a better life than they had in Guatemala.
Yemer works at a fast-food outlet. He does not have a computer or access to the Internet to take English as a Second Language classes. Without a college education or specialized skills, opportunities are scarce for employment that can sustain his family.
Because he is in the U.S. on a visa, without permanent residency, he does not qualify for food stamps, general assistance or Medicaid, government benefits that are a crucial safety net for people in poverty.
He is working through the bureaucratic process and only recently connected with a nonprofit agency that can help put immigrants like him on a more certain path to security and citizenship.
While Yemer appreciates the opportunity and freedom that a democratic society brings, he admits that life here is “duro” – hard. It was not easy at first for him to find employment. While he now has a steady job, it is low-paying, part time and lacks health insurance.
Yemer’s sister, 18, works alongside him, filling fast-food orders. The younger son is disabled by seizures and cannot work; without a “green card,” he cannot qualify for Medicare, which provides benefits for people with serious disabilities. The two siblings care for him, which limits their time and ability to connect with the greater community.
U.S. Represents ‘Safety’ for Immigrant Family
Asked about the American values that he appreciates most, Yemer does not pause: “Seguridad.”
Safety indeed for himself and his siblings means the most to him — living in a California community where he is not threatened by gang violence and can help provide the basics for his siblings here, as well as his mother back in Guatemala.
He also is realistic. Yemer says it is best to wait before trying to bring his mother to the United States. He cannot handle much more responsibility than he has now.
Yemer is proud that he could have a small funeral that honored his father and the elder man’s dedication to family. He holds up a photo of his father’s white coffin; a slender vase with flowers was next to it on a dais.
Yemer now wants to have his father buried in his home country, in the village where he grew up. He is trying to raise money toward that effort. It is unclear if he will be able to fulfill that dream. He is connecting with California organizations that may be able to provide a grant for such a request, which is not uncommon among immigrants from Central America.
Yemer also is aware that immigration is a controversial issue, with the Trump administration painting a stark picture of immigrants like himself as criminals and a threat to society. That could not be further from the truth.
A grocer where the elder Aguilar worked as a janitor recently held a modest fundraiser for the family to help defray funeral costs. A cardboard box asking for donations sat next to the register. A photo of Jaime smiling, with prominent Mayan features, was taped to the side of the box.
Marta, one of the store clerks, recalled Jaime, who was in his 50s, as a “protector” and “gentleman.”
She said that Jaime Aguilar used to sit and wait for her to finish her shift to ensure her safety, as she left the store alone. She would bring him homemade tamales every year at Christmas.
“Jaime cared about people,” she said. “He would send presents to people [in his village]. He was important to them. He was a success.”
RESOURCES
has a vision is to create a fair financial marketplace for hardworking people, assisting applicants with grants and other types of funding resources.
Latino Economic Development Center is a Washington, D.C., based nonprofit that equips Latinos and other underserved communities with the skills and financial tools to create a better future.
Hispanic Federation seeks to empower and advance the Hispanic community, support Hispanic families, and strengthen Latino institutions.
Americanos sobre América
Una Historia de Oportunidades y Dificultades de una familia Gualtemalteca en los Estados Unidos
Por Linda F. Hersey
(Tradducion: Kris Sosa)
Jaime Aguilar dejó a su esposa, sus hijos y el único hogar que había conocido para hacer una nueva vida en los Estados Unidos, sin la pobreza arraigada y las amenazas de violencia que eran demasiado comunes en Guatemala.
Después de 15 años agotadores trabajando en trabajos de baja categoría, Aguilar ahorró suficiente dinero y procesó el papeleo necesario para traer a sus tres hijos a su hogar adoptivo de California.
Pero Aguilar solo tuvo poco tiempo con sus hijos, ahora adultos jóvenes, ya que sufrió un aneurisma en 2019 que lo dejó insensible y en necesidad de atención constante. Jaime Aguliar falleció en diciembre del 2020.
Ahora, el hijo mayor de Aguilar, Yemer, de 24 años, que solo estuvo un año con su padre en los Estados Unidos antes de que el anciano sufriera un aneurisma que lo dejó con daño cerebral, es el principal sostén de la familia. Sin embargo, Yemer Aguilar está decidido a continuar los esfuerzos de la familia para construir una vida en los Estados Unidos, una vida mejor que la que tenían en Guatemala.
Su recuerdo más constante de su padre era la dedicación del anciano al trabajo y al empleo. “Trabajaba todo el tiempo”, dijo Yemer a través de un traductor.
Yemer trabaja en un establecimiento de comida rápida y su inglés es limitado. No tiene una computadora ni acceso a Internet para tomar clases de inglés como segundo idioma. Sin una educación universitaria o habilidades especializadas, son escasas las oportunidades de empleo que pueda sostener a su familia.
La hermana de Yemer, de 18 años, ha trabajado junto a él, atendiendo pedidos en una cadena de restaurantes local. El hijo menor está discapacitado por convulsiones y no puede trabajar. Los dos hermanos lo cuidan.
Preguntado qué es lo que más valora en este país, no se detiene: “Seguridad”.
La seguridad para él y sus hermanos es lo más importante para él: vivir en una comunidad de California donde no se ve amenazado por la violencia de las pandillas y puede ayudar a proporcionar lo básico para sus hermanos aquí, así como para su madre en Guatemala.
