JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Michigan-Part 1
Brief #6—Congressional Campaign Update
By William Bourque
Presidential battleground state election results are great predictors of what direction the nation is headed politically, and Michigan is the perfect exemplar. In 2016, Michigan fell narrowly to President Trump, which aligns with the results of presidential election in that year.
Trump Signs Memorandum to Exclude Immigrants from US Census
Brief #100—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
On July 21, President Trump signed a Memorandum that would exclude undocumented immigrants from the US Census.
Florida’s Vote Restoration For Felons Suffers Setback At Supreme Court
Brief #115—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On November 6, 2018 voters in the State of Florida approved the ballot initiative known as Amendment 4.
Can the US Afford Not to Become a Nicer, Kinder Society?
Brief #84—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Many feel work to be a citizen’s right as well as a personal source of income and satisfaction. Recently US unemployment has been as high as 14.7% though some experts estimate it actually may be as high as 20%.
Trump Administration Erodes US Environmental Protection Act Designed to Protect At-Risk Communities
Brief #91—Environment
By Jacob Morton
Donald Trump has finalized a rollback of the nation’s “Magna Carta” of environmental protection policy, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). NEPA, signed into law 50 years ago by President Richard Nixon, requires government agencies to provide an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any proposed federal infrastructure project, such as building a pipeline or highway.
The Corruption of Jared Kushner
Brief #18—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
Jared Kushner is Donald Trump’s son-in-law and the father of three of his grandchildren. He has stayed in the president’s good graces despite numerous political mishaps and public relations hits.
Trump’s Incumbent Powers Are Losing Their Strength
Brief #5—Presidential Campaign Update
By Iryna Shkurhan
Trump’s incumbent advantages, money and the power of the presidency, are losing their strength as his mistakes pile up and former supporters turn their backs. Four months before election day, Trump is trailing Biden in almost every poll nationally, and in key swing states.
Echoes of a Massacre: White Supremacy Rears its Head in Wilmington
U.S. Resist Op Ed
By Laura Plummer
ICE Rescinds Order to Deport International Students – an Update to Brief #98
Brief #99—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The July 6 Directive from the Trump Administration covered in Brief 98 faced immediate backlash and swift legal action by institutions of higher learning, municipalities, and tech companies.
Impeachment Trial Preview
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet open with a proclamation on the first page that the titular characters must die. The reader knows the pair will meet their demise by story’s end before it begins. That doesn’t make the play insignificant or not worth reading. Donald J. Trump will still be the president of the United States at the conclusion of the forthcoming trial in the Senate. Though not quite as certain as the fates of the fictional Veronans, it is a virtual lock. What occurs in Congress’ upper chamber between now and then will have serious ramifications in the long- and short-term political landscape of the United States. Before the trial commences, there remain several points of importance to determine.
To This Point
Congress spent the last week getting their proverbial ducks in a row for the trial. Chief Justice John Roberts and the 100 Senators serving as the jury swore an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help [them] God.” The oath is a toothless formality as a number of Senators have already stated they intend to break it. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham for instance is ‘’not trying to pretend to be an impartial juror.’’ Regardless, the trial is set to begin ‘’in earnest’’ on Tuesday according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Democrats have tabbed Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler Zoe Lofgren and several others as House Managers. Schiff will serve as lead manager, whose function is to present the case for impeachment before the Senate.
Trump’s defense team consists of White House counsel Pat Cippilone, his personal attorney Jay Sekulow, former Clinton investigator Ken Starr and Constitutional Lawyer Alan Dershowitz. His legal team responded to a summons issued by McConnell Saturday, calling it ‘’highly partisan and reckless. “They also repeated the assertion made many times by Republicans in the House proceedings that the impeachment is an ‘’brazen attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.’’ However, the trial plays out, viewers can expect it to be rife with partisan contention.
Trial format
The Constitution provides little guidance on the manner in which an impeachment trial should take place. Like most aspects of the impeachment inquiry to date, little can be agreed on across party lines concerning how the trial will be handled. Upon the initial vote to impeach, a number of Republican Senators called for a dismissal before the Articles were transmitted to the Senate. A simple majority of 51 votes would have been required to end the trial before it began. Mitch McConnell and others of that position have acknowledged that the votes aren’t there for such a dismissal. As a result, Donald Trump will have his day(s) in court, beginning on Tuesday.
Whether or not to call witnesses remains a considerable bone of contention between the opposing sides. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Sunday he planned to force a vote on the issue at the trial’s outset. A number of Republican Senators have voiced opposition to calling witnesses, ostensibly in the name of an expedited trial. R- John Cornyn of Texas suggested that if the case is ‘’rock solid’’ as its been described by D- Jerry Nadler, then they should be able to make it without calling additional witnesses. Democrats maintain that calling witnesses is the only way to ensure a fair and thorough trial.
