JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine
Brief #107—Immigration
By Will Solomon
The last several weeks have seen a significant escalation of tensions in Eastern Ukraine, a focal point of confrontation between the United States/NATO, and Russia. It has been reported that Russia has amassed troops on the Ukrainian border, with some estimates suggesting as many as 40,000 are currently stationed there. Russia has publicly claimed their troop movements are due to NATO provocations. Much of Eastern Ukraine, a predominately Russian-speaking region, has been effectively controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014.
The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1
Brief #17—Elections and Politics
By William Bourque
On January 20th, 2021, a large part of the country collectively sighed relief. After days of tumult and chaos, President Trump had finally left office, and for what felt like the first time in months, we could see a light at the end of the tunnel. However, we were quickly reminded that just because President Trump was out of office didn’t mean that his influence and rhetoric would disappear. However, throughout the past several months it has been made abundantly clear that the “Trumpism” is here to stay, at least for now. With that in mind we will begin an in-depth series on our predictions for the future of the Republican Party, whether that includes former President Trump or not.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Can Help Fight Restrictive Voter Suppression Bills
Brief #158—Civil Right
By Rod Maggay
In 2013 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case. The case was brought seeking to have Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 declared unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act had been enacted to address racial discrimination in voting that had been a longstanding feature in a number of states, particularly in the Deep South.
Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama
Brief #12—Social Justice
By Lily Lady Cook
In the United States, Amazon operates 110 fulfillment centers, and has increased its employees in the past year to around 1.2 million workers worldwide. Those employed in Amazon’s fulfillment centers have become highly visible during the pandemic, as the nation becomes more aware of our essential workers and the mechanisms of the global supply chain.
Since Amazon’s inception in 1994, there have been multiple attempts at collective organizing; workers in Staten Island, Chicago, Virginia, and now Alabama have attempted but ultimately failed to unionize. In this latest instance, warehouse workers began a union voting process in Bessemer, Alabama, in coordination with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU). The results were announced earlier this month, and indicated a resounding victory for Amazon. Of the 5,800 workers, 3,215 cast ballots. 1,798 of those voted against a union and 738 in favor. In order for the union to proceed, at least 30 percent of voters would have had to indicate support; in this case, a mere 13 percent of workers were in favor.
President Biden calls for Gun Reform in the U.S.
Brief #11—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
In the wake of several recent mass shootings, there is pressure on President Biden to reform gun laws here in the U.S. With mass shootings in Georgia, Colorado, Texas, and South Carolina recently, many are urging the President to do something before the violence continues to spiral out of control. While some are concerned that President Biden’s reforms will infringe on their Second Amendment rights, Biden alleges that is not the case. A major first step was the President’s nomination of David Chipman to lead the ATF, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Chipman is a gun owner, a former ATF employee, and staff member at Giffords, the gun reform organization founded by US Senator Mark Kelly.
Southern Border Mass Migration at Highest Level in Decades
Brief #120—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
In March 2021, CBP apprehended at least 170,000 migrants at the US Southwest Border – the highest in 15 years and a 70% increase from February 2021. Nearly 19,000 unaccompanied children were taken into custody after crossing the border – including at port entries – quadrupling figures for the same month in 2020. Many are meeting relatives in the US and/or they are economic migrants looking for work.
Can Biden Push through His Healthcare Reforms?
Brief #102—Healthcare and Gender
By Rosalind Gottfried’
Biden has outlined an ambitious reform of the Affordable Care Act though his ability to achieve all of his goals rests on the solidarity of the Democrats since he will not have any Republican support, and consensus is not appearing likely. The element most at risk for failure is the issue of a public option, a proposal that was eliminated from the Bill in the Obama administration because it was too divisive.
One way to incorporate a public option is to expand Medicare to younger Americans, to age 55 or 60, and to extend care to dental and vision coverage. This is the plan promoted by Senator Bernie Sanders. Another proposal is in a bill by Democratic Senators Michael Bennet and Time Kaine which would expand Medicare to allow anyone to buy into it and pay a premium including small businesses. Neither of these proposals is likely to win the day. Biden, if successful at all in incorporating a public option, will likely provide for buying insurance directly through the federal government in a system like the current insurance federal insurance exchange. The benefit of this approach is that the government, by directly selling insurance, can set a lower price by appealing to a large segment of the insurance buying public. In order to stay successful, private insurances would have to mirror that rate. As a result, premiums would go down and more of the population would participate. Biden also has increased the tax subsidy for purchasing insurance making the premiums lower. Biden’s extension of the current enrollment period to May 15, 2021, coupled with subsidies under the American Rescue act, has resulted in over a half a million newly insured Americans to date.
