JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
In Support of Protests Against US Racial Injustice and Police Brutality
Brief—Op Ed
By Ron C Israel
U.S. RESIST NEWS stands in support of those protesting against racial injustice and police brutality in America. The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers is what set off the current wave of protests. But Floyd’s murder is only the most recent example of a decades long history of police violence directed at black Americans. As the protestors so clearly point out it is time for this to stop.
Coronavirus US and Global Update
Brief #74—Health and Gender
By Taylor J Smith
After the Memorial Day Holiday, where all fifty states had reopened in some capacity, the concern of a summer second wave looms. These fears are compounded by the National Institutes of Health announcement that warmer weather is unlikely to stop the spread of the virus, after previous hopes that the summer could provide some reprieve before flu season and a likely second wave.
African Americans Suffer Deprivation in all Economic Arenas
Brief #77—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
In every measure contributing to well-being African Americans experience significant deprivations.
Trump’s New Moves to Contain China: End Hong Kong’s Privileged Treatment and Withdraw from the World Health Organization
Brief #84—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
In another blow to U.S.-Chinese relations, Trump has recently announced he will begin the process of ending Hong Kong’s privileged economic treatment due to a newly introduced security law pressured by mainland China.
President Trump Engages in Free Speech Fight with Twitter
Brief #36—Economics
By Rod Maggay
on tweets emanating from President Trump’s verified Twitter account. On a May 26, 2020 tweet from the President about perceived mail – in ballot fraud, Twitter for the first time added a link at the bottom of the tweet that said “Get the facts about mail – in ballots” which was preceded by an exclamation mark in an oval. That signaled that there were other facts to the issue that were not mentioned in the President’s tweet
Senator Collins Faces Strong Challenge from Speaker Gideon
Update #2—Congressional Campaign Update
By William Bourque
Susan Collins has long been respected as a moderate and fair Senator her entire career, that is, until she sold out her constituents and voted for Brett Kavanaugh.
An Overview of Key 2020 Senate Races
Update #1—Congressional Campaign
By William Bourque
June 1,2020 The control of the Senate has been one of the key ways in which President Trump has wreaked havoc on the United States and our democracy, and the Democratic Party would like nothing more than to snatch it from the Republican’s hands this fall.
The Latest on Trump’s Tax Returns
Brief #14—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
The Supreme Court is set to determine the fate of Donald Trump’s taxes case by session’s end in late June. Condensed into one case for the sake of expediency are lawsuits filed on the president’s behalf against subpoenas from the House of Representatives and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.
California GOP Wrongly Takes Up Voter Mail Fraud Issue In California Lawsuit
Brief #123—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
In April 2020 President Donald J. Trump again claimed that mail – in ballots encouraged cheating and dishonesty with state voting processes. On May 24, 2020 The Republican National Committee and a number of other GOP groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California in an effort to stop California Governor Gavin Newsom’s May 8, 2020 executive order to send all California voters a mail – in ballot for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.
Trump to Begin DNA Testing Migrants
Policy Summary
The Trump Administration has recently declared that immigration officials detaining migrants who cross the border illegally may also retrieve DNA samples from these individuals. Their DNA would then be stored in an FBI DNA database known as CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which has been traditionally used by law-enforcing agencies to identify suspects for serious criminal offenses. CODIS was established in 1990 for law enforcement purposes and has been a “key tool for linking violent crimes” since its creation, according to the FBI.
It is unclear if this will apply to children who cross alone or asylum seekers as well. However, this shift in DNA collection changes the scope from criminal investigations to population surveillance.
Under the Administration’s interpretation of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, this is legal. The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 permits states to take samples from individuals convicted of state offenses, especially if individuals are arrested or detained under US Authority.
Analysis
This is not quite the same as when the Trump Administration DNA tested families in detention to prevent adult migrants from claiming kids who were not theirs. As this is essentially, population surveillance and p measures operating under the guise that illegal migrants are inherently prone to criminal behavior.
Engagement Resources:
- 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.