The historical precedent is mixed. Witnesses were not called to testify in the trial of Bill Clinton but did provide testimony in the trial of Andrew Johnson. In each case the substance of the offenses was relatively well known by both parties involved. Clinton had an extramarital affair and lied about it. Andrew Johnson fired his war secretary, shortly after Congress had passed an act preventing him from doing so. In this instance Trump has been repeatedly linked to the scheme to withhold military assistance from Ukraine in exchange for dirt on his political rival. However, his culpability has not been proven to the satisfaction of his supporters in the House or Senate, likely because he’s prevented anyone who could directly implicate him from testifying under oath. It is for this reason that witnesses must be allowed to testify to ensure that the trial, if not the verdict, is fair and comprehensive.
Also, at issue is whether recent developments will be allowed as evidence. Namely, the GAO report finding the Trump administration violated the law by withholding said funds, and Lev Parnas’ accusations placing Trump at the heart of the scandal.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Its function is to examine how tax dollars are spent and provide reports on how to operate efficiently. On Thursday the office released a report finding that the Trump administration had violated the law by freezing the aid to Ukraine previously approved by Congress. The sole power of the purse rests with Congress. It is the job of the executive branch to faithfully execute Congressionally allocated funds. No holds may be placed on such money to further the policy agenda of a president. The GAO concluded that Trump and the Office of Management and Budget violated the law. Delays or revisions (permanent cuts) may be made in certain circumstances, but the burden to justify them rests solely with the OMB. In the event a hold is placed on previously allocated money, OMB must transmit a specific message to Congress explaining the decision. No such attempt was made, and accordingly the GAO found the OMB to have violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The ICA was adopted into law in 1974 in response to President Nixon’s executive overreach. Its purpose is to prevent a president from unilaterally substituting his own preferences in favor of those voted on by Congress. All available evidence suggests Trump and those in his orbit committed a brazen violation of the ICA.
Lev Parnas is an intriguing character whose involvement in the trial is a yet to be determined. The associate of Rudy Giuliani was arrested in October of last year, charged with campaign finance violations and subsequently volunteered to testify before Congress.
From the allegations against him and his own admission, Parnas played an integral role in Trump’s effort to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. Last week he appeared on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow and made a number of explosive allegations tying Trump to the pay-for-play scheme. He stated ‘’Trump knew what was going on’’ and that all of his efforts were coordinated with the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Parnas claimed to have met with top Ukrainian officials, who knew he was speaking on Trump’s behalf and informed them that all American aid was contingent upon announcement of investigations into Joe Biden. In the same interview Parnas pointed fingers at Congressman R- Devin Nunes, his aide Derek Harvey and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry for their involvement.
Parnas is a shadowy figure with legitimate credibility issues. However, he has confirmed a number of disputed points from the impeachment inquires and provides answers to lingering questions about the withholding of aid to Ukraine. An impeachment trial without any input from Parnas would be a deliberate obfuscation of justice.
Donald Trump in all probability will be still be president at the conclusion of the Senate Trial. The Republicans most likely and shamefully will acquit him.
Learn More:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
Photo by Michael Ramey
Trump Questionable “Victory “in Achieving Phase One Tariff Agreement with China
Policy:
On January 15th Trump signed a Phase One trade agreement with China which would ease some of the tension between the two countries resulting largely from his earlier severe stance with regard to tariffs and regulations. The initial program reflects the intention to open more China markets to US companies; increase farm and energy exports; and protect American technology and trade secrets. China also agreed to bolster its protections for intellectual property. The agreement is the culmination of two years of negotiation and the administration is hoping that it can avoid an escalation in the hostilities between the nations from his earlier position.
Per the agreement, China will buy an additional $200 billion of American goods and services by 2021, an increase of more than 50% from 2017 levels. The $360 billion dollars of earlier US tariffs on Chinese good remain though in December the administration passed reductions, from 15% to 7.5% of tariffs on consumer goods. The 25% tariff imposed on components US factories import to assemble finished products remains at that level. Trump asserts that these costs are born by China but analysts suggest the cost really accrues to American importers.
Analysis:
Trump claims a major victory with this Phase 1 calling it a “major sea change in international trade.” Though it does portend a shift in trade policy its benefits are questionable and have been criticized by multiple analysts. Instead of lowering tariffs, Phase 1 maintains record high tariffs and comes at the trade issue by forcing China to purchase a fixed amount of goods. Some experts do not feel that China can achieve the level of purchase in the agreement and suggest that enforcement is tricky.
It also is suggested that the manner of the agreement increases state control of the Chinese economy, a position counter to past administrations’ approaches to trade. Critics fear that the global trade dynamic will be compromised as a consequence of increased Chinese purchases from the US resulting in decreases elsewhere. It is projected that this will reduce outsourcing and lost jobs and loss of industries. China will gain economic stability and a boosted market by being guaranteed a certain level of trade from the agreement and the hope that future tariff reductions will be included in Phase Two.
Critics question this assertion that Phase 2 will include tariff reductions and suggest that the timing of the signing of the Phase 1 agreement was calculated to offset the negative press regarding the impeachment issue. The future of Phase 2 is in question. It is probable that it will not be completed till after the 2020 presidential election as it is like to target the more complex problem of China’s subsidies to its companies. In the meantime, Trump can tout the initial agreement as a boost to the American economy and as a reversal of reduced purchases of US goods and job losses wrought by his escalated trade policies in his first two years in office.