I Heard it Through the Pipeline: An Update on Three Controversial Oil Pipeline Projects
Brief #111—Environment
By Jacob Morton
From the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump made every effort to weaken the country’s environmental protections and accelerate profits for the fossil fuel industry. Trump’s single term was riddled with attempts to roll back, what he considered, cumbersome environmental regulations, some that had existed for decades. He appointed oil and coal lobbyists to the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Interior, who would champion the expansion of oil pipelines throughout our federal lands. The work to clean up his mess is far from over. Here is an update on three highly controversial oil pipeline projects made possible by the Trump administration.
# 4 Fishing Boat Dispatch
Brief #4—Fishing Boat Dispatch
By Katherine Cart
On trawl vessels targeting demersal fish in the North Pacific there is always a government contracted worker – usually a recent college graduate – whose job it is to monitor fishing practices. The Observer’s duties include sampling netted fish for biodiversity, collecting otoliths, sex, length and maturity data, and among many other oddities, standing on deck while a writhing codend[1] the size of a school bus is hauled up the stern ramp. The codend is dumped into the trawl alley; fish flood, flapping dimly, shocked to be, so suddenly, in alien air.
US Government Agencies Again Fall Victim to State Sponsored Cyber Attacks
Brief #29 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
US Government Agencies Again Fall Victim to State Sponsored Cyber Attacks
Policy Summary
On December 13, 2020 news broke that computer networks at several US government agencies including the Departments of Treasury and Commerce had been compromised by a state actor. In the ensuing days, other agencies including the State Department, Los Alamos National Laboratories and the Defense Department revealed that they had been similarly compromised. In each of these events, the attacks were carried out through a corrupted piece of software from an Austin,Texas based company named SolarWinds which provides a network monitoring solution called Orion. This product is widely used in business and government. It also was revealed that the intrusions date back to March 2020 and had gone completely undetected.
It is unclear at this writing the extent of the data loss and exactly what information has been stolen. It is also unlikely that we will ever know the full extent of the damage to our privacy and national security.
Analysis
It is ironic that the Trump Administration will end much in the way it began; with revelations of a state actor slipping through the defenses of US computer networks. As in 2016, the prime suspect is the Russian State security agency, the SVR, and specifically the group known as APT29 or more commonly referred to as Cozy Bear.
It is also ironic that the Trump Administration, which despite the President’s public undermining, did a truly professional job guaranteeing the security of the November election completely failed to detect or repel this threat
Details are only beginning to emerge on how the attack was carried out but we do know that the Solarwinds software was uniquely positioned to exfiltrate data. The software is designed to monitor networks and computer system processes and report them to an external server. Stolen data could easily be directed to different servers and thus undetected since this was the platform that was supposed to detect irregularities.
This exploit is being referred to as a Supply Side Compromis. What this means is that the compromised software was delivered to an organizations as part of regular software updates much like the applications on your computer and your mobile phone.
Despite millions of dollars spent in shoring up our cyber defenses, the US government does not seem to have a coherent strategy for repelling attacks or holding perpetrators to account. This will have to be a high priority of the incoming administration.
Resistance Resources
- SANS Institute – Established in 1989 as a cooperative research and education organization, SANS is a go-to place for security industry professionals for education and analysis of security threats.
- The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) is part of the Department of Homeland Security charged with repelling attacks and informings the public.
- AISP – The Association of Information Security Professionalsthe is a leading organization for security professionals worldwide.
Information Systems Security Association (ISSA) s a not-for-profit, international organization
Trump Administration Impedes Search for Migrant Children’s Parents ACLU Tells U.S. RESIST NEWS
Immigration Brief # 112
Trump Administration Impedes Search for Migrant Children’s Parents ACLU Tells U.S. RESIST NEWS
By Linda F. Hersey
December 18, 2020
The Trump administration withheld key contact information for locating the deported parents of 666 immigrant children detained in the U.S., according to an attorney with the ACLU, which is representing the separated families in a class action lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Daniel Galindo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, accuses the Trump administration of “obstructive” activities that impede searches and hinder efforts to reunite families and put them on a path to citizenship.
“What people are rightly asking and wondering is, how were these circumstances inflicted on these families, and why isn’t the federal government doing right by them?” said Galindo, in an interview with U.S. Resist News.
Advocates with the ACLU have located relatives for 168 of the 666 children, though the family member often is not the parent. Galindo said the outreach involves trust-building with the children’s relatives.
“We have the beginning of an answer in many of the cases,” Galindo said. Parents, fearful of arrest by the U.S. or violence in their home country, often are difficult to locate. “We may be able to reach a parent’s brother who explains the family situation and that the parent is in hiding,” he said, which complicates the situation and delays court efforts to reunite the families.
The ACLU and other civil rights groups argue that the Trump administration has engaged in misinformation to justify anti-immigration policies that violate due process and federal law protecting asylum seekers.
The ACLU lawsuit focuses on the experience of a parent fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, who was forcibly separated from her 7-year-old daughter in the U.S. They were detained 2,000 miles apart.