- 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.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
Photo by Arif Wahid
The Inequities of our Current Tax System
Policy
Short answer: the average taxpayer! The latest data indicate that only 7% of tax revenue comes from corporate taxes and 4% from excise taxes and tariff. The remaining 86% is paid by individuals, 50% in personal income tax and 36% in Payroll taxes. The FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) tax is capped at $132,900 (2019) and so is inherently unfair in that earners making more than that do not pay any additional FICA. Any recent decrease in personal income tax, for the lower end households, has been offset by increases in payroll taxes. Add to that the fact that higher earners are paying less personal taxes than ever and we can see the unfairness of taxation and the reason that our treasury is so in debt and our schools and infrastructure failing.
It is not just partisan politics which suggests that Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of December 2017 has aggravated the problem, it is “actual fact.” The highest personal income rate in the 20th century was 91% and it dropped, by 1980 to 47%, and is currently 37%. The wealthiest 400 households paid an all-time record low percentage of 23% in 2018. In other words, personal income tax has become “radically less progressive (Leonhardt). Corporate taxes fell 31% from 2017 to 2018, under the Trump reform, which reduced their statutory rate and also allowed for the full value of equipment purchases to be deducted. At least 60 of the Fortune 500 companies paid exactly NO tax last year. Some of these companies are well-known household names such as Amazon, Netflix, Delta Airlines, Jet Blue, Whirlpool, Eli Lilly, Halliburton, GM, IBM, Chevron, and Goodyear. Trump’s tax reform also ended deductions for state and property taxes resulting in a significant decrease in property values. Finally, the 4000 dollar pay increase that Trump said would hit the average worker never materialized.
Analysis
The manner of taxation is an integral part of a Democratic system. Even before the inception of the nation, tax structures were hotly contested. The northern colonies favored a more progressive tax than existed in Europe while the southern colonies were hostile to taxes fearful that they would undermine slavery. But history has offered optimism in that when there was a will to raise taxes it was accomplished. Today’s miserly tax code is directly due to reforms in Trump’s 2017 program. It has been suggested, by two UCB professors, that increasing the personal tax rate to 60% for the top 1% of households would increase revenues $750 billion a year. They also propose a minimal global corporate tax of 25% (see Leonhardt). These would allow for a much needed infusion of funds for infrastructure, education, and health care. Activist organizations, electoral pressures, and good media coverage can significantly impact the voice of fairness with regard to taxation.
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.nj.com/politics/2017/11/whos_lining_up_for_and_against_trumps_efforts_to_t.html
- https://www.commondreams.org/organization/americans-tax-fairness
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Rosalind Gottfried
Photo by The New York Public Library
Court Upholds Harvard’s Use Of Race As A Factor in Admissions Case
Policy Summary
On October 1, 2019 Judge Allison Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed the case in November 2014. The group had brought previous cases aimed at challenging affirmative action policies at colleges and universities around the country. In the Harvard case, the group alleged that Harvard intentionally discriminated against Asian – American applicants to the school in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That title prohibits discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funding. After a three week trial conducted at the end of 2018, Judge Burroughs ruled against all of SFFA’s counts and ruled that [1] Harvard’s admissions program was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, [2] that Harvard did not engage in racial balancing, [3] did not use race as a plus factor, [4] that other race – neutral alternatives were not available and [5] that Harvard did not intentionally discriminate against Asian – American applicants. LEARN MORE
Analysis
In this closely watched case, the district court issued a victory for supporters of diversity in higher education although the case is likely headed for a long appeals process that could very well end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. While that possibility is likely many years down the road, if at all, it is important to note the rationales for Judge Burrough’s ruling.
It is clear from previous cases that the Students for Fair Admissions Group and its director Edward Blum have wanted nothing but to discredit and dismantle affirmative – action programs around the country. In her ruling, Judge Burroughs was very careful in acknowledging that affirmative – action programs are “not perfect” and not meant to be permanent and showed that the admissions program at Harvard was constructed in a manner that was constitutionally sufficient. The “strict scrutiny” analysis applied to the program demonstrated that Harvard’s admissions program did enough to serve the interests of building a diverse student body and did not do more than was necessary to achieve that goal because race was used in a holistic fashion together with other non – race factors. And in all the remaining counts, she showed how race was never used as a deciding factor such as part of a fixed quota system and that the use of race as a “plus” factor still permitted the admissions committee enough flexibility to consider all other elements of the applicant’s application. In short, race, when used was constitutionally permissible according to the limits set by prior Supreme Court cases.