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/us-china-phase-1-trade-deal-details/index.html
Resistance Resource:
http://americansforfreetrade.com/ A broad coalition of business, trade unions, and workers against tariffs.
Photo by chuttersnap
Updates on Leading Gun Control Advocacy Organizations
Recently, March For Our Lives welcomed its first executive director, Alexis Confer. Confer has made her career in political activism; her credentials include Everytown for Gun Safety and Obama’s 2012 campaign. This is one of several moves the two-year-old organization has taken to make itself sustainable after soaring rapidly to national notoriety. With over 300 local chapters, MFOL has also hired regional directors and built a formal infrastructure between local groups and headquarters. Despite these major changes, Confer has stressed her desire for MFOL to remain youth-led and oriented.
In December, Congress approved $125 million in funding for the STOP School Violence Act. Some of this spending will go towards Sandy Hook Promise, whose programs include Know the Signs and Say Something. Know the Signs offers in-school training which teaches students to recognize when a peer is at risk for committing violence. Say Something allows students to report dangerous or “red flag” behaviors to an anonymous nationwide network, accessible via desktop, app, and hotline.
This month, Everytown Law announced that it would be representing Kansas City, MO in a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Jimenez Arms, Inc. The government of Kansas City, which has one of the highest homicide per capita rates in the US, alleges that the company has contributed to the city’s crime epidemic. The company has been linked to a gun trafficking ring which illegally brought 77 firearms into the city, 55 of which were manufactured by Jimenez. The suit claims that the company either knew about the illegal activity or ignored signs of it.
The lawsuit is the first time in a decade that a city has taken legal action against the gun industry.
In December, Giffords Law Center released its 2019 Gun Law Trendwatch. It noted that states have led the way in gun violence prevention, passing bills that included increased background check requirements and restricting access for domestic abusers. States have also invested heavily in violence intervention and prevention programs; the seven top-spending states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia) invested a combined $132 million in such efforts.
However, the report notes that some states repealed gun safety laws or passed bills which weakened protections. For example, three states (Arkansas, Indiana, and North Dakota) repealed weapons regulations, and three additional states (Idaho, Texas, and West Virginia) passed laws allowing more guns in public spaces.
Analysis
As usual, states and localities have made leaps while the federal government has largely stalled. The STOP School Violence Act combats a major cause of the mass shooting epidemic, although it does nothing to address the larger issue of gun deaths. Mass shootings in schools are traumatic on a national level, but their death toll is dwarfed by that of other forms of gun violence. For example, suicides involving guns are roughly 40% more common than homicides (mass shootings included). Ultimately, easy access to guns is the most important factor in the nation’s astronomical gun death toll; it’s no coincidence that the US’ gun ownership rate is roughly three times higher than Canada’s, and our gun death rate is seven times higher. Education alone cannot stem this tide.
In the face of limited federal action, the most immediate solutions lie outside of Washington. March For Our Lives, Everytown, and Giffords Law Center are wise to dedicate such effort to state and local legislatures. In particular, MFOL’s efforts to strengthen its grassroots infrastructure is a promising step towards crystallizing its unique and highly-engaged network.
Photo by annie bolin
Trump’s H-1B Visa Moves and the Struggle of Foreign Tech Workers
By Rakesh K Singh
Usually, during the intense and emotional debates about US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, H-1B visa, which is a non-immigrant visa that is created to allow US firms to employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations in the United States for a specific period, tends to be unnoticed.
As the Trump administration has intensified its review and assessment of H1B applications, media reports say that several tech professionals find the procedure of submitting an application for and obtaining H-1B visas to be gradually challenging and tough under Trump’s administration.
Recent modifications in the procedures and the process of applying for and getting H-1B visas have put petitioners in a heave, and, under the Trump administration, the H-1B visa program has turned out to be more intricate for technology firms, which hire some of the highest numbers of H-1B visa holders and foreign nationals.
Significantly, the stance toward immigrants has shifted in the United States under Trump and the “Buy American, Hire American” executive order. Moreover, as Trump increases his protectionist moves, a number of foreign tech workers, interested in working in the US, ponder what they should do; as filing procedures for H-1B applications are more difficult for petitioners as well as companies.
Most of the H-1B tech workers come to the United States from India as well as China. Trump’s protectionist agenda has limited the interest of tech professionals who come to work in the United States on non-immigrant H1-B visa, which is a significant source of officially permitted, competent workers for America’s economy.
Also, increased scrutiny of H1B applications, delays in granting and renewing visas as well as the build-up of green card applications from foreign tech workers also make it extremely insecure for them to attempt to change employments.