Yemer está orgulloso de haber podido ofrecer un funeral que honró a su padre y la dedicación del hombre mayor a la familia. Un tendero donde el anciano Aguilar trabajaba como conserje recientemente llevó a cabo una recaudación de fondos modesta para la familia para ayudar a sufragar los costos.
Más que cualquier otra cosa, Yemer ahora quiere que su padre sea enterrado en su país de origen, en el pueblo donde creció. Está tratando de recaudar dinero para ese esfuerzo. No está claro si podrá cumplir ese sueño. Se está conectando con organizaciones de California que podrían proporcionar una subvención para tal solicitud, lo cual no es infrecuente entre los inmigrantes de América Central.
Aunque Yemer aprecia la seguridad y la libertad que brinda una sociedad democrática, admite que la vida aquí es “dura”. Al principio no le resultó fácil encontrar empleo. Los trabajos que ha tenido son trabajos duros con salarios bajos y poca o ninguna seguridad para el futuro.
Una empleada llamada “Rosie”, en el tendero de California donde trabajaba el mayor Aguilar lo recuerda como un “protector” y un caballero. Dijo que Jaime Aguilar solía sentarse y esperar a que ella terminara su turno para garantizar su seguridad, mientras ella salía sola de la tienda. Ella le traía tamales caseros todos los años en Navidad.
“Jaime se preocupaba por la gente”, dijo. “Él enviaba regalos a la gente [en su aldea]. Fue importante, un éxito “.
Outlook for Covid-19 Vaccines in School Communities
Brief # 53 Education Policy
Outlook for Covid-19 Vaccines in School Communities
By Emily Carty
January 26, 2021
Vaccines have been required or recommended in schools for decades now. The CDC urges families to vaccinate their children against chicken pox, measles, and a handful of other illnesses in order to protect their own children as well as the general public. While this is just a recommendation, all 50 states have some laws in place requiring students to be vaccinated against certain diseases and in certain situations. For example, the state might require students of public schools to have certain immunizations while students in private schools are exempt. Nevertheless, there are ways to circumvent these requirements with medical, or in some cases, religious or philosophical exemptions. Forty-five states have religious exemptions, and 15 have philosophical exemptions — California, New York, Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia only have medical exemptions.
The US has a long history of requiring vaccines for school, with the Supreme Court upholding the requirement as early as 1922. Mandatory vaccinations, with their co-existing exemptions, have proven to be the most important US public health initiative of the past century, nearly eradicating many contagious diseases that used to be commonplace. But the rise of anti-vaccination efforts and biased or misleading information in the media has threatened the success of vaccination programs, with higher exemption rates leading to higher infection rates.
In the wake of US citizens’ growing mistrust of the media, thriving conspiracy theory groups, and anti-maskers, public health officials have made special efforts to educate the public on vaccines and safety considerations. With Covid-19 being a highly contagious disease, officials seek to gain control of it through vaccinations and other precautions such as face masks. History tells us that schools and children are a major component to reaching herd immunity. While risks are lower for serious illness in kids with Covid-19, they can still transmit the virus to more vulnerable community members, which is why vaccinating school-aged children will be critical in fighting the spread of the virus. Plus, families are already used to childhood vaccinations, and pediatricians are used to administering vaccines.
That being said, what does the history of vaccines in schools and current political climate tell us about how the Covid-19 Vaccine rollout might unfold? For starters, many are asking if it will be added to “required” lists once it is widely available and safe for young children. In the past, vaccines were developed over longer periods of time, so it is understandable that individuals are questioning the safety of a rapidly developed vaccine. Nevertheless, rigorous studies and safety protocols are in place to ensure the vaccines will be safe for children before they are put on any required list.
Moderna and Pfizer are just starting clinical trials of the vaccine in adolescents, and they aim to begin more trials for younger kids later this year. Nevertheless, these results will be slower going than the current vaccine, which was approved under an emergency FDA order. So while we wait until the vaccines are ready, school officials are planning well ahead to confront the issue of mandatory Covid vaccinations.
Los Angeles Superintendent of Schools has been the first high-ranking school official to acknowledge that once youth vaccines are widely available they will be added to the roster of mandatory vaccines. Some public health officials don’t want to rush the requirement in schools, but at the same time they are urging drug companies to include more children in the clinical trials. Once adults get vaccinated, and later once children get vaccinated (voluntarily), we can begin to talk about mandatory vaccinations and address issues of herd immunity, personal choice, and public safety. While we must wait patiently, the most realistic path towards the urgent, safe reopening of schools would be to prioritize teachers and school staff for the Covid vaccine.
Teachers and education associations are calling on government leaders to officially add them to the priority list, especially if those same government leaders are pressuring schools to open for in-person learning. If certain grades or classes are officially set to reopen, vaccination plans should prioritize those certain teachers, at least until the general public, including children, are able to get vaccinated. Additionally, the implementation of clear, concrete, and consistent guidance on Federal and State levels will be crucial to decreasing fear and increasing support for vaccinations and school reopening plans in general.
A major win for teacher unions and activist groups was President Biden calling on states and counties to prioritize school staff (after healthcare professionals, of course) so we can be one step closer to safe reopening of schools. So far however, inconsistent vaccine supply and confusing rollout plans have left school communities with questions — in California, small counties have already started vaccinating interested school staff, while some larger counties still don’t know when the vaccines will arrive or how they will distribute them to school staff. This uneven vaccine landscape is playing out across the nation, where spontaneous vaccine shipments might alter the rollout plan at a given moment.