While the mother and child were reunited, the ACLU case, filed in 2018, has advanced as a class action lawsuit for 666 children that U.S. border agents separated from their parents.
Misinformation Campaign Waged to ‘Criminalize Immigrants’
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), which provides legal help to immigrants, argues that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Trump has waged an “image campaign to criminalize immigrants” that the administration “made the centerpiece of its narrative.”
“We must rethink immigration enforcement,” the California-based coalition urges on its website. “The point should not be maximizing suffering and tearing apart immigrant families.”
The coalition also criticized the level of funding increases that Homeland Security received under Trump for tracking, arresting and detaining undocumented individuals. The DHS budget for immigration enforcement has nearly doubled to $30 billion in five years, the coalition reported.
Damages Sought for Forced Separations
The ACLU is seeking damages for the anguish that 666 children identified as plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit suffered by the forced separations. The ACLU also is seeking a legal path to citizenship for the children and their parents.
Most of the families are from South and Central America and were detained as they entered the U.S. from Mexico. The task now, according to the ACLU, is to find the parents separated from their children and deported by U.S. border agents.
Under Trump’s zero tolerance policy, hundreds of children – including some as young as infants and toddlers — were taken from undocumented parents, in 2017 and 2018, and held in detention centers, sometimes for months and often under harsh conditions. Many of those children were not reunited with their parents. They were placed with court-approved sponsors, in cities across the U.S., who were not always a relative or parent.
Galindo said that the Trump administration deliberately withheld information that ICE collected on the parents’ whereabouts, which only now is being discovered during court arguments in the class action lawsuit.
Biden Expected to Provide Path to Legal Status
He described the federal government’s data on the deported adults and their children as “haphazardly collected.”
The government, for example, may have originally provided searchers with the address of a U.S. detention facility where an undocumented parent was held, when it had more up-to-date information on the parent post-release but withheld it.
“The Trump Administration has persistently not provided information that would be useful,” Galindo noted. “The latest example is of the government now coming forward with data from court proceedings that will prove useful but should have been turned over quite some time ago.”
Delays and incomplete information have an impact, making it harder for advocates to connect children with families and slow down asylum proceedings in the U.S.
Galindo said the incoming Biden administration has said publicly it will take a different approach toward immigration but has yet to define it.
“We are advocating that they pursue enduring ways to do right by these families,” Galindo said, “including a pathway to legal status and returning families that want to return.”
Engagement Resources
- ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project works to expand and protect the civil liberties and civil rights of immigrants.
- The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, known as CHIRLA, has a mission to advance the civil and human rights of immigrants and refugees.
- Idealist is a nonprofit based in New York that offers resources and connections to agencies dedicated to helping people live free and dignified lives.
New Defense Authorization Act Calls for the Taking Down of Confederate Monuments at Military Bases
Social Justice
Brief # 1
New Defense Authorization Act Calls for the Taking Down of Confederate Monuments at Military Bases
By Erika Shannon
December 18,2020
POLICY SUMMARY
With 2020 finally coming to a close, many of us are beginning to look ahead to 2021. It is a new year with a new president and new possibilities for our country. Our government is certainly looking ahead, and recently, the House and Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021. The spending bill sets aside $740 billion dollars for the United States military, and there are several new provisions within it. Perhaps the most interesting provision is also one of the reasons why Donald Trump wanted to veto the bill; this provision created a commission to help in removing names, symbols, displays, monuments and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America on buildings and at military bases. This change must happen within three years, and Trump has certainly been vocal about his disdain for this specific provision. There is speculation on what Trump will do with the bill once it comes time to sign it.
Now that the bill has officially passed both the House and the Senate, it will be landing on Trump’s desk any day now. He feels that the provision about renaming military bases and buildings is one of the deal breakers that this bill contains; however, any efforts to stop the passage of the bill are likely to be unsuccessful. With it passing 335-78 in the House and 84-13 in the Senate, the National Defense Authorization Act is more or less veto-proof at this point. Even if Trump wishes to veto it, it is probable that Congress will override his veto when they vote on it again. Essentially, by not signing the bill, Trump is simply prolonging the inevitable, because someway, somehow, our military does need their budget to be approved. This is something our divided Congress understands, but Trump still has apparently not figured it out. Trump’s time as our president is ticking away, and he is superficially trying to make the most of his remaining days in office. If he wishes to foster change before his anti-climactic exit, there are other ways to do it than to veto a military spending bill.
POLICY ANALYSIS
The National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2021 has been controversial since June; this is mostly due to the fact that military bases and buildings must change their names if they are named after anybody who helped to lead the Confederate States of America. Some, including Trump, are upset because they feel it is erasing a part of American history. The fact of the matter is that that is a dark spot on our history. The United States was divided during the Civil War, partially because the South did not wish to lose the free labor that came with slavery. The states that seceded did so because they did not want their economy ruined by the abolishment of slavery and they did not wish to accept Abraham Lincoln as their president. The Confederate States of America coming to exist is nothing for our country to be proud of, as some seem to think. The monuments, names, and homages to Confederate leaders in the South should be rightfully renamed. American history does honor our heroes – the heroes that fought for every American to be free, regardless of skin color. The Confederacy is a symbol of hate, bigotry, and lack of empathy.