Experts express that modifications to the application procedure for H-1B visas may prevent competent and proficient tech professionals from getting employment in the United States, and have cautioned that a more restricted H-1B program might compel foreign workers to look for prospects in other nations, which have more appealing immigration rules and regulations. See for example
https://qz.com/india/1560797/trumps-h-1b-crackdown-is-hurting-indian-techies-more-than-ever/
Photo by NASA
A Review of the Trump/Soleimani Incident
As your news feed can no doubt tell you, Qassem Soleimani, Major-General of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed in an air strike on the Baghdad International airport at the direction of President Trump on January 3rd. This brief is not interested in the event itself, but in the justification for and the potential fallout surrounding the killing.
In order to understand the potential impact of the air strike, we must first look at the man at the center of it all: Qassem Soleimani. He was not a terrorist leader of the same ilk as Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Soleimani was one of the foremost public figures in Iran, perhaps even the most admired and well-liked official in a regime that was and continues to lack in public support. Soleimani had commanded forces in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980, for which he gained widespread acclaim and was later hailed as a national hero. He would eventually rise through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard to command the Quds Force, an elite branch responsible for overseas clandestine operations such as sabotage, terror attacks, and equipping militias that act as Iran’s proxy forces in regional power struggles. Due to his popularity, distinguished military service, and command of the Quds Force, Soleimani became the mouthpiece for Iran’s expansionist aspirations in the Middle East. He reported directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and controlled a network of over 10,000 troops that stretched across international borders. He was not and should not be seen as equivalent to other terrorists that the U.S. has killed in the past. This would be both a falsehood and utterly disregard Soleimani’s importance and power.
Turning to Iran itself, it has been steadily increasing its regional control, taking advantage of the power vacuum that was created by the U.S.’s toppling of the Hussein regime and then largely abandoned by the slow U.S. withdrawal following the contracted occupation of Iraq. Iran also capitalized on the supplementary destabilization of the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War, with much of the Middle East dissolving into sectarian Sunni versus Shi’a conflicts as state identities collapsed.
The Trump administration has been progressively re-instituting and increasing economic sanctions upon Iran following the administration’s refusal to abide by the Obama-era nuclear deal, with the hope being that Iran would be forced to rejoin the negotiation table on the Trump administration’s terms. Despite Trump’s tough talk on Iran, he has been largely reluctant to resort to military means despite Iran progressively pushing the envelope. Iran has attacked oil tankers, shot down a U.S. drone, and bombed Saudi oil facilities. However, Trump largely ignored these provocations outside of threats; only responding with force when an Iranian-backed militia killed a U.S. contractor at an Iraqi military base in December. In both this case and the case of Soleimani, Trump retaliated using air strikes. This appears to be his punitive tool of choice, and it would seem that outside of the death of Americans, he is unwilling to react militarily against Iran. Punishment appears to be his driver, not defense or offense.
In terms of U.S. national interest, it is good that Soleimani is dead. His Quds Force provided Iraqis with bomb-making equipment and training during the Iraq War, along with funding and arming militias that attacked American troops and diplomats. The air strike was lauded by regional American allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who view Iran as a rising and hostile regional power. Russia denounced the air strike, but this is to be expected, as it approves of Iran’s regional aspirations that disrupt American influence in the Middle East.
The justification for the air strike was to deter Iranian attacks upon Americans, particularly U.S. embassies. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the administration received evidence of pending Iranian strikes, with Soleimani having developed plots to target American diplomats and military forces in Iraq and the region. Ayatollah Khamenei has promised reprisals for the killing of Soleimani, and cyber and terrorist attacks are anticipated against American national interests and allies. The U.S. Iraqi embassy has urged all Americans to leave Iraq and 3,500 troops have been deployed to the Middle East. The supposed outcome of deterring Iranian aggression has not taken place. In fact, assassinating an enemy politician is not a typical form of deterrence. Usually one would expect a threat. Putting this aside, it would appear that neither the Trump administration nor the world believes the claim that Soleimani’s death will discourage Iranian attacks.
There are also questions of whether Trump ordered the strike to distract from or increase his backing for the impending Senate impeachment trial. It was said by intelligence officials informed of the strike that the provided data on Soleimani’s movements was imperfect at best. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that he had not been given any specific evidence that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies as Trump claimed. Even Republican Senator Mike Lee said that many of those Republican congressmen given access to justification for the strike were concerned about the reliability of the evidence provided and were not given specific details outside of the assertion that attacks upon U.S. embassies were imminent. Trump also reportedly told allies that he was under pressure from key Republican senators to somehow take care of Soleimani. Vice President Pence further contradicted the official story of imminent threats to U.S. embassies by opening a Trump rally in Toledo with the statement that as soon as the U.S. contractor was killed in the Iraqi rocket strike, that the Trump administration had decided to retaliate. All of these statements would suggest that Soleimani’s killing was not an act of deterrence nor was it based upon credible evidence of future attacks. It was at best a political calculation, and at worst a gamble by a desperate president.