What also made this interesting was how selective the plaintiffs were in their use of statistical data while ignoring other facts that they found inconvenient to their arguments. As an example, SFFA tried to point to a Harvard recruitment program that sent recruitment letters based on PSAT scores. Those letters showed that Asian – American students received those unsolicited letters if they had a 1370 score while white males would receive those letters if they only received a 1310 on the PSAT. However, Harvard shot back that the letters are an invitation to apply to Harvard. Once a student enters the applicant pool different standards are used when reviewing an applicant’s application. And in another example, Harvard’s applicant rating system exposed SFFA due to the fact that their analysis omitted athletes and children of alumni. This led to accusations of SFFA trying to manipulate their statistics to fit their discrimination narrative. Again, Harvard pushed back and said that an entire review of the applicant pool was necessary and, more importantly, that their forthright statistical analysis showed that being Asian – American did not impact an applicant’s likelihood of getting accepted to the school.
Even though Judge Burroughs clearly demonstrated how this case was permissible within the limits of existing case law, the case will in all likelihood be appealed where it will be hotly debated more on a policy level than a legal one. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Harvard Admissions Lawsuit – webpage from Harvard about the case.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement from group on case with link to amicus brief filed by the ACLU on in support of Harvard.
- 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 Nathan Dumlao
President Trump Misconstrues Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right To Confront Accuser
Policy Summary
The Confrontation Clause contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted by the witnesses against him.”
On September 29, 2019, it was revealed that an anonymous member of the U.S. intelligence community filed an internal “whistleblower” complaint with the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) regarding a conversation President Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint triggered an investigation by the House Intelligence Committee. After the incident was exposed by the Washington Post President Trump demanded in a series of tweets to meet his accuser, the whistleblower who filed the complaint that led to the inquiry from the House Intelligence Committee. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the allegations leveled against the President are serious on their own merits – President Trump speaking with a foreign leader and threatening to not release $400 million in aid unless the Ukrainian President performed a favor in digging up dirt on potential 2020 presidential rival and opponent Joe Biden – one thing that got lost in the scandal is the assertion President Trump made in his September 29, 2019 tweet storm.
When President Trump demanded in his tweet that he deserved to meet his accuser, just like every other American, he was most likely referring to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the President, possibly due to anger and not being fully informed, misconstrued the true purpose of this constitutional right. The Confrontation Clause only applies to criminal prosecutions and helps to guarantee that a person will not be convicted without the chance to test the accusations made against him through cross – examination of the accuser under oath. While the incident of President Trump’s July 25th phone call is certainly troubling the House committee inquiry is not a criminal prosecution. Thus, there is no reason to require the clause to be applied to President Trump yet. In addition, the clause speaks to how an accused is to face the possibility of conviction for a crime and what is required during a trial in a court of law. The fact there is no criminal trial against President Trump makes his demands somewhat silly at this point. There is also the possibility that the President is demanding to know who the anonymous whistleblower is now in order to play the incident out in the press and to try to smear the person publicly in order to try to discredit his or her claims. But a constitutional right whose purpose is to ensure a fair trial for accused persons should not be used to support Trump’s political purpose in trying to smear a person, if that is his intent in wanting to know the identity of the whistleblower.
What is likely going on is that the President finally recognized the gravity of the situation he had put himself in – soliciting a foreign power to deal with a political rival – and lashed out in a similar manner that a person accused of a crime would react. While the consequences against President Trump can be severe – removal as President of the United States – what the President has demanded simply does not apply to his situation at the moment and confuses criminal procedure with political disputes which play out in very different ways. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Sixth Amendment Center – non – profit group dedicated to Sixth Amendment issues.
- Constitution Center – group’s webpage with background on the Sixth Amendment.
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 DXL
What Does the September Jobs Report Really Tell Us?