Think of what it must be like to be a black US soldier working at one of the bases named after a confederate general. Many might feel a disconnect between their commitment to defending their country and working or training at a government base named after a person who was committed to defending slavery.
Public opinion on the matter is largely divided. While the general public is primarily against displaying the confederate flag in public places, feelings on renaming military bases and removing monuments is not as clear-cut. According to YouGov polls from earlier this year, only 20% of people strongly favor changing names of bases or buildings, while 30% of people strongly oppose. It is a hard choice for some who are holding on to our country’s historic past, no matter how wrong it was. Those who want them removed see the removal as a way to show that our values as a country are changing in a positive direction. There is no way to dismantle oppression unless change begins somewhere. These military bases and buildings names are not being changed to erase that part of our history. They are being changed so that every American can feel included, and they are being changed so that nobody has to be reminded of a time when slavery was widespread and acceptable. The America we live in now should not be a place that is built upon the backs of others; rather, it should be a place where everybody has a voice and nobody feels alienated.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
- To see a list of the military bases that are still named after the confederacy, see this article.
- Click here to see in-depth polling data on confederate symbols.
- Human Rights First is an organization that helps to influence policy in the U.S. to be more inclusive and equal for all.
Facebook Taken to Court Over Antitrust Issues
Brief # 28 Technology
Facebook Taken to Court Over Antitrust Issues
By Zack Huffman
December 16, 2020
Summary
Parallel lawsuits from The Federal Trade Commission and multiple state Attorneys General declared Facebook an illegal monopoly and both suits are seeking to break up the social media giant.
The legal action is the result of an antitrust investigation that the FTC opened in 2018, in cooperation with Attorneys General from 46 different states as well as the District of Columbia and Guam.
The lawsuits accuse Facebook of using anti-competitive tactics to shut out or acquire other companies that could possibly pull from Facebook’s market share as a social network. Previous acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, for $1 billion and $19 billion, respectively, allowed Facebook to remain a monopoly, according to the lawsuits.
Both sets of litigation are calling for Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC lawsuit seeks approval for all future acquisitions, while the multistate lawsuit set a $10 million minimum for all transactions requiring prior approval.
The lawsuits were filed in the D.C. federal court. The FTC’s lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. The multistate lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Both judges were appointed by President Barack Obama.
Analysis
In order to prevail in court, the FTC will likely have to show that acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp were vital components to achieving Facebook’s monopoly status, which former FTC member William Kovacic told Vox.
Among the government’s evidence is a 2008 email in which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “that it is better to buy than compete.” Other emails cited in the lawsuit indicate that Zuckerberg viewed WhatsApp and Instagram as potential rivals if they were allowed to grow unfettered.
The FTC also claims that Facebook selectively made its proprietary software available to third party companies. Facebook would allow smaller startups to access enough code to develop their applications which interact with Facebook, but as soon as those startups grew large enough to compete, Facebook would pull the plug on access to its network. Success on this claim is less likely to result in a corporate breakup, but it could yield a shift in Facebook’s policies, similar to what has happened through multiple FTC-backed lawsuits against Apple over the last two decades. David Dinieli, a former Department of Justice antitrust attorney told Business Insider that this could be a multi-year court battle.
This is not the first time the government has attempted to use litigation to force the breakup of a giant technology conglomerate. The FTC was previously successful in breaking AT&T in the early 80s after about 8 years of litigation. AT&T was able to remain a long-distance phone service provider, while relinquishing control of the local Bell Systems, which were further split into nine separate regions. The FTC then attempted to break up Microsoft in a 1999 lawsuit over the company’s monopoly on internet browsers. Although the government initially prevailed in court, the District Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.
Facebook VP and General Counsel Jennifer Newstead wrote a lengthy blog post in response to the lawsuits, in which she defended the company and their previous acquisitions. Newstead argued that the FTC’s actions represented an unsettling shift in the government’s treatment of tech companies and that Facebook’s previous actions had increased competitiveness in the marketplace. Newstead also noted that the FTC previously investigated and declined to take action against Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012, effectively approving the deal.
“Our acquisitions have been good for competition, good for advertisers and good for people. We look forward to our day in court, when we’re confident the evidence will show that Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp belong together, competing on the merits with great products,” wrote Newstead.
Engagement Resources
The FTC’s Questions and Answers page for its lawsuit against Facebook:
https://templatelab.com/ftc-complaint-against-facebook/
References
Heilweil, R. (2020, December 9) Why the US government wants Face book to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/recode/22166437/facebook-instagram-ftc-attorneys-general-antitrust-monopoly-whatsapp.