Before Soleimani’s assassination, Iran’s influence in Iraq was under attack and the Iranian regime itself was under pressure at home. In early December, Iraqis were protesting and setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Najaf and calling for Iran to be expelled from the country. In November, Iran was rocked by a series of wide-spread anti-government protests and rioting that developed into calls for the Ayatollah’s resignation and against regime corruption. It seemed that before the strike the U.S. had a rare opportunity to capitalize upon demands for a reduction in Iranian influence and an Iranian population that desired change. As you read this brief, there is domestic backlash in Iran against the regime and calls for the Ayatollah to step down due to the downing of a Ukrainian Boeing civilian aircraft. This is not the Iran of the late 1970s. It would appear that young Iranians and many others are not pleased with the regime and are demanding coherent change.
In conclusion, Trump has gambled military losses, regional stability, terrorism, and national interests for political interest. The Iranian regime is unpopular. Iraqis were calling for resistance against Iranian influence. Soleimani’s death was not viewed as deterrence. Iraqi popular opinion has turned against the U.S. Evidence of justification was limited. All of these factors should have been considered or should further illustrate that the Trump administration is neither effective nor prudent when it comes to foreign policy. In addition, last Tuesday, Iran launched a missile strike upon an Iraqi military base known to house U.S. troops, but no Americans were present. It would appear that although Iran is attempting to flex its muscles and demonstrate capacity, it is altogether unwilling to commit to war, as is the U.S. The supposed showdown could be and is looking like nothing but hot air, but this does not excuse the actions of the Trump administration. As said before, it was gamble that may be paying off, but a gamble nonetheless that was expected to and could still have staggering ramifications.
Engagement Resources:
- The Organization for World Peace – pushes for diplomatic and non-combative means to solving international issues.
- The Organization of Iranian American Communities – fighting for the promotion of human rights and democratic freedoms for the Iranian people.
- National Iranian American Council – strives to give Iranian Americans a greater voice and promote further understanding and community connections between Americans and Iranians.
Photo by Hasan Almasi
President Trump’s Plan To Rollback Civil Rights Protections Starts With The “Disparate Impact Rule”; White House Policy
Policy Summary: For the past year, there has been a movement in the Trump Administration to roll back civil rights protections by targeting a legal rights standard that has been used for decades – the disparate – impact rule. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griggs v. Duke Power Co. which first recognized the disparate – impact rule. The case dealt with racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the hiring practices of the power company. The Court there stated that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.” The rule was thus recognized as a legal theory to bring a lawsuit and the legal standard to prove discriminatory actions. This legal rule is the opposite of the disparate treatment legal rule. That rule permits a lawsuit if a plaintiff can prove that a party or policy was enacted with the purposeful intent to discriminate against a certain group of individuals. Both theories are available as parts of various agency regulations while others have been enshrined in statutes, such as voting rights laws.
For the last year, the Trump Administration has focused on only supporting disparate – treatment claims (intentional discrimination claims) and has made efforts to try and rescind disparate – impact rules, most notably at Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and with racial disparity school discipline guidance rules at the Department of Education. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The key thing to remember about the disparate – impact and disparate treatment legal rules is that a disparate – impact claim can be brought in court if there is a policy that does not appear to be discriminatory based on the text or words of the policy but the effect of the policy as implemented results in discrimination against a protected class of people. A disparate treatment legal theory is one where the words or text of the policy is clearly discriminatory against a class of people.
This distinction is important because it helps to illustrate the direction that the Trump Administration is trying to chart in the field of civil rights. The reason that the Trump Administration and conservatives want to eliminate disparate – impact rules from federal agency regulations and other areas of the law is because they prefer to only punish those who intentionally engage in the various types of discrimination. They do not find it fair that a neutral policy that inadvertently discriminates against a class of people should end up with someone punished when there was no intent to discriminate. However, supporters of the disparate – impact rules argue that the disparate – impact rules are necessary because it can often be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a person or entity intentionally discriminated against a class of people. Most people are more careful in their communications, such as e-mail, and will take care to not say anything that could implicate themselves. And, critical documents can be lost with the passage of time and essential decision – makers eventually die which makes it harder to prove that there was an intentional effort to discriminate.
The efforts currently going on at HUD and the Department of Education to try and eliminate this useful legal theory is disconcerting and could have far – reaching implications beyond HUD and DOE. The issue could likely affect transgender issues (serving in the military, gender identity bathrooms) and the ability to pursue a claim collectively as a class. The same can be said with community claims regarding policing and law enforcement issues. These rules are scattered through a number of agency regulations and a number of statutes but they must be monitored closely to ensure that a valuable legal tool to fight racial discrimination in a number of sectors of American society is not removed. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement on possible rollback of disparate – impact rules.
- Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights – blogpost on proposed HUD rule that sought to weaken the disparate – impact rule.
- Defend Civil Rights – organization that seeks to defend the disparate – impact rule in the fair housing field.
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.