Policy
The short answer is not a whole lot and what it does show indicates some inconsistency with previous assumptions regarding jobs, wages, and the economy. The number of newly created jobs, in general, is lower than in 2018. Growth in retail workers has declined sharply when compared to the past eight months. Unemployment is at 3.5%, the lowest in nearly five decades. There are more workers, ages 25-54 working than in the previous twelve years. At the same time, manufacturing jobs are sharply down, with growth of only about 10% compared to the growth rate in 2018. Wages are largely stagnant and lower this year than in the previous six months. This is surprising since with nearly full employment wages are usually driven higher to attract workers. Inflation is not rising though it is expected to do so in current conditions. The gap between increased employment and stagnant wages is unusual. The Fed has dropped the interest rate to 1.75-2.0 (for overnight bank to bank loans) for the second time in a year after increasing it steadily in the post-recession years from 2015-2019. The Fed interest rate averaged rate .25 during the recession. This ostensibly is to give business investment a boost and bolster economic growth.
Analysis
These mixed features suggest the economy is cooling and potentially headed for a slowdown. If the pool of laborers persists in its decrease, wages should increase but with the current unemployment being low it has so far failed to do so. The slower rate in job growth seems compatible with low unemployment but the wage stagnation is cause for questioning the relationship between jobs and wages and to inflation which is expected to increase under current conditions but has not. Analysts suggest there is a slow downturn in economic growth and debate whether this indicates a coming recession or not, since the news is mixed. Trump claims the low unemployment as a win for his economic policies but the Democrats point to the decreases in manufacturing, perhaps tariff related, and the flat wage growth as indicating otherwise. The lowering of the Fed’s interest rate is aimed at sustaining full employment, controlling inflation at 2%, and constraining long-term interest increases. All of these impact consumer debt, interest rates, mortgage and credit card loan rates, and consumption. Some analysts suggest that the recent steep decline in retail workers is only partially due to bankruptcies and other wise may indicate an expectation of less consumption on the horizon. Perhaps the “real” truth is we are in unchartered territory and even the analysts are only guessing as to the consequences of the mixed factors in the report.
Resistance Resources:
References:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/upshot/jobs-numbers-for-the-optimists-the-pessimists-and-everybody-in-between.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/upshot/jobs-numbers-for-the-optimists-the-pessimists-and-everybody-in-between.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/eli-m-rosenberg/
- https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/010616/impact-fed-interest-rate-hike.asp
Photo by Aaron Burden
Trump’s Impeachment Investigation Gets Off to a Fast Start
The first full week of the Congressional Impeachment Inquiry is in the books. Unlike Robert Mueller’s tight-lipped investigation, information concerning the process and the president’s transgression has trickled out steadily. President Trump sits accused of withholding $391 million in military aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into political adversary Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have interviewed key personnel and subpoenaed pertinent documents in an effort to bolster the case for impeachment. Trump paradoxically admits to the substance of the allegations against him, yet denies any wrongdoing.
Kurt Volker, a state department diplomat familiar with the matter testified behind close doors on Thursday. He turned over a series of text messages from himself, William B. Taylor, Ambassador to Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the EU. The texts read like a dispute between diplomats over whether Trump was using military aid as leverage to dig up dirt on rival Biden. Taylor wrote Sondland via text on September 9th expressing his concerns, stating: [I]t’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.’’ Sondaland attempted to put his mind at ease by echoing Trump’s current position that there is ‘’no quid pro quo’s of any kind.’’ To further dispel notions of a quid pro quo, Sondland added: “The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.’’ Both of Sondland’s attempts to assuage concern over potential wrongdoing sound eerily similar to Trump’s current defense of his conduct. Casting doubt on these assertions are the text messages Volker divulged that reveal a meeting between Trump and Zelensky appeared conditional on the latter’s willingness to open the desired investigations. Volker texted Zelensky’s aide hours before the now infamous phone call between the two leaders; ‘’heard from White House – assuming Z convinces trump he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down a date for a visit to Washington.’’ Volker is mentioned repeatedly in the whistleblower complaint, which contends he advised the Ukrainian government how to ‘’navigate’’ Trump’s demands. For his part, Volker describes himself as a diplomat trying to solve a problem, but ‘’not fully in the loop.’’