Canales, K. (2020, December 12) Experts Say the antitrust suits against Facebook may not change anything, but they’re still a ‘big deal’ and signal that the US government will no longer look the other way. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/what-ftc-facebook-antitrust-lawsuit-is-important-2020-12.
Newstead, J. (2020, December 9) Lawsuits Filed by the FTC and the State Attorneys General Are Revisionist History. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/lawsuits-filed-by-the-ftc-and-state-attorneys-general-are-revisionist-history/.
Alexei Oreskovic, A. (2012, August 22). FTC clears Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram/ftc-clears-facebooks-acquisition-of-instagram-idUSBRE87L14W20120823.
President Trump’s Assertion That He Can Pardon Himself Likely Wrong
Policy Summary: Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has “the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This power is vested exclusively in the President and only applies to federal crimes. A president has no authority to pardon persons convicted of crimes under state laws. That would be the responsibility of the state governor where the state crime was committed.
On August 5, 1974, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton of the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion titled Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President. The purpose of the memo was to clarify legal questions with regard to a possible pardon for then President Richard Nixon. President Nixon was facing calls for his impeachment in connection with the Watergate burglary. (President Nixon would resign five days later). Her memo took the position that the President would likely be unable to issue a pardon for himself. And as for a possible legislative pardon, she took the position that Congress could not enact a legislative pardon as this would probably be in conflict with the President’s exclusive pardon power under the Constitution.
During the Trump Presidency author Jack Goldsmith has calculated that the President, as of November 10, 2020, has issued forty-one pardons or commutations of sentences. 88% of these pardons and commutations have a personal or political connection to the President. On June 4, 2018 on his Twitter account President Trump claimed that he had the absolute right to pardon himself. With the end of the Trump Presidency in sight, President Trump has granted a full pardon to General Michael T. Flynn with more expected in the coming weeks, including a likely contentious pardon to all of his adult children for their work and activities during the Trump Presidency. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The Constitution is clear that the power of the pardon resides with the President of the United States. There are no conditions or limitations attached to the power such as having to confer with Congress first or having his pardons be approved by the Supreme Court. The current process to request a presidential pardon through the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice requires submitting the request through this office for evaluation. A recommendation is drawn up and sent to the President but as a practical matter the President’s decision to issue a pardon is up to him. He does not have to follow the recommendation of the Office of the Pardon Attorney and can issue a pardon to whomever he chooses even if the request did not originate in the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
This brings up the thorny question as to whether the President can issue a pardon to himself. The memorandum opinion authored by Ms. Lawton more than forty years ago starts off with a fundamental principle of American law. That no one in America, even the President, should be a judge in his own case. This is a key principle because it supports the notion that everyone should be able to have a fair and neutral person, such as a judge, examine the facts of their accusations and be able to come to a reasoned conclusion as to the innocence or guilt of that person. President Trump’s assertion that he can issue a pardon for himself completely upends this principle and his assertion should be categorically rejected. It defies not just the legal rationale of having neutral judges decide disputes but also common sense. If President Trump can issue a pardon to himself that would mean that there would be no mechanism to hold the President accountable for acts he undertakes. Acts that would not be for the benefit of the United States could be authorized and then after the fact wiped clean from the President’s record so that he would not be responsible for it in any way. As an analogy, ordinary citizens accused of crimes do not have the power to decide for themselves to absolve themselves of crimes that they commit. They must answer to a neutral judge in open court. Just because a person has risen to the Office of the President does not mean that the laws should no longer apply to him.
If President Trump is to be held accountable for possible crimes he may have committed than the President should answer before a neutral judge just like all other ordinary Americans do. The power to grant a pardon to himself should not be a power that a President should be able to exercise no matter the circumstances. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney – website of the office handling pardon requests.
Pew Research Center – research institute providing comparison of statistics on presidential pardons.
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.
Trump’s Final Attempts at a Border Wall
Brief #111 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump’s Final Attempts at a Border Wall
December 15,2020
Policy Summary
President Trump has barely kept his campaign promise of building a wall along the US Southern Border but has successfully constructed 415 miles of border wall. The Administration is expected to reach 450 miles by the end of the year, working at insane speeds. Allegedly, an illegal dirt road was built to speed up the operation and prevent any disruption in the flow of construction.
Additionally, two whistleblowers accused contractors building Trump’s border wall of smuggling armed Mexican security teams into the US to guard construction sites as Trump attempts to finish his border wall before leaving office.
Analysis
The motive behind building this wall remains to deter drug traffickers, human smugglers, and criminal organizations despite proven statistics showing a substantial amount of drugs trafficked into the US are through legal ports of entry. This frantic effort to make “good” on the Trump Administration’s principal promise is a desperate attempt to cling to its xenophobic values and maintain the support of Trump’s bigoted support base.