Photo by Kayle Kaupanger
The Strange Case of Fisher Sand and Gravel and the Border Wall
Immigration was a tentpole of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Utilizing racist and fear-mongering rhetoric, Trump demonized immigrants and rode a populist wave to an improbable victory. His solution to the ‘’scourge’’ of migrants crossing the southern US border? A wall to keep the so-called invaders out. Three years later the promise of a ‘’big, beautiful wall’’ has gone largely unfulfilled. To date roughly 85 miles of fencing have been erected during Trump’s tenure and almost exclusively where structures already existed. In an effort to make progress on the ’16 campaign promise in the run-up to the 2020 election the administration has announced 31 miles of new wall is slated for construction, with a projected end date of 12/20/20.
In November it was announced that Fisher Sand & Gravel had been awarded a $400 million contract to build the aforementioned stretch of wall. The North Dakota based company has earned similar sized government contracts in the past, but none had anything to do with walls or barriers. The company’s lack of experience in wall-building is not the only reason to question the merit or wisdom of their award.
Over the past 20 years, Fisher Sand and Gravel has been cited 16 times for environmental violations and paid penalties in excess of $450K. Seven times the company been fined for workplace safety infractions and incurred fines just shy of $50K. In 2011 the company was fined $150K by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for subjecting two female employees to ‘’egregious verbal sexual harassment’’ and firing one when she complained. Michael Fisher, the former head of the company, pled guilty to nine counts of felony tax fraud and received 37 months in federal prison. Fisher Sand and Gravel was able to defer prosecution against them by agreeing to $1.16 million in restitution and penalties with a promise to install safeguards against future fraud at the company. However it is not FSG’s checkered past raising eyebrows in Washington.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for contracts relating to the border barrier project. The agency solicits competitive bids to ensure meritorious award, free from insidious political influence. FSG was one of six applicants to build border wall prototypes in the San Diego area during 2017. Their concrete design lacked a transparent aesthetic desired by officials at the Department of Homeland Security. Fisher then pivoted to a steel design which the Army Corps said ‘’did not meet its standards and lacked regulatory approvals.’’ The agency added that FSG’s work was also late and over budget. Stymied by bureaucratic red tape, Fisher sued the government after their rejection. The case was dismissed, but the Army Corps added the company to a group of bids in response to pressure from the White House. It has been reported that Donald Trump has repeatedly intervened in the process to steer the contract at issue towards Fisher Sand & Gravel.
Government contracting is intended to be free from political influence to guarantee the best value for the American taxpayer and prevent any untoward favoritism. In this case the most logical inference is that strategic political influence was exerted to elicit such special treatment. It is highly irregular for a president to personally intervene in the award of a major government contract. According to administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump has done that repeatedly on behalf of Fisher to leaders at the Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps.
Tommy Fisher is the CEO of FSG. What he and his outfit lack in substance, he apparently compensates for with well-placed political donations and public appearances. He and his wife each gave $10K to new Republican Senator, Kevin Cramer, of North Dakota. Cramer in turn invited Fisher to Trump’s State of the Union address last year. Cramer has also been vocal publicly, and privately in advocating for FSG. Perhaps as significantly, Fisher has made numerous television appearances on the president’s favorite cable channel, FOX News. The television spots may as well have been direct pitches to Trump. Fisher has appeared on various FOX programs, speaking Trump’s language in full support of his agenda. For instance, he has claimed on air (without supporting evidence) that his company can build the wall ‘’faster, better and cheaper’’ than anyone else and likened his patented wall hanging technology (compared to the methods used by other builders) to the difference between an iPhone and a payphone. Even Fisher’s booster in the Senate, Cramer, acknowledges the link between his T.V. appearances and the wall contract, saying they may not have helped with the Army Corps, ‘’but certainly helped with the president.’’
Cramer is not insulated from any impropriety regarding the award. In August the Senator delayed confirmation of a White House budget official in an attempt to access privileged information about the border wall bidding process. When told the bids contained sensitive, proprietary information, Cramer demanded a meeting with the Lieutenant General who heads the Army Corps of Engineers. He subsequently released a statement vowing to hold the military engineers ‘’accountable’’ and added ‘’I believe we have their attention and are in a good position to succeed.’’ The latter quote implies that the freshman senator had a specific agenda in mind. Tommy Fisher is a constituent of Cramer’s, responsible for thousands of dollars into his campaign coffers. He’s publicly lauded Trump in his preferred news medium in a bombastic style familiar to the president. It is beyond any reasonable belief that these two factors are unrelated to Cramer’s promotion of FSG and Trump’s intervention in the bidding process.
Learn More:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/gop-senator-held-up-trump-nominee-demanding-to-see-border-wall-contracts-after-army-corps-panned-construction-firm-he-prefers/2019/08/02/b185a76a-b566-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html
- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/23/dods-jedi-procurement-and-the-old-post-office/
Photo by Markus Spiske
OUR ELECTIONS: THE U.S. RESIST NEWS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF 2019/2020
By Ron Israel
Managing Editor
U.S. RESIST NEWS
January 6, 2020
America’s political elections–for President, Congress as well as state and local offices–are critical to the functioning of our democracy. Our electoral system enables us to select people who lead our government and make the critical decisions that affect our lives. It also provides a mechanism by which those entrusted with the responsibility to lead us are held accountable for their efforts. Our political elections depend on the ability of our electoral system to operate in a fair, reliable, transparent process, providing all citizens with the opportunity to vote, and allowing candidates for office to make their cases known to the voters.