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s Inspector General who found the whistleblower complaint ‘’urgent and credible, was interviewed Friday in a private session. Little in the way of specific detail has been made public. The substance of his testimony were the reasons why he found the said complaint ‘’urgent and credible.’’ Consensus amongst Democrats was that Atkinson was helpful in confirming what they knew of the complaint and in moving the investigation forward.
Over the course of the week numerous subpoenas were issued for documents related to Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who initially denied knowledge of, then confirmed he was listening in on the Trump/Zelensky phone call, missed Friday’s deadline to respond to just such a subpoena. The request was for documents related to the State Department interactions with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Ukrainian leaders. Despite a pledge to follow the law, Pompeo is currently stonewalling House Democrats under the dubious cover of protecting rank and file government employees.
In an unprecedented move, the Intelligence Committee served White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, with a subpoena for all documents related to the delay of military aid and all records of the call between Trump and Zelensky. The subpoena comes after two letters demanding the aforementioned materials went unanswered. ‘’After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction and cover-up’’ reads the letter accompanying the demand. Mulvaney has until the 18th of October to comply. The letter warns that failure to do so will be considered obstruction of the inquiry and can be held against Mulvaney and Trump.
This next week bears watching as a second whistleblower with more direct information is considering coming forward with a complaint. Gordon Sondland is also expected to appear before the House Intelligence Committee.
Photo by Connor Jalbert
Historic Decision Handed Down on Digital Bias From The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); Discrimination
Policy Summary
In July 2019 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handed down a series of rulings in cases that were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Communications Workers of America. The final rulings in the cases were not made available at the time. In September 2019 it was revealed that the set of cases had been filed against seven separate companies. Four of the companies that the EEOC ruled against – Capital One, Edward Jones, Enterprise Holdings and DriveTime Automotive Group – were age discrimination in hiring complaints. The three other companies that the EEOC ruled against – Nebraska Furniture Mart, Renewal by Andersen LLC and Sandhills Publishing Company – were for both age and gender discrimination in hiring complaints. The procedural rules of the EEOC now permit the companies to try to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs or continue to pursue the case in federal district court and further up on appeal. LEARN MORE
Analysis
These set of cases from the EEOC are significant not because of their age or gender discrimination claims but because of where the discrimination occurred – on the Facebook online platform. Attorney Peter Romer – Friedman said, “This historic decision shows that our civil rights laws apply to digital advertising and recruiting.”
What makes these cases significant is that for the first time civil rights laws protecting discrimination against a person’s age or gender are being applied to actions taken by a company in the digital realm. What these companies did is advertise company job listings with their companies on their Facebook website. However, when they posted the job listings they also used tools provided by Facebook to filter who could and could not view the job listings. Facebook’s design and user interface allowed the companies to target the job listings to only young males. The tools provided by Facebook at the time prohibited women and persons over the age of fifty – five (55) from seeing the job listings posted by the companies.
This is clearly discriminatory activity but for the first time the cases were focused on the companies and not the Facebook platform itself. The fact that Facebook has tools that permit a user to filter out certain persons from seeing their ads based on personal characteristics (race, ethnicity, age, etc.) had already been exposed in a series of articles in ProPublica and the New York Times. That led to changes by Facebook prohibiting discrimination in future online advertising which are slated to go into effect at the end of the year. But these cases instead held the companies accountable. It had not been clear under the law whether the anti – discrimination and civil rights statutes would be applicable to behavior and activities that take place on social media platforms. These cases from the EEOC now provide the first legal basis for civil rights and anti – discrimination laws to be applied to a person or company’s online or digital activities. It is a welcome first step forward. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – press release on the EEOC rulings in the seven cases.
- Communications Workers of America – union’s press release on the EEOC rulings.
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 Marten Bjork
Asylum Cooperation Agreement: What it Entails in Practice
Policy Summary
The US has recently signed a deal with the government of Honduras that would effectively allow US immigration officials to send asylum seekers from the US border to Honduras. Which means simply, that immigrants could be sent away almost immediately. The US entered into similar agreements with El Salvador (early September) and Guatemala (July).