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.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- 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
Victory for Dreamers Amidst Presidential Turnover
December 15, 2020
Policy Summary
Following Brief #108, a Federal Judge recently ordered the Trump Administration to fully restore DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The Administration is supposed to allow newly eligible immigrants to file new applications for protections under DACA and reverse the memorandum issued unlawfully by Chad Wolf earlier in the summer. As many as 300,000 new applicants might now be eligible in light of the newest ruling. The Judge also asserted the government must find a way to inform all eligible immigrants of this change.
Analysis
This ruling poses a significant legal setback to President Trump’s long-standing attempts to terminate the Obama-era program. If the order still stands by the time Joe Biden takes office, it will be easier for him to reinstate DACA, as he has promised in his campaign.
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.
- Border Network for Human Rights: network to engage education, organization and participation of border communities to defend human rights and work towards a society where everyone is equal in rights and dignity.
- 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
The Stars Aligned to Enable a Biden Presidency
An extraordinary set of events, circumstances and people came together at the right time to enable Joe Biden to become the 46th President of the United States. This Editorial is a shout-out to those who made Biden’s election possible, including.
Joe Biden himself, a dark horse candidate who towards the end-of-the-race came from near last place, got a great endorsement, and with the wind at his back went on to capture the Democratic Party’s nomination. Biden succeeded in identifying himself more with basic character issues ( empathy, honesty, integrity ) than with specific policy ideas and that enabled him to appeal to a broad group of voters from both parties.
Jim Clyburn, Congressmen from South Carolina, whose last minute endorsement enabled Biden to capture the South Carolina primary, and gain momentum first from African American voters, and then from others, that carried him to victory in almost all of the remaining Democratic primary contests.
The Other Democratic presidential candidates ( Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren) who put their differences aside and endorsed the Biden candidacy once it was become clear that Biden had enough delegates to win the nomination. The other candidates recognized that defeating Trump was the paramount election issue, and that required a unified party.
Christopher Krebs, the former Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Project (CSIS) in the Department of Homeland Security, who worked tirelessly to help states set up voting systems that could not readily be hacked and withstand rigorous recounts.
Stacey Abrams (Georgia) , Cindy McCain (Arizona), Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan) and other swing-state leaders who endorsed Biden’s candidacy and worked tirelessly to get out the vote in their states.
Trump himself who refused to lead the country, and ran a terrible campaign focused on voter suppression, conspiracy theories, lies about himself and fear mongering about lawlessness in US cities that didn’t exist.
There also were important political and socio-economic factors that helped Biden win, including huge voter turnout, the highest in 120 years; the worsening pandemic and the economic downturn that many voters saw caused by Trump administration mismanagement.
It is not easy to vote a sitting President out-of-office. Lots of events need to happen at the right time, and the right people need to do the right things. Although we at U.S. RESIST NEWS are not in the astrology business we wouldn’t be surprised to see an astrological chart of how the political stars aligned over our country on November 4th to enable a Biden Presidency. Thank God.
Congress at Impasse as Situation Worsens for Millions of Americans
Brief #100
Congress at Impasse as Situation Worsens for Millions of Americans
Stimulus; Unemployment; Evictions
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
December 9, , 2020
Policy
As winter recess approaches the Congress remains at an impasse regarding a new stimulus package which is likely to fall by the wayside as it turns its attention to passing legislation to avert a December 11th federal shutdown. While the government deals with its own malfunctions, economic trends point to multiple trends suggesting a downward spiral. Job creation, which showed a tepid 245,000 increase in November, was down from an average of 1.9 million in the summer and earlier fall months. Without a renewed stimulus, 12 million jobless Americans will run out of unemployment benefits on December 31st and an estimated 6.7 million will face eviction as moratoriums end.
The economic recovery is slowing and expected to stall, or worsen, until a vaccine is widely available. Some signs of the worsening affects can be seen in mid-November data, before the latest surge from the Thanksgiving holiday was felt. The week ending November 21st saw hotel occupancy at 40%, down from 50% a few weeks earlier. In the same week, consumer spending was down 5%, and more small businesses have closed, whether temporarily or permanently is not yet known. While the government stimulus stalls, and Congress bickers over how to avoid a shutdown, the most vulnerable Americans will suffer the consequences of what promises to be a bleak winter.
Analysis
There are two plans floating in the government, neither of which promises to bring necessary relief to millions of un- and underemployed workers or to state and local governments. There is a 908 billion dollar bipartisan Congressional plan, versus a 916 billion dollar Trump plan, neither approaching the two trillion plus plan initially favored by Congressional Democrats when the first CARES package expired. Putting money in the pockets of Americans is a necessity and none of the proposals support another $1200 check; they range from zero, in the bipartisan Congressional plan to $600 in Trump’s plan, though that plan would slash unemployment benefits in the Congressional plan. Bernie Sanders has stated that 1 in 4 Americans is out of work or making less than $20,000 a year. This gives pause to a statement made by a Bloomberg economist that the economic pull back will “tip the economy into a modest contraction early next year;” A significant part of the population will face a dramatic situation. The Democrats and Republicans are especially split on the issue of aid to state and local governments, which face substantial layoffs. McConnell seems to be a major obstacle to getting the latest bipartisan Congressional bill passed, saying he wants to include coronavirus corporate liability protections for corporations and drop state and local aid provisions. Biden has pledged to move quickly to bring a stimulus to the first days of his administration, even if it means sacrificing some of the Democrats goals, such as aid for the states. Biden, and secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellin, will start out in crisis mode.