Today America’s electoral system is under attack on various levels including; foreign interference, voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the sanctioning of unlimited campaign finance. U.S. RESIST NEWS believes there is no more important issue facing our country than the urgent need to reform our electoral system. Efforts to reform the system, such as those described below, need our support.
Foreign Interference:
To get serious about protecting the electoral process our government needs to ensure that voters are not subjected to foreign influence operations that violate U.S. campaign laws. Regrettably the Trump administration has not done much to address the issue of foreign interference. Trump’s continual denial of Russian interference and the political gridlock in Congress are the main reason why.
In 2018, Congress approved $380 million to improve election security systems ahead of 2018 midterms. The money was to be used to replace aging voting machines, implement post-election audits, and provide cybersecurity training for state and local officials, among other election security related improvements. The Federal Election Assistance Commission was asked to distribute the approved funds to states within 45 days However, given the short timeframe, states only spent about 8 percent of the $380 million Congress approved by the time the elections rolled around.
Since 2018 the Democratically controlled House has passed several major electoral reform measures, that address the threat of foreign influence, that have died in the Senate where they have not been taken up for consideration. Electoral reform measures passed by the House include require candidates and political committees to notify the FBI and other authorities if a foreign power offers campaign help; tighten restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals and require more transparency in political ads on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
A 2nd House passed bill allocates $600 million to spend on updating voting equipment to comply with new standards including requirements that voting machines produce a paper record, stay disconnected from the Internet and be produced in the United States. But Republicans have objected to the legislation, arguing that its provisions interfere with the authority of states and localities to conduct their own elections.
The issue of protecting voters from foreign-sponsored fake election news also has been taken up by several big tech companies. Twitter has instituted the most far reaching policy of any tech company banning all political advertising. Facebook has maintained a position that it is not in the position to make judgments on content and that voters need to make up their own minds about what to believe. At the same time however, Facebook has hired an army of fact-checkers and installed new algorithms to ferret out and delete hate speech.
With hate speech the main worry comes down to labeling legitimate speech as hate speech (protesters, BDS Movement/Middle East and black centered movements, etc.). And with fake news the concern is who will judge what is true and what is fake (the government/users or moderators who may have another agenda, etc.
o Voter Suppression (election fraud)
Americans also need to be concerned with domestic bred
efforts to rig elections. Starting around 2010, states across the country introduced legislation that would put unnecessary barriers in front of the ballot box, particularly for voters of color. Some states with early voting reduced the number of days of advance access to the polls. Others required forms of identification to vote that lawmakers knew many Americans did not have. States like Tennessee also burdened community groups that help register voters with unnecessary regulations and restrictions.
To try to combat this surge in vote rigging the House of Representatives has taken meaningful action. It recently passed the Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill that would restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act to its full strength. The bill, along with many others, awaits action by the Senate.
Require voter-verified paper ballots or records for every vote cast; replace old voting machines; conduct robust postelection audits to confirm election outcomes; update and secure outdated voter registration systems and e-poll books; require minimum cybersecurity standards for voter registration systems and other pieces of voting infrastructure; perform mandatory pre-election testing on all voting machines, as well as continuous vulnerability analysis; expand threat information sharing, including comprehensive threat assessments accompanied by mandatory reporting requirements; elevate coordination between states and federal agencies on election security, including real-time notification of security breaches and threats; provide federal funding for updating election infrastructure.
O Gerrymandering
Since 2010, legislators in a number of states have redrawn congressional and state legislative lines to draw districts that would ensure that a political party would win that district regardless of the candidate. This attempt to draw districts that would rig the system has led to an inequality in voting results. States that had a majority number of votes cast for one political party overall often ended up winning a minority of seats statewide. This has led to lawsuits in courts where some partisan maps were thrown out and even to some new options adopted by some states like independent redistricting commissions.
To help deal with this problem the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) recently announced a pledge that future political candidates at the federal and local level can commit to upcoming campaigns. The pledge states:
“For too long, partisan gerrymandering has been used as a tool to manipulate electoral districts to benefit political parties instead of voters. I believe every elected official should be accountable to the people they represent, which means we need to end gerrymandering. I pledge to support fair redistricting that ends map manipulation and creates truly representative districts.”
The pledge has been sent to current members of the Democratic Party and at last count has been embraced by twenty- six politicians which include a number of Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, a number of party leaders and a handful of congressional and state legislative leaders.
Other notable anti-gerrymandering actions include efforts to overturn
Rucho v Common Cause, the 2019 Supreme Court case that eliminated partisan gerrymandering at the federal level only.
O Campaign Finance
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that corporations are people; and that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
The case tilted political influence towards wealthy donors and corporations. It spawned the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries, as well as from individuals. These groups spent more than $800 million in the 2012 election cycle. Citizens United also triggered a boom in political activity by tax-exempt “dark money” organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors.