As of January 22, 2021 — 13 states are allowing teachers to be vaccinated, 1 state permits teachers over 50, and 7 states vary by county or other eligibility factors. On the same note, while teachers may be eligible for the vaccine, it leaves a grey area for other school staff, who are also likely to be in contact with students. While they might be deemed as frontline essential workers in the eyes of the CDC, they might be lower on the vaccination list than teachers or might not be specified in the priority list, we must encourage public health leaders to take this into consideration when prioritizing workers and when opening schools.
The vaccination of teachers is off to a promising start so far. Activists across the nation are calling on our new President and local leaders to prioritize equitable distribution of vaccines so we can get our country back up and running safely for everyone. With increased education regarding the Covid vaccine, consistent information, and a clear, structured distribution plan, we can all look forward to returning to schools as safely as is possible until Covid-19 becomes a disease of the past.
Engagement Resources
American Academy of Pediatrics – This professional association of Pediatricians has a page dedicated to ways to take action to promote healthy living for kids. Check out their resources for an impressive list of policy areas affecting children. Sign petitions and send letters to your congress people for state or federal policy issues.
National Education Association – The NEA’s advocacy page is a great resource for finding policy areas that affect school children and teachers alike. Use their fill-in forms to write messages to your representatives about Covid-19 resources, and support for school communities.
National Association of School Nurses – Check out NASN’s list of ways to take action to support health and wellness for school-aged children. Get involved with their advocacy efforts by signing up for their newsletter, donating, or learning about their policy stances and writing your representatives.
Voices for Vaccines – Voices for Vaccines: Parents Speaking up for Immunization, provides tools to talk about vaccines, learn more about vaccines, and take action to promote immunization in children for preventable diseases in your community. Check out their section on Covid-19 to learn about the vaccine for children.
Learn More
CDC – Required Vaccines for Child Care and School
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine – Mandatory School Vaccinations: The Role of Tort Law
AMA Journal of Ethics – School Vaccination Laws
US News – No Vaccination, No School?
National Conference of Legislatures – School Vaccine Exemption Laws
Chalkbeat – Biden Promises Guidance, Vaccines
Ed Source – Inconsistent Vaccine Supply
JAMA – Risks Associated with Vaccine Exemption
KQED – School Staff Lines up for Vaccines
Roanoke – 2000 School Staff Vaccinated
The Atlantic – Children and Herd Immunity
KGW8 – Oregon Governor Prioritizes Teachers over Seniors
LA Times – LA Student Must Get Vaccine
Yemen and Cuba- 2 Foreign Policy Challenges for the Biden Administration
Brief #104 Foreign Policy
Yemen and Cuba- 2 Foreign Policy Challenges for the Biden Administration
By Brandon Mooney
January 29, 2021
With Pompeo and Trump’s State Department now a thing of the past, the Biden administration has turned to the long, arduous task that has faced every incoming administration throughout American history: the review and either reversal or preservation of foreign policies.
Policy Summary:
With Pompeo and Trump’s State Department now a thing of the past, the Biden administration has turned to the long, arduous task that has faced every incoming administration throughout American history: the review and either reversal or preservation of foreign policies. However, the Trump presidency was anything but typical, and it has left behind a complicated legacy that will take serious time and effort to sift through. This legacy is only made more difficult by the feverous, diplomatic equivalent of a closing sale that occurred in the final month of the Trump presidency. Two items of particular interest are the declaration of the Yemeni Ansar Allah, or Houthis, movement as a foreign terrorist organization and the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. “Terrorism” has become a loaded and dangerous label that comes with justifiably serious repercussions and should not be taken lightly. This brief will discuss whether these designations were called for, and whether they should be maintained.
Turning first to the Ansar Allah movement, some quick history to set the scene. Yemen has been trapped in a gruesome civil war since 2014, which pits a Western-supplied coalition of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) against rebel Ansar Allah forces. The Saudi coalition is attempting to reinstate deposed Yemeni president Adbrabbuh Mansour Hadi, and the Ansar Allah insurgents having once supported former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, but are now fighting for their own regime. I would encourage readers to do their own research into the conflict, as it is vastly more complicated than the watered-down rendition I just gave. But, putting that aside, the Ansar Allah movement is an Islamist Shia faction, and due to Saudi Arabia and the UAE being Sunni-majority states, they perceive a Shia-controlled Yemen as a dangerous regional threat in their wide-ranging Middle Eastern proxy war against Shia-majority Iran. The fact that Yemen shares a border with Saudi Arabia does not help matters. The U.S. and the U.K. have been providing the Saudi coalition with weaponry for years, and Trump’s rather chummy relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is notorious.
With the history laid out, it is perhaps no wonder that the Trump administration declared the Ansar Allah movement to be a terrorist organization. Not only do they threaten a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, but they have been restricting aid, placing arbitrary taxes on aid, and utilizing civilians in their war tactics. Such was the explanation for the designation. The now-newly designated Secretary of State for the Biden administration, Antony Blinken, has publicly stated that Biden wishes to terminate U.S. support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen, with the justification being that it not in our national interest. The choice to declare Ansar Allah a terrorist organization is under review.