Lear More References
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/recovery-tracker/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-stimulus-check-hopes-update-2020-12-08/
Engagement Resources
https://nlihc.org/rental-assistance National low income rental assistance site
For food assistance and cash assistance, please check local listings or contact https://www.crisistextline.org/ and they will assist you in accessing local resources..
Trump, Pressured to Reject Mining Permit in Alaska, Races to Sell Drilling Leases in the Arctic
Brief # 100; Environment Policy
Trump, Pressured to Reject Mining Permit in Alaska, Races to Sell Drilling Leases in the Arctic
By Jacob Morton
12/7/2020
Policy
Since the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump has had his eye on Alaska, hoping to expand extraction of its rich mineral and fossil fuel deposits. While in office, Trump has overturned Obama era limitations on mining activities in the Bristol Bay Region of Alaska and has pushed for increased oil and gas drilling in the Arctic refuge on Alaska’s northeastern coastal plain. In the summer of 2019, despite overwhelming public opposition and allegations of flawed scientific analysis, the Trump administration revived the notorious Pebble Mine project in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
The Pebble Mine Partnership and its mother company Northern Dynasty Minerals have worked for the past thirteen years to secure the necessary permits to extract minerals from one of the world’s largest gold and copper deposits. If mined, the deposit could produce “70 million tons of gold, molybdenum and copper ore a year.” The extraction, however, would leave a pit 600 meters deep in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed. The project’s opponents have argued for years that the mine would threaten the “world-class” sockeye salmon fishery of Bristol Bay and put “more than $1 billion of revenue and over 10,000 jobs at risk.”
In 2014, the Obama administration had blocked any advancement of the Pebble Mine project, citing its concerns of Clean Water Act violations and the impact on the sockeye salmon industry, including a 2013 Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA) which confirmed that the Pebble Mine could not be operated without impacting the Bristol Bay and harming its salmon population. In 2015, concerns for the welfare of the Bristol Bay Watershed were so strong that the EPA issued a Proposed Determination to permanently limit all mining activities in the region. Polls at the time showed that 89.5% of the country was in support of establishing strong protections for Bristol Bay.
As previously reported by U.S. Resist News, the Trump administration has since thrown out the Obama era Proposed Determination, ignored claims of a faulty and skewed Environmental Impact Assessment, and has resumed permit processing for the Pebble Mine project despite opposition from environmental groups, First Nation tribal leaders, and members of his own political party. Similarly and as previously reported, while controversy erupted over Bristol Bay and the Pebble Mine project, Donald Trump and a republican controlled congress passed a plan to begin leasing tracts of land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge along Alaska’s northeastern coastal plain for oil and gas drilling. Until then, this refuge had been protected for nearly six decades.
As 2020 comes to a close, we have all by now learned to expect the unexpected. And with a lame duck president, infamous for breaking norms and ignoring established protocols, recent developments over the past two weeks have proven no exception. In a surprising turn of events, on November 26 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) rejected a Clean Water Act permit required for the development of the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay. Upon making its decision, the USACE released a statement explaining that the project’s proposed waste management plan for the displaced rock and other waste materials, “does not comply with Clean Water Act guidelines” and that “the proposed project is contrary to the public interest.” Given that President Elect Joe Biden continues to oppose the mine, this decision by the Army Corps effectively kills any near-future plans for continuing the project.
Meanwhile, the outgoing Trump administration has moved its attention northward, making clear its intentions to solidify the sales of multiple drilling leases in the Arctic refuge before leaving office. On December 3, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that the sale of lease agreements will take place on January 6. Typically, before a sale date is officially announced by the BLM, a window of anywhere from 1 to 2 months is reserved for private industry to outline which exact tracts of land they propose to drill in, and for the BLM to review these plans. The agency and the Trump administration cut this window down to 16 days before making the announcement. A traditional timeframe would have produced a sale date just before or just after Joe Biden’s Inauguration day on January 20.