The agreement with Honruas would apply to anyone but Hondurans because that would entail sending them back to the country in which they fled. Such an action violates a principle of international law, called non-refoulement. Similarly, a Salvadorian could not be sent back to El Salvador, and a Guatemalan to Guatemala. But in practice, this policy allows for migrants from each of these countries to still be sent back to any of these 3 countries that now have asylum cooperation agreements with the US, so long as they are not sent back to their nation of origin.
Honduras has one of the highest murder rates in the world, and the bulk of migrants fleeing Honduras and the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras) are escaping gang violence that has overrun the region. In the past year alone, more than 250,000 Hondurans have fled and crossed the US border filing protection claims fleeing [gang] violence.
These 3 countries have tiny asylum offices that would have nowhere near the appropriate capacity for effectively processing such large quantities of asylum requests.
Analysis
This new policy harkens a stricter enforcement of the Trump Administration’s attempts at safe-third-country policies in which migrants are encouraged/required to seek asylum in a country they pass along the way to the US. Through this new policy it is inherently possible that an asylum seeker from the Northern Triangle would just be sent to one of the 2 countries in which they are not a citizen.
Additionally, the Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hérnandez has been negatively tied to his brother, Tony Hérnandez for major drug-smuggling charges. It has been rumored his 2013 campaign was [partially] funded by $1.5 million in drug money for bribes and gifts for political supporters. While this may tangentially bode poorly, it raises questions about corruption, legitimacy, and ultimately credibility.
A senior official at the US Department of Homeland Security stated that this new policy would “allow migrants to seek protection as close to home as possible.” Regardless of the fact that this could mean roughly 26,000 individuals per year would be hosted by Hondurans alone, waiting for the completion of their asylum applications process – which can take years. Similarly, it is wrong to assume that some escaping such widespread violence would want to be sent back to the region in which they fled – just within different borders.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- 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.
- us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
Photo by Airam Dato-on
Purdue Pharmaceuticals Turbulent Dealings with the Opioid Crisis
The Case
The multiple lawsuits against arguably the biggest contributors to the opioid crisis, Purdue Pharma and the company’s founders the Sackler family, claim that both entities participated in massive false advertising. (Other companies targeted in the lawsuit include companies Johnson & Johnson, Teva. )Purdue should have known that their products weren’t safe or effective, yet they advertised their drugs were both. With this knowledge, company executives pushed addictive and ineffective drugs to the masses and therefore caused the current crisis the US finds itself in today.
This behavior by Purdue is not new, in 2007, Purdue and three of its top executives paid more than $630 million in federal fines for misleading marketing, and three executives were criminally convicted, each sentenced to three years of probation and 400 hours of community service. Nevertheless, it is being argued Purdue has continued their false advertising and this new case is requesting more fu8nds from the pharmaceutical giant for those harmfully affected by its products.
Settlement
Purdue Pharma has negotiated a new billion-dollar settlement with the state of Oklahoma to prevent it from going going to court in a large federal case next month. This conglomerate lawsuit is comprised of thousands of cities, states and communities who have been negatively impacted by the opioid crisis and are seeking to hold Purdue accountable. The tentative deal would relaunch the Purdue company under non-Sackler ownership, where the family entirely removes themselves. The newly formed company will be managed by a group of trustees and while the company will still exist, all Oxycontin profits will be used towards the settlement.
Though Purdue Pharma’s tentative settlement would bring some relief to communities, a growing number of state attorneys general are lining up against the deal. They want the Sackler family to pay far more out of their personal fortune, roughly $13 billion.
{UPDATE} Sep 16
On September 16th, Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This filling also includes a restructuring of the company into a for-profit “public benefit trust”. This trust would include more than $4 billion in treatment drugs to help members of the affected communities treat their addiction by weaning them off of opiates and reaching a life after opiates. The trust is intended to last for ten years. The anticipated bankruptcy filing, which could be worth up to $12 billion over time, occurred to avoid the onslaught of court cases that was on the horizon for Purdue. The sum of the $12 billion bankruptcy filing comes from the settlements paid by Purdue and the Sackler family to the communities and individuals filing suit, the larger the payout, the more money thousands of communities get to repair.