Now to the issue of Cuba. I assume that most know of the fraught relationship between Cuba and the U.S., stretching back to Castro’s socialist revolution and the Cold War, so I will leave that for another day. The explanation for the label of state sponsor of terrorism was that Cuba has allowed terrorists to live within its borders and has sponsored international terrorism. The fingered terrorists are a Black Panther who escaped prison in 1979 after killing a police officer, and guerillas wanted in Colombia in connection with the bombing of a police academy. The charge of sponsorship of international terrorism is specifically attributed to Cuba’s support for battered Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, and more vaguely attributed to a harmful influence in the Western Hemisphere. It is expected that the Biden administration will overturn the state sponsor of terrorism designation.
Analysis:
Firs, there is absolutely no doubt that Ansar Allah forces bear significant responsibility for the grievous humanitarian crisis and various war crimes that have been committed in Yemen. This is not up for debate. However, when reviewing the designation of Ansar Allah as a terrorist organization, we must also ensure that it does not impede or stop the provision of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations estimates that as of March 2017, 69% of the population requires humanitarian aid, with 8.4 million Yemenis being identified as severely food insecure or at risk of starvation. To put that into perspective, that’s the entire state of Virginia starving to death. In addition, Yemen has little domestic agriculture, importing over 90% of its staple foods. If the international community does not provide aid, we are condemning millions to death.
To their credit, the Trump administration had been supportive of aid to Yemen in the past. In 2019, the U.S. alone gave Yemen $700 million. However, efforts were complicated by the Saudi coalition attempting to blockade relief from entering the country and the U.S. itself selling weaponry that was then being used against said civilians. And when aid did enter, the coalition attempted to make the journey so arduous and checkered with fees that it never reached Ansar Allah-controlled territory. A large portion of the Saudi coalition’s strategy is to starve out the rebel forces, and by extension, the civilians. Yet the rebels have done little better, as they have regularly demanded taxes for transporting supplies and re-directed significant aid resources into their own networks at the expense of starving civilians.
To put it simply, relief supplies must flow unrestrained into Yemen. The cost of attempting to stem supplies would spell disaster for millions of innocents. Marking Ansar Allah as a terrorist organization means that such aid will slow to a dribble and possibly even cease. The situation is far too murky to really tell if one is providing relief to the rebels or civilians. Distinction is wholly impossible on the ground. It would lead to humanitarians abandoning Yemen because they are too afraid of the U.S. government’s wrath. There are other ways to punish Ansar Allah for its transgressions and bring them to the bargaining table. In addition, it is hypocritical and signals significant political favoritism to not discipline the Saudi coalition, which is equally at fault.
Looking at Cuba, there is similarly justification for the designation of state sponsor of terrorism. It is harboring terrorists. Colombia most certainly considers the paramilitaries to be terrorists. However, the entire issue is complicated by Cuba currently brokering a peace agreement between the paramilitary group in question and the Colombian government, with the guerrilla’s leadership residing in Cuba. There is also a good argument that one should return escaped murderers to their country of origin. The accusation of sponsoring international terrorism due to Cuban support for Maduro is tenuous, however, and the accusation of having a damaging influence is far too vague. Yet many of the consequences Cuba suffers from now being placed on the terrorism list have already been and continue to be inflicted by the American embargo of Cuba. If anything, the label is more symbolic as a result.
I do not claim to know the right answer when it comes to Cuba. Does returning a criminal now well into their 70’s warrant worsening an already fraught relationship that many in the U.S. wish to mend? If you want to view the Trump administration in the worst light, placing Cuba on the terrorism list was an attempt to make Biden-Cuba relations more difficult. If you wish to view it from a calculated political position, it was likely an attempt to curry favor with anti-Castro Cubans in Florida ahead of the election.
In summary, both of these foreign policy decisions are damaging to the credibility of the designation of terrorism by the U.S. They clearly display that the label of terrorist can and is affected by political leanings. Sure, most of us know that, but it is a wholly different affair to make it plain and clear. Although I would argue that Ansar Allah should not be deemed a terrorist organization at the moment due to the humanitarian repercussions and would lean towards improving our relationship with Cuba, this is a decision left up to the new leadership at the State Department. I have more faith that they will act in the national interest than I had in the Trump administration, but then again, only time will tell.
Engagement Resources:
Amnesty International – a good source for information about the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
Action Against Hunger – an NGO working to address starvation in Yemen.
Paramilitary Bombing – a news article about the bombing in Colombia.
Biden’s Administration Proposes Sweeping New Immigration Law and Ends Separation of Children from Their Parents
Brief # 114 Immigration Policy
Biden’s Administration Proposes Sweeping New Immigration Law and Ends Separation of Children from Their Parents
By Linda F. Hersey
January 28, 2021
The zero-tolerance program that defined the Trump Administration’s policy on immigration – separating hundreds of immigrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border – is officially over.
Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson sent a letter to all U.S. attorneys that rescinds the order, effectively erasing the policy that allowed for federally prosecuting undocumented parents and separating them from their children.
Although immigrants can still be deported if they do not have documents or protections to stay in the U.S., they typically are not charged in federal court and separated from their children. The Wilkinson letter – first reported by NBC News — encourages prosecutors to “use discretion” in prosecuting minor border offenses.