Analysis
Though the rejection of the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay was certainly unexpected, its support among republicans had grown more and more mixed. Typically, republicans and Alaska politicians tend to support the expansion of domestic mineral production, but perhaps the threat to the sockeye salmon industry, as well as world renowned sportfishing and hunting grounds posed too great a concern. According to Politico, “President Donald Trump faced a public pressure campaign from Republicans, including mega-donor Andy Sabin, Bass Pro Shops CEO Johnny Morris, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to block the project.” Alaska senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) both joined the opposition after secretly recorded tapes were released this summer “featuring the then-CEO of the Pebble Limited Partnership, Tom Collier, boasting about how he would influence Alaskan politicians to ultimately support the project,” and that the company was planning a mine much larger than they had requested a permit for.
Alaskan congressman Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) disagrees with the rejection. He believes the issue is one of state’s rights and says he is “disappointed that the federal government gets to decide before Alaskans do.” Young argues, “Now there must be a consideration of how the federal government will compensate the State for the loss of economic potential. The proposed mine has always been subject to political intrigue and the whims of outsiders who simply do not understand our state.” John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership said the company is “dismayed” at the rejection and has vowed to appeal the decision. Shively argues that the company has worked hard to meet the requirements of the Army Corps, and says, “It is very disconcerting to see political influence in this process at the eleventh hour.”
Opponents of the project, however, are relieved by the decision after over a decade of uncertainty. Nanci Morris Lyon, owner of Bear Trail Lodge in King Salmon, Bristol Bay says, “It is an incredible relief. I felt like sitting down and just crying for a while.” For many Bristol Bay locals, “the prospect of the mine has held the whole region hostage for years. Lodge owners like [Lyon] didn’t know if they could invest in their businesses.” Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate natural resources committee, says he is “pleased” by the decision. Manchin said in a statement, “I understand the important role mining plays in our economy, but the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project did not come near close enough to assuring me this world-class sockeye salmon fishery, which generates $1.5 billion each year and supports 14,000 jobs, would be protected.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and The United Tribes of Bristol Bay, representing 15 area tribal governments, have said they would seek permanent protections for the area.
Northward, however, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drilling leases are being prepared for sale. The American Petroleum Institute praised the Trump administration’s push to expand drilling in the area, claiming “it would provide jobs and add to Alaska’s revenue, which has been suffering as oil production on the North Slope has declined over the years.” Many Alaskan politicians also support opening the refuge to drilling. Environmental groups feel differently. According to Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, “This is a shameful attempt by Donald Trump to give one last handout to the fossil fuel industry on his way out the door, at the expense of our public lands and our climate.”
Despite the support however, it is unclear what level of interest oil companies have for the area. The cost of drilling in the Arctic is much greater than in other states such as Texas, and for many companies, the risk to their reputation may not be worth the hassle. According to the New York Times, “Most experts say it would be at least a decade or longer before any oil or gas was extracted from the refuge. By then, the drive to reduce worldwide fossil fuel use may mean there is little or no market for the oil.” Many major banks have already said they will not lend money to companies for drilling in the refuge.
For companies that do choose to explore the area, it is uncertain how much oil they will find. The most recent exploratory well was drilled in the ‘80’s, with “disappointing” results. In 2017, the Trump administration claimed a potential of $1.8 billion in revenue for the government over a decade of drilling. However, recent independent analyses, “Based on similar sales in Alaska over the past several decades,” have found “potential revenue over the next decade would likely be in the range of tens of millions of dollars,” significantly lower than the original estimate. Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, says, “We will need [Joe Biden] to use all the tools at his disposal to stop the industrialization of this iconic national treasure.”
Engagement Resources
Alaska Wilderness League
- The Alaska Wilderness League (AWL) is a nonprofit organization that works to protect Alaska’s most significant wild lands from oil and gas drilling and from other industrial threats. The Alaska Wilderness League galvanizes support to secure vital policies that protect and defend America’s last great wild public lands and waters. https://www.alaskawild.org/
National Resources Defense Council
- Works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
United Tribes of Bristol Bay
- United Tribes of Bristol Bay (UTBB) is a tribal consortium working to protect the traditional Yup’ik, Dena’ina, and Alutiiq ways of life in Bristol Bay that depend on the sustainable harvest of our watershed’s renewable resources, most notably Bristol Bay’s wild salmon. http://www.utbb.org/
References
Adragna, A., & Snider, A. (2020, November 26). Trump administration rejects massive Alaska mining project. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/25/trump-administration-alaska-mining-project-440626
Fountain, H. (2020, December 03). Sale of Arctic Refuge Oil and Gas Leases Is Set for Early January. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/climate/arctic-refuge-lease-sales.html?utm_campaign=Hot+News
Lewis, J., & Rosen, Y. (2020, November 25). U.S. rejects permit for Alaska’s Pebble mine, company vows appeal. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-alaska-pebblemine-idUSKBN2852XM
Ruskin, L. (2020, November 25). Trump Administration Rejects Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/939002676/trump-administration-rejects-pebble-mine-project-in-alaska
Young, D. (2020, November 25). Congressman Don Young Issues Statement Following U.S. Army Corps Decision to Deny Permit to Pebble Mine. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401842