There are efforts underway to overturn or replace the
Citizens United decision by groups such as Common Cause, Public Citizen and the End Citizens United PAC. The focus of much ot their efforts has been on passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Such an amendment was introduced in Congress by the Democrats in 2019. It affirms the right of states and the federal government to pass laws that regulate spending in elections,
Photo by Randy Colas
Courts Put the Brakes Trump’s Immigration Policies
Policy Updates
Recently, there have been some legal victories by way of upholding the US Constitution in the wake of the Trump Administration’s lawless attempts to limit immigration and install Trump’s long promised Border Wall. The first case, filed in El Paso, covers Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency to re-distribute federal funds to construct his wall (in January 2019) and the second case addresses Trump’s proposed changes to the path to citizenship for Legal Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders).
El Paso County v Trump
Protect Democracy represented the county of El Paso, Texas and the Border Network for Human Rights in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the declaration of a national emergency to fund the construction of a border wall along the US Southern Border earlier this year. They sought and were granted an injunction to block the declaration from taking effect. An injunction is a legal remedy in the form of a court order that obligates a party to do or refrain from certain acts. This lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in El Paso. The plaintiffs claimed Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency if Congress did not allocate funding for his border wall usurped the Constitutional Authority that Congress has, and thus is inconsistent with the US Constitution’s separation of powers.
They also claimed that Trump’s demonization of Latino immigrants as sources of crime, drugs and violence has caused harm to immigrant communities and communities of color throughout the US and depicts Trump as an autocrat.
Inglis v South Carolina
In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced potential changes to the naturalization process that could present barriers to citizenship for 10,000+ non-wealthy applicants annually. Protect Democracy and several other organizations filed a lawsuit in California on behalf of the communities who would be harmed by the proposed changes.
In November, the plaintiffs asked a federal court to immediately ban USCIS from implementing changes until the pending lawsuit was resolved. They additionally asked the court to find Ken Cucinelli’s installation as the current acting Head of USCIS as unlawful and therefore making the changes invalid. The installation was allegedly unlawful because it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) that governs the process for filling vacant executive branch positions usually subject to Senate confirmation. The FVRA would also govern who will succeed Kevin McAleenan, the installed acting Head of DHS. Congress passed the FVRA to ensure the President could not prevent the Senate from utilizing Constitutional checks on Executive Branch appointees.
In December, a judge from the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring USCIS from implementing the proposed changes that would limit access to citizenship and the ruling went into effect immediately, on December 2.
Analysis
These court victories are a positive step in upholding the US Constitution and legal system in the face of Presidency with autocratic tendencies. In both Inglis v South Carolina and El Paso County v Trump, the emphasis on maintaining checks on the Executive Branch send an important message about American Democracy and enforces the notion that Americans will use the full extent of the law to ensure their rights are not infringed upon or abused.
President Trump has made several statements, carried out actions and used alarming rhetoric – in regard to immigration and other sectors of US politics – that contain rather autocratic auras. There are several measures in place, since the formation of the US as an independent, Democratic nation, to ensure the stability of a fair Democracy where no one individual may hold absolute power. The constitutions checks and balances system is designed power to limit any one branch of government from usurping the power of the other two brancges and the success of these court cases upholds this principle..
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.
- Protect Democracy: a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fighting domestic and international attacks to free, fair and fully formed self-government
- 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.
Photo by Paweł Czerwiński
The Global Effects of the US Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord
Earlier this month, the Trump administration formally notified the United Nations (UN) that it would withdraw the United States (US) from the Paris Agreement, which strives for an international framework to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
While taking this decision, it, of course, overlooked increasingly vital appeals and requests from establishments and stakeholders to take significant steps on the issues related to the global ecological crisis, and, at the same time, also coined a leadership and guidance vacuum in tackling the urgent concerns related with this global ecological crisis. The crisis poses a threat to humanity and scientists advise that it is necessary to limit the life-threatening harm from global warming such as increased famines, intensified droughts, forest fires, sea level rise and accelerating floods.
During the years since the accord was formed, several significant countries, including Brazil, China, Japan as well as India, have undergone fiscal, governmental, or political concerns, but none of these nations has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and, in fact, other notable emitters, such as, China and the European Union, have made it very evident that they still favour the pact.
US withdrawal from the pact won’t legally take affect until after the next US Presidential election. However, the Trump administration already has begun rolling back the emission reduction commitments made to the Paris Agreement by the Obama administration. This means that other countries will need to compensate for the gap in global climate change mitigation and adaptation caused by US policies.To ensure needed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions other foremost emitters like China and India will need to step up their efforts.
America’s exit from the accord also reflects the Trump administration’s trend towards non-compliance with global treaties. This attitude of non-collaboration is affecting America’s status, stature and eminence in the world..
In the future, even if America comes back to the Paris Agreement, the US status as a dependable and trustworthy global associate has already undergone impairment that will require time to restore and refurbish.
Photo by Alexander Kagan