Although the Trump administration stopped separating families at the U.S.-Mexican border in 2018, after public outcry and negative publicity, the federal law had not been officially rescinded. This meant the law technically could be applied by federal prosecutors in court cases against families arriving in the U.S. illegally. That guidance is now gone from the criminal code.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, has yet to sign an executive order for reuniting families separated from their children, as he pledged during his campaign. But the American Civil Liberties Union stated that the Wilkinson directive is a good first step to ending “criminal penalties for illegal entry.”
‘Rescinding the Zero-Tolerance Policy’
The letter by Wilkinson is titled the “Rescinding the Zero-Tolerance Policy for Offenses Under 8 USC 1235.” Wilkinson’s letter follows the Biden Administration’s proposals for sweeping immigration reforms that will require passage in Congress. Biden unveiled the proposals in his first day of office.
“The bill proposes changes to reimagine diverse areas of immigration from employment- and family-based immigration to asylum, refugee, and other humanitarian protections, as well as border security,” according to an article in the National Law Review.
Those reforms include a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, expanded refugee resettlement and more technology at the border for monitoring and surveillance.
Under the Biden Administration’s U.S. Citizens Act of 2021, the reforms:
- Create a more efficient pathway to citizenship for so-called “dreamers,” millions of undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. as children. The bill would place them on a fast-track to citizenship. Up to 11 million immigrants could be affected.
- Enable children from Central America to apply for refugee and asylum in their home countries, instead of traveling to the border on foot and often alone, placing them in danger of violence and exploitation.
- Hire more immigration judges to handle a backlog of asylum cases.
- Establish new language in immigration laws that changes the term “alien” to “noncitizen.” The bill pledges to improve the tone of the immigration system by “restor[ing” humanity and American values to our immigration system,” according to the National Law Review.
- Prohibit presidential immigration bans based on religion.
Migrant Children Detained in Metal Cages
Coupled with the Biden immigration reform package, the Wilkinson directive formally ends a disturbing chapter in U.S. immigration policy and punitive attitudes toward migrants by U.S. leadership.
Under Trump, 3,000 families were separated in 2017-2018 at the U.S.-Mexico border, with some children sent thousands of miles away to holding facilities in other states. The practice was abruptly halted, after photos were published of young children forcibly removed from their parents by border agents, and later detained in metal cages, made of fencing, at detention facilities referred to as “child prisons.”
Trump’s zero-tolerance policy enabled prosecutors to charge undocumented parents in federal court on misdemeanors, such as crossing the border illegally.
While advocates continue to work toward reuniting migrant children living in the U.S. with deported parents, largely in Central America, the parents of more than 600 children have yet to be found. Most of those children are now living with court-approved sponsors in the U.S.
The ACLU is arguing a class-action lawsuit seeking damages for parents and their children who were separated at the U.S. border.
Lee Gelernt, the lead ACLU attorney in the class action case, said that while Wilkinson’s letter is a start to ending “criminal penalties for illegal entry,” Congress needs to repeal laws that federally prosecuted parents for illegal entry, which allowed for border agents to separate families.
Engagement Resources
ACLUS’s Immigrants’ Rights Project works to expand and enforce the civil liberties and rights of immigrants.
U.S. Citizens’ Act of 2021: Fact Sheet outlines a sweeping immigration reform bill under the Biden Administration that would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 11 million immigrants.
National Law Review examines Biden’s proposed immigration law changes under the U.S. Citizens’ Act of 2021.
Facebook Profits From Political Polarization and Violence
Technology Brief #34
Facebook Profits From Political Polarization and Violence
By Scout Burchill
January 28, 2021
Summary:
Facebook has been targeting online “patriot” and militia groups with ads for military gear such as body armor and weapon accessories. Despite a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg from members of Congress, calls from State Attorney Generals, and internal warnings by Facebook employees, research by the Tech Transparency Project reveals that these ads were still targeting users as late as January 17th.
According to the report published by the Tech Transparency Project, Facebook not only targeted users with ads for military tactical gear, but the company’s algorithms also actively recommended links to other nationalist and military groups.
In the wake of the violence on Capitol Hill, social media companies are coming under greater scrutiny for their role in contributing to the polarization, radicalization and rank division within American society. Although there have been plenty of debates about specific decisions that companies like Facebook have made in recent days, the dire state of affairs has put renewed emphasis on the built-in aspects of Facebook’s business model, which profits from conflict and division and has been criticized as an engine of radicalization.
Analysis:
Facebook makes money by selling targeted advertising. It sounds simple, but the results can be deadly. In order to sell targeted ads, Facebook surveils its users and collects massive amounts of data on each user so it can target them more effectively. They are very good at targeting potential customers simply because they know so much about us. Because the company profits from users seeing ads, the platform is designed to keep users on the site for as long as possible. To do this, their algorithms promote content that fosters ‘engagement.’ Engaging content also tends to be incendiary, sensationalistic and conflict-driven. For Facebook, it’s a winning business formula. The more we scroll, the more information they collect, the more ads we see and the better equipped they are at keeping us scrolling while plastering our eyeballs with ads for the perfect pair of shoes we never knew we needed. Businesses like these have inspired new economic terms like the attention economy, which describe how companies vie to win over people’s dwindling attention spans as if they were mining for scarce resources. The truth is, it’s an exploitative business that is wreaking havoc on our society’s collective mind. There is a mounting pile of evidence to suggest that Facebook rakes in profits while it radicalizes individuals and contributes to the growing amounts of political violence in our society.