Analysis
Even with this bankruptcy filing, Purdue may not be off the hook, there are still current trials pending, in addition to the possibility that proposed settlements can be rejected. Federal Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain (NY) will have discretion over the case, specifically on whether or not the multiple states that do not agree with the settlement can continue with their lawsuits. Purdue announced that the bankruptcy filing is intended to “facilitate an orderly and equitable resolution of all claims against Purdue, while preserving the value of Purdue’s assets for the benefit of those impacted by the opioid crisis”.
Opponents of the filing and deal point to the findings by experts that the pay out would not reach the goal of $13 billion and that the company avoids true accountability by avoiding liability charges by a judge or jury. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the settlement shows the Sacklers’ “attempting to evade responsibility and lowball millions of victims of the opioids crisis.” There have been over 700,000 drug overdose deaths in the US since 1999. Officials are fighting for what they believe pays for those deaths and restores their communities to the healthy state before Purdue Pharma wreaked havoc. At this time, the fate of the company and the crisis-stricken communities, are still developing.
Engagement Resources:
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- To keep up to date on the latest opioid news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Photo by Dan Meyers
The Administration Joins Others in Concern Regarding E-Cigarettes and Vaping
The Policy
The Trump Administration announced a proposal banning flavored e-cigarettes and products amid cries for stricter regulation after the death of 12 people and a mysterious pulmonary sickness that has affected over 800, as of Sept 27, 2019. New York has already announced an “emergency executive action” to ban flavored E–cigs in the state, following Michigan. In Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker is instituting a state-wide sale ban tentatively lasting 4 months halting the sale of products and devices within and to the state. Attorneys general in multiple states, like Illinois, are investigating whether Juul , a leading e-cigarette manufacturer, violated consumer protection laws by marketing its products to teenagers under 18. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) slammed the makers of Juul for allegedly actively advertising to children and teens and for claiming e-cigs were safer than traditional cigarettes. The sleek and discrete styleon their products appeals to teens and young adults as both stylish and easy to disguise. The FDA has issued a warning and is ordering the company to correct its marketing, threatening fines and seizure of products.
Vaping has become increasingly popular and available, specifically with teens and young people. The purpose of vaping – also called Juuling after a top seller, Juul – and e-cigarette use is to act as a steppingstone on the path to quitting entirely. However, these devices have been used to go down the opposite path. Teens and young adults can start their “smoking” habit with these devices, though few proceed to actual cigarettes. Additionally, vaping is seen as a better choice to smoking cigarettes due to the removal of additives and chemicals found in traditional cigarettes. However,vape devices have an array of chemicals in their liquid concentrates, in addition to some containing THC. Vaping rates among high schoolers have increased by almost double from 2017 to 2018, translating to 3 million high schoolers using these devices.
Analysis
This proposed policy comes on the heels of multiple deaths and mysterious illnesses, but while nothing has been done federally, states are taking it upon themselves to stop this issue before it gets out of control. Supporters of holding e-cigarette makers accountable comes from the fact that teens and young people have been the demographic negatively affected by the products. The fear of children contracting an illness related to these devices has resulted in cries for tighter regulation, overhauling of marketing practices, and extensive research.
The issue with the marketing strategy of vape manufacturers stems from critics accusing Juul of intentionally targeting youth and young adults by producing and marketing flavors including mango, cucumber, and mint. Additionally, the products were marketed as a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes, when e-cigarettes contain substantial levels of addictive nicotine, compounded with the chemicals found in the vapor and liquids. Due to their newness, there is little known about the devices’ safety and prolonged effects.
Stricter regulation is supported by the fact that while the legal age to buy cigarettes is 18, or 21 in some states. However, the devices and products are widely available online and occasionally do not require proof of age. Moreover, there is little regulation on products outside of the big sellers, resulting in less knowledge about the contents of such products.
In response to the Trump Administration crackdown on vaping, Juul CEO will be stepping down after accepting a proposal to ban flavored products and stop all US advertising. There is an expectation that many more cases will develop in the coming months. There are supporters for the move by law makers to halt production and use of Juul products, but such a move is also met with criticism over the swift action of something that is seen as a minor issue, compared to the inaction of larger crisis like gun violence or the opioid epidemic.
Photo by Amritanshu Sikdar