The radicalization machine works in two ways. Firstly, the Facebook algorithm feeds users radicalizing, sensationalist content to capture their attention and keep them online. Content is promoted by Facebook’s algorithm not by standards of quality, but by how much engagement it receives. Of course this method tends to promote addictive or even incendiary content. Conspiracy theories, misinformation and conflict is part of the product. It’s no secret that over the past decade, social media has turned fringe actors into stars. Besides Facebook, one of the most extreme engines of radicalization is YouTube, which is owned by Google. Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center For Humane Technology and star of Netflix’s excellent documentary The Social Dilemma, illustrates this built-in function of attention maximizing algorithms by pointing out that Alex Jones’ Youtube videos have been recommended to users 15 billion times. Last year, the New York Times published an article detailing how YouTube radicalized the youth of Brazil by systematically recommending far-right figures, priming the public and paving the way for Jair Bolsonaro, the current president of Brazil, who openly pines for the days of the military government.
The second way the attention maximizing business model radicalizes users is by rewarding users who post radical content. Last week, the New York Times published a remarkable op-ed showing how Facebook’s algorithms rewarded users who began to embrace more extremist views. One of the people featured in the article was a 26 year old college student and veteran from Georgia. For years his Facebook feed was relatively standard and garnered little attention from others. That all changed during the 2020 presidential election, when he posted his thoughts about suspicious activity surrounding the election. He instantly saw a sharp rise in engagement, mainly in the form of likes and comments, which encouraged him to lean into these views. That was November. By January he was marching on Capitol Hill to ‘stop the steal’. By the end of the article, he is disowned by his family for his views and actions, and is left with nowhere else to turn but back to Facebook to chase the feelings of community he once found there. This anecdote presents the flip side of the algorithm. By seeking to extract as much attention from users as possible it constantly nudges them toward increasingly conspiratorial and fringe views.
These perverse incentive structures are baked into the business model of targeted advertising. There are a myriad of other negative consequences, as well. For one, surveillance and data collection are a key part of this business. Every post a user reads, the algorithm does, too. Also, the personalization of the experience causes the algorithm to treat everyone differently. This makes it really hard to have a shared sense of reality, something that is pretty important if a society is to govern itself. Another serious harm is that these companies have monopolized their market and currently absorb nearly all digital ad revenues, effectively sucking money away from funding good journalism and allocating it toward clickbait instead. This has wide-ranging effects on society as good information is the lifeblood of healthy democracies. One final point is that many smaller businesses now depend on social media for customers, which can leave them entirely at the mercy of small imperceptible changes in policy or algorithmic emphasis. Tinkering with the search algorithm at Facebook headquarters could decimate your favorite niche outlet, which is exactly what happened to Little Things, a small digital publisher that shared positive stories and informative articles for mothers and parents.
If the Biden Administration wants to tackle the harms of Big Tech, taking on the exploitative ad-driven and attention-mining business model would be a great way to do so. It avoids the highly politicized debates about specific instances of deplatforming and gets to the root source why fringe conspiracies and violent groups proliferate on social media. There are many organizations and individuals already pushing for this type of reform with different ideas about how to accomplish it. Some argue that there should be reforms to Section 230 in which content that is promoted by algorithms should not be immune from liability, others argue for treating social media like other communications infrastructure and regulating it as such, others argue for a combination of antitrust and regulation, while others advocate for rules that promote more ethical designs. All of these ideas should be considered by the administration because nearly anything is better than what we have now.
Engagement Resources:
https://www.economicliberties.us/big-tech-monopolies/
Learn More:
Tech Transparency Project Report
https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/how-facebook-profits-insurrection
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-profits-military-gear-ads-capitol-riot
Accountability and Action Letter From Congress to Facebook
Tristan Harris on Alex Jones
https://twitter.com/tristanharris/status/1187403044062760960?lang=en
How Youtube Radicalized Brazil
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/world/americas/youtube-brazil.html
NYT Op-Ed on Facebook Promoting Far-Right Views
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html
Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good
Technology Brief #32
Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good
By Scout Burchill
January 25, 2021
Summary:
On January 6th, in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, Twitter announced that President Donald Trump’s account would be suspended. Twitter followed this up on Friday, January 8th by permanently banning President Trump from its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Other tech platforms almost immediately followed suit, including Reddit, Twitch, Shopify, Snapchat, Discord, Stripe and Facebook, which declared a ban “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks.” Facebook has since sent this decision to their newly created oversight board for further review.
Twitter’s attempts to more aggressively moderate Trump’s Twitter feed have escalated drastically over the past year. Early on in the Coronavirus pandemic, Twitter began fact checking and labeling misleading claims about the COVID-19 virus, of which the former President was a leading source of misinformation. The social media company significantly ramped up these measures in the fall to combat false claims about mail-in voting and election fraud. Trump was a primary target of these policies, as well, as he often spread false and misleading claims, especially after the 2020 election. Despite losing the popular vote by 7 million votes, Trump continues to claim that the election was stolen from him. The violent siege of Capitol Hill on January 6th, and Trump’s refusal to concede the election, was the tipping point for Twitter and many other tech companies.
The Trump ban has fueled already heated discussions about the power of Big Tech and their inconsistent and seemingly ad hoc moderation policies. Reaction to the ban was largely mixed as many people celebrated what they considered to be a long overdue consequence of Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, while others viewed it as a troubling overreach of private corporate power verging on totalitarian censorship. Multiple global leaders, including Angela Merkel, Mexican President Manuel Lopez Obrador and now imprisoned Russian dissident Alexey Navalny, have called the ban problematic, but other officials, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Manchin, have called it appropriate. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, defended his company’s decision, calling it, “the right decision for Twitter,” but admitted that it sets a “dangerous” precedent.
Analysis:
For the past five years, Twitter has been Trump’s bully pulpit and, for better or worse, one of his most powerful governing tools. It helped launch him into politics and it will surely be seen as a defining aspect of his presidency. He utilized it as a tool of diplomacy, a messenger of policy pronouncements, a megaphone for frustrations and falsehoods, an instrument of control over media narratives, a propellant to fuel conflict and culture wars, and a bludgeon to beat down disloyalty from within his party and target enemies outside of it. Although talk of banning Trump from Twitter is nothing new, the permanent ban of Trump’s account came as a surprise to many.
While it is hard to imagine many other scenarios meriting such a swift reaction (The attempted overthrow of the democratic process is certainly high up there!), there are lingering questions about the amount of power that Big Tech companies multilaterally flexed over the control of public discourse. These questions have been with us for a while. However tech companies’ ability to actually do what was always considered only hypothetical, the banning of a sitting president, brings these questions into new light. Whether or not you agree with the decision, which most Americans in fact do, this coordinated crackdown by tech companies should trouble people concerned about growing corporate power and a lack of transparency, as well as a lack of democratic accountability and governance. The details surrounding Trump’s permanent ban help elucidate this larger issue.
The permanent suspension of Trump’s account on January 8th, two days after the Capitol Hill siege, was announced by Twitter in response to two tweets that the company claimed violated its glorification of violence policy. In the first tweet, Trump announced that he would not be attending the Inauguration and in the second he wrote that his supporters, or “American Patriots,” would have a voice long into the future and would not be disrespected any longer. It is hard to see why these tweets, of all of Donald Trump’s tweets, warrant a permanent ban. Is the glorification of violence only unacceptable when it results in real world violence? If so, then why wasn’t a ban warranted over the summer when Trump tweeted, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts?” The point is that, yes, Twitter is well within its rights to ban Trump from its platform, but this still begs the question of why Twitter’s policies seem so arbitrary and ad hoc.
As comically noted by some Twitter users, the ban sent a clear message to rule breakers that they will be held accountable, but only after they have attempted to overthrow the government and their party has lost elections in all major seats of government. Look no further than the Rohingyan Genocide in Myanmar, which was incited on Facebook, or the rise of gang violence in Chicago, which Facebook abetted by making rival gang taunts go viral, to see that the policies of these businesses have very serious real world consequences. Why should our elected officials have to make impassioned appeals to Jack Dorsey, an unelected technocrat, in the wake of a violent upheaval on Capitol Hill?
Many point to political considerations and business interests to explain Twitter’s decision making as well as their policy changes and enforcements over the years. Since 2016, the company gained millions of new users from the simple fact that Trump used it. So much of the Trump presidency, from politics to media and journalism, revolved around the social media platform. As the public and even government representatives called on Twitter to enforce its own policies against the president’s tweets, the company resorted to half-measures. By introducing new features, Twitter tried to appease both sides but ultimately drew the ire of both the left and the right. With Trump on the way out and an incoming Biden Administration that has repeatedly criticized Big Tech for not doing enough to moderate content, the decision to ban Trump is a move to reconcile with the evolving political atmosphere. Other factors weighing on the decision may include the massive antitrust cases looming over Google and Facebook and Biden’s endorsement of repealing Section 230, which gives platforms immunity from the negative costs incurred by harmful content circulating on them.
Reforming and regulating Big Tech and social media platforms will be a major concern of the Biden Administration. The administration should pursue changes that mitigate the power these companies have to single-handedly make important decisions that bear heavily on the health of our society. The fate of our democracy and important questions of governance shouldn’t be dictated by the whims and bottom-lines of a few CEOs.
Learn More:
Twitter’s Permanent Ban of Donald Trump
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
Jack Dorsey’s Statement
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
Internet Platform Responses to the Capitol Hill Riots
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dNC87RtdPWBXXReTsrAl-Sknw4PtwanPX0CA_oi20ec/edit
World Leader Responses
Article on Rohingyan Genocide
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
Article on Social Media Fueling Gang Violence
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women
Brief # 93 Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women
A new U.S. RESIST NEWS series that explores the proposed gender related policies of the new Biden administration
By Erin McNemar
January 26, 2021
Policy
In March of 2020, President Joe Biden committed to selecting a female running mate. Five months later, he fulfilled that promise by tapping Vice President Kamala Harris for the position. This historic decision meant that women’s rights would be a priority issue for the next four years.
In December, Biden released a policy proposal entitled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan begins by outlining Biden’s belief that “his daughter is entitled to the same rights and opportunities as his sons.” In many policy areas however, women are disproportionately affected. Therefore, the Biden plan focuses on improving and protecting women’s rights in several key areas. This first area of focus outlined in the plan is improving economic security for women.
Analysis
The gender wealth gap has been a standing issue for decades. According to the 2018 U.S. Census, working women make 81.6 cents for every dollar that a man makes. In addition, the data also shows that women’s median annual earnings were $9,766 less than men’s. The numbers are even worse for women of color.
In his plan, Biden identifies the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act. According to Biden, this was the first piece of legislation enacted during the Obama-Biden Administration. The policy helped ensure fair pay for all Americans; narrowing the pay gap and attempting to boost economic productivity. As President, Biden said he would continue to make the closing to pay gap a priority as well as ending paycheck discrimination.
While he continues to support the efforts of the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act, he understands that there is more work to be done. For this reason, Biden states in his plan he supports the Paycheck Fairness Act proposed by Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman DeLauro. According to Biden, this policy will expand on protections for female workers regarding paychecks and retaliation. Additionally, Biden plans to make wage gaps transparent, level the playing field for negotiation and make it easier for women to unionize and collectively bargain. Biden also includes in his plan expanding pay in jobs that are disproportionately filled by women.
In addition to equitable pay, Biden identifies the importance of investing in women-owned small businesses. “Women start businesses at two times the rate of men and now represent 42% of the nation’s businesses. But, they still raise much less capital — with only about 2% of all venture capital funds going to women-owned businesses — and are more likely to rely on personal funds,” Biden writes in the plan. For this reason, Biden has pledged direct federal funding for women-own businesses as well as doubling funding for the State Small Business Credit Initiative; an Obama-Biden era program.
The economic section of the plan also highlights efforts to end workplace discrimination and harassment, expanding access to education and training and finally ensuring safety on college campuses.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- See how the wage gap is broken down by
- Learn more about the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act.
- Read the Paycheck Fairness Act
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated
Brief #109 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated
January 26, 2021
Policy Summary
Within President Biden’s first few days in office, he has signed two Executive Orders to begin mitigating and reversing the Trump Administration’s efforts to drastically alter immigration policies. First, Biden ended the national emergency declaration that effectively diverted $10 billion from the Defense Department towards Trump’s border wall. The proclamation also asserts that federal agencies must curate a plan of action within 60 days to redirect border wall funds.
Simultaneously, Biden issued another Executive Order calling on the Secretary of Homeland Security to take necessary measures in preserving and reinstating DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, signed under Barack Obama in 2012). The program was under consistent scrutiny during the Trump Administration and defending the program served as a major campaign promise for Biden.
Analysis
As so much of Biden’s campaign centered around bolstering the American people and its core values while undoing the detrimental actions by an incompetent presiden., His quick action towards making good on his promises surrounding immigration bode well for the Administration. In addition to the most recent Executive Orders, Biden also seeks to eradicate the Remain in Mexico policy that Trump established and to ensure undocumented immigrants are included in census counts and therefore enjoy representation by their government officials.
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.
Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?
Brief # 92
Health and Gender Policy
Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?
By Justin Lee
January 26, 2021
Policy
Former President Trump took strong actions against abortion and reproductive health policies during his presidency. Trump reinstated and strengthened the Mexico City Policy, which implemented funding restrictions to foreign organizations that provided abortion services or counseling. First introduced in the Reagan administration, Trump’s stance lead to the closure of many reproductive health clinics that provided care not just for abortions, but also for HIV care. Trump also attempted to limit the scope of the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which previously required most insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments. The Supreme Court upheld the exemptions for employers with religious and/or moral objections to refuse providing birth control benefits for employees in July 2020.
Trump’s actions against abortion followed the pattern of many conservative politicians and presidents before him. President Biden has made it clear his intentions to remove the Mexico City Policy. Should America also expect Biden to reinstate reproductive health rights, as done by many democratic politicians before him?
Analysis
It is important to note that President Biden is a devout Roman Catholic, and his past stance on abortion rights has been far less progressive than his liberal colleagues. Biden was a strong supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal programs from paying for abortions with the exception of rape or incest. He changed his stance shortly before beginning his 2016 presidential campaign. As polling from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of Catholic adults in the US support some form of legalized abortion policies. Anti-abortion groups and conservative Catholics argue the hypocrisy of a President attending Sunday mass while fighting for abortion rights.
President Biden will likely continue to face criticism and skepticism from both his party and devout Catholics. But America should remain confident that Biden will be an advocate for reproductive health rights. Biden’s executive orders and priorities support his inaugural address indicating he will be a president “for all Americans”. Former President Trump’s actions during his presidency have led to reduced abortion care, contraception services, HIV testing, HIV treatment, and cancer screening; limiting reproductive health access for men and women in the US and abroad. President Biden has the opportunity to restore these critical services and help re-establish America as a proponent not just for reproductive health rights, but for human rights.
Learn More
Helpful links
NBC: Biden to Roll Back Abortion
NBC: Supreme Court Allows Plan for Limiting Contraceptive Coverage
NPR: President Biden and Being Catholic
Pew Research Center: Catholics and Abortion
NPR: Planned Parenthood Endorses Biden
Reuters: Biden Ending Mexico City Policy
Engagement Resources
The Planned Parenthood organization advocates for reproductive health care, as well as education for safe sex, gender identity, sexual consent and assault, and other related services. To learn more, use the link below:
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below: