JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A Review of the Qualifications of Recent Trump Appointments
The Corruption Blog is a series of blog posts by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Blog Post # 14 A Review of the Qualifications of Recent Trump Appointments
March 3, 2020
Russia and the 2020 Elections
Brief #80—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney and Erin Mayer
The Coronavirus and an Inevitable Global Pandemic
Brief #69—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Trump and the Chaos of 5G Network Policy
Brief #11—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Democrats Unite
Ron Israel Managing Editor
U.S. RESIST NEWS
February 28, 2020
Trump’s Department of Energy Sits on Congressionally Approved Renewable Energy Funds
Brief #76—Economics
By Jacob Morton
How President Trump and Senator McConnell Have Been Reshaping the American Judiciary
Brief #114—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Trump’s New Budget Reviewed
Brief #67—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Betsy DeVos Proposes New Title IX Definitions
Brief #39—Education
By Ivan A Moore
Government Changes the Rules on Climate Change Data Collection and Reporting
The New York Times has reported that James Reilly, the Trump appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, has ordered a change in the way in which the government collects and reports climate data. Going forward they will use only climate models projecting the impact of climate change through 2040.
This order breaks from standard climate modelling as determined by section 106 in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 that claims climate predictions should be projected 25 to 100 years in the future. According to the same Time report, scientists have predicted that the most devastating effects of man-made global warming will occur after 2050 and that the rate of climate change will remain relatively consistent until then.
Reilly’s order signals that the USGS will use a ‘best-case scenario’ model that purposefully minimizes the danger and impact of anthropogenic global warming. The main target of Reilly’s order is likely the National Climate Assessment, which is produced every four years by a body of intergovernmental agencies in order to determine the broad consequences of climate change.
Policy Analysis
This policy change is seen as part of a broader push by the Trump administration to politicize climate science, and produce data that artificially minimizes the environmental, social, and economic impacts the public faces from the fossil fuel industry emissions.
Some sources claim that there may be legal challenges to this order to the extent that it could be countermanded in the courts due to the Global Research Act, which was passed by congress in 1989. The underlying legality of the order could be questioned if it violates the principles behind the United States’ climate research program.
The change to USGS policy squarely violates the Precautionary Principle, which states that when dealing with novel circumstances the burden of proof lies in demonstrating that those circumstances do not pose a significant risk. By limiting the scope of its risk assessment from 25-100 years to 20 years, the National Climate Assessment will be hamstrung in its capacity to provide a holistic risk-assessment.
The Precautionary Principle should be a keystone of Environmental policy in an age where the extent of the harm posed climate by change is complex and hard to predict, but Reilly’s order undermines the scientific basis on which policy can be made that protects vulnerable populations.
Resistance Resources:
New Changes to Health Care Rights Law Threaten Transgender and Nonbinary Communities
Policy
The Trump Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has submitted a major change to the administrative rule interpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This change will remove explicit protections for the LGBTQ+ community in healthcare programs and activities. Section 1557 was proposed by the Obama Administration intended to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination based on sex stereotyping and gender identity. The specific Trump change of the rule removes gender identity and sexual orientation under the definition and category of sex discrimination. Under the Section 1557 change the ACA still bans sex discrimination in the health-care industry, but defines sex “according to the plain meaning of the term” and removes any “excess” aka gender identity and sexual orientation, in accordance with a definition passed by congress in 1972. Such a change removes protections for those previously protected.
Analysis
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Trump Administration list 3 reasons for changing Section 1557. First is to alter the section so it “conforms to the law as written”, second is to reduce unnecessary spending by the OCR, and finally, OCR and the Administration found that rule exceeded the regulatory authority of the government.
Section 1557, as originally written, included gender identity and sexual orientation as a means of defining one’s sex. These attributes are not included in traditional definitions of sex. The Trump Administration argues there is no room for alterations in the meaning of sex and therefore gender identity and sexual orientation have no place, and should not be included as a basis for protection against discrimination based on sex. The administration views that the definition of sex in Section 1557 is more “powerful” than the way in which the word is defined in other parts of the Affordable Care Act, and that the government exceeded its authority when it broadened the way in which the meaning of one’s sexuality is traditionally defined. The Trump Administration sees Section 1557 as creating false interpretations of the law and “unjustified cost and regulatory burdens”.
The change to Section 1557 is expected to save OCR a significant amount of money from a reduction of grievances and court fees. Because fewer people will be protected fewer people can file claims; resulting in OCR saving money. However, it is likely that the real reason behind this rule change comes from religious rights support, a key following of the Trump/Pence Administration. The religious right takes a strict traditional male/female only as options to defining one’s sexual identity; and many do not recognize the right of people to have gay lesbian, transgender, and sexual preferences or non-binary sexual identities.
Critics of this new rule highlight the likelihood of increased discrimination and a decrease of willingness to visit health care facilities by these affected communities as core reasons for rejecting proposed changes in Section 1557. The risk of trans and non-binary individuals being arbitrarily denied services or voluntarily avoiding facilities due to fear will only result in negative experiences and health complications.
The proposed rule change goes into effect after a 60-day commenting period, which will begin once it is officially submitted to the Federal Registrar.
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- Human Rights Campaign : America’s largest civil rights organization, working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
- Lambda Legal : A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS through litigation, societal education, and public policy work.
- National Center for Transgender Equality : The nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people.
2020 Candidate Involvement:
- TX-D Beto O’Rourke: Advocate for same sex rights and protections against discrimination.
- CA-D Kamala Harris: Historically refused to defend CA’s Proposition 8, which would ban same sex marriage.
- MA-D Elizabeth Warren: Co-sponsor of the Equality Act, scores a 100% rating on Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard.
- IN-D Pete Buttigieg: Pledged to pass federal legislation making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, strong advocate for the Equality Act.
- NY-D Kirsten Gillibrand: Advocate for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, supporter of the Equality Act.
Photo By Denin Lawley
Amazon.com Prioritizes Corporate Profits Over Civil Liberties In Facial Recognition Fight
Policy Summary
At Amazon.com’s annual shareholder meeting in Seattle, two non – binding proposals regarding Amazon.com’s sales of facial recognition software – known as Rekognition – to government entities were placed on the ballot for a shareholder vote. The first proposal asked whether Amazon.com should stop selling the software to government entities until it concludes that the software does not infringe on civil liberties. The second proposal asked whether an independent commission should conduct a civil rights review on the use of the software. Amazon.com announced that the shareholder vote on both proposals did not pass with an overwhelming number of votes against the proposals. Some reports indicated that the vote against the proposals was as high as 98% against although Amazon.com has not released specific numbers yet. Although the shareholder vote was non – binding, the failure of the proposals paves the way for Amazon.com to increase sales of Rekognition to federal, state and local government institutions for use. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Facial recognition software is becoming an increasingly contentious issue in the U.S. The core use of the software – the ability to use public cameras to scan a live crowd of people (at sporting events, concerts or any large public gathering) and instantly connect with public databases (DMV records, police arrest records) to match people’s faces – raises privacy concerns and a lack of oversight of activities of law enforcement departments. Amazon had initially allowed police departments in Oregon and Florida to test the use of their software. Other cities began to express interest and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began a campaign to counter the widespread use of the technology. In May 2019, the City of San Francisco became the first city to ban their police department from using the technology. Soon after cities in Oakland, California and Somerville, Massachusetts considered similar citywide bans while the Legislatures in Washington State and California considered statewide bans of the software. (California’s bill eventually was aimed only at banning the software from police body cameras and was passed by the California Assembly in May 2019). On June 3, 2019 the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee requesting a moratorium on federal use of the technology.
With growing opposition, an approach aimed directly at Amazon.com was devised which would have Amazon.com shareholders take a direct role in sending a message to the company on the dangers of this technology. The two proposals could have sent a direct message to CEO Jeff Bezos to be more prudent and to take caution in selling the software to the federal government until a thorough analysis of the software could be undertaken. Sadly, both proposals failed with reports that shareholders overwhelmingly rejected the proposals. Had both proposals passed, Amazon.com could have sent a message that it places a high value on privacy and civil liberties but this vote instead shows that corporate profits are more important to Amazon shareholders. The battle now shifts back to the federal, state and local government levels and their options in trying to limit the spread and potential misuse of this dangerous new technology. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
- Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group podcast on dangers of facial recognition technology.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group info on facial recognition technology issues.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit’s group webpage on how facial recognition technology works.
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 Christian Wiediger
12 Dead in Virginia Beach Shooting
Policy Summary
A city engineer in Virginia Beach opened fire on his colleagues at the city’s municipal building on May 31st. The attack resulted in twelve deaths and at least four others have been injured. Police are still searching for a motive, as the employee who opened fire had worked for the city’s government for years and sent a nondescript letter of resignation via email hours before the shooting.
Analysis
Law enforcement officials were clear to the media after the attack had occurred that they were going to speak the gunman’s name only once, solely for identification, so as not to glorify his actions. Virginia Beach police disclosed that the suspect opened fire Friday and was shooting “indiscriminately”, without any clear targets.
Some were describing the suspect as a ‘disgruntled employee’ but he had voluntarily resigned from his position before the attack, and many employees described him as quiet and well-liked in the office. He was able to carry out these attacks with the aid of extended magazines and a sound suppressor. Both guns used in the attacks were purchased legally in 2016 and 2018.
Another mass shooting adds to the increasingly common acts of gun violence. It becomes less of a question of ‘if’ and more of a question of ‘when’ the next attack will occur. Each shooting calls upon Congress with greater urgency to tighten current regulations and restrictions on firearms in America. In the coming days there will be eyes on Congress’ next move in the ongoing battle for gun regulation.
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by Marshall Williams
Trump Declines to Join Global Effort to Prevent the Use of Social Media to Promote Violence
Summary
The horror of such an appalling act being directly broadcasted to so many people around the world provoked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron to propose the Christchurch Call to Action on May 16th. The initiative, which was also supported by India, Australia, Canada, Germany, and several more countries, as well as several tech companies, sought to prohibit the use of social media in support of violence. It suggested collective, voluntary commitments form governments and companies to prevent the production and dissemination of terroristic content on social media, while still being supportive of international standards of freedom of expression. It also specifically outlined industry standards for media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist attacks, and called for real-time review of live-streams.
In response to the call, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and Amazon pledged to update their terms of use, enhance user-report systems, advance technology to recognize dangerous content, and release regular reports on their efforts. The Trump Administration, however, refused to sign on, stating that “While the United States is not currently in a position to join the endorsement, we continue to support the overall goals reflected in the call” and that “We encourage technology companies to enforce their terms of service and community standards that forbid the use of their platforms for terrorist purposes”.
Analysis
Some, such as Adrian Shahbaz, a research director for watchdog group Freedom House, have warned of potential dangers that the Christchurch Call could pose to freedom of speech. “There is a tendency after large-scale, national security crises and terrorist attacks to overreact to the problem”, Shahbaz told NPR. “One of the ideas Jacinda Ardern mentioned was perhaps delaying any live-streaming. The fear we have is that we’re sort of sleepwalking towards a future in which all social media posts are filtered prior to being posted.” For better or worse, some of the Call’s signatories also already regulate speech in a far more restrictive manner than the United States. Under French law, individuals can be imprisoned for making supportive statements about terrorists or terrorist attacks. “However, most have identified Trump’s refusal to sign on as being due to his long-standing belief that tech companies are politically biased against conservative voices rather than any universal commitment to freedom of speech.
Earlier in May, Trump stated that he was “continuing to monitor the censorship of American citizens on social media platforms” and declared that “it’s getting worse and worse for conservatives on social media” after Facebook banned several far-right figures including Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. He also specifically demanded that Twitter unblock right-wing actor James Woods, who was temporarily suspended for using the hashtag “#HangThemAll” in response to the Mueller report. Trump hasn’t been quite so supportive of the freedom of speech of those who don’t support him, such as threatening jail-time for flag burners. There is certainly a need for a national conversion about the need for laws that address the responsibilities of social media companies with regards to extremist violence, but that also keep in mind the constitutional need to protect freedom of speech . Trump, however, does not have a real interest in this conversation, and would rather avoid taking action in preventing terrorist attacks to protect his own supporters.
Resistance Resources
- Freedom House – An independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world
- Love Aotearoa Hate Racism – A coalition of unions, migrants, community and faith groups which led an anti-Islamophobia rally last March in New Zealand to support victims of the Christchurch attacks.
Photo by Sara Kurfeß
More than U.S. China Relations are Threatened as the Trade War Continues
Policy Summary
Last year at this time, when I first joined U.S. Resist News, many of the political and economic headlines featured two popular terms-’tariffs’ and ‘trade war’. As Trump tariffs were levied on all matters of imported goods, the negative effects that they were quickly spurring became apparent and the outcry on the part of the industries rose up. These policies quickly spanned to affect the global economy and U.S. farmers were locked out of international trade markets and manufacturers were rendered unable to import the supplies they needed. Given all this, it stands to reason that most of the nation hoped the trade war would quickly be resolved.
Almost a year later, one of the most important aspects of the trade war has yet to be resolved-the matter of trade relations between the U.S. and China. While trade talks between Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were initially scheduled for some time ago, they were halted when the Trump administration accused China’s negotiators of going back on earlier promises they had made regarding legislative changes to their nation’s trade policy. China, on their part, accused Trump of not being realistic in his demands. Both leaders are scheduled to meet in June 2019 at the G-20 Summit but even if they agree to restart the stalled trade talks it will take even more time to reach any sort of resolution.
Trump recently increased the current tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imported goods and has made clear threats to impose the same on an additional $300 billion dollars worth. In addition, he went so far as to try and stop American companies from selling components to Huawei, one of China’s most prominent telecommunications corporations. Placing a company like Huawei on a blacklist like this will cause problems for the economies of both U.S and China. The latter was quick to retaliate with some tariff increases of their own on popular American imported goods. In an interview with CNBC, a Chinese Government official stated that China wanted to see the U.S. take action on their part before they would consider resuming trade negotiations.
Analysis
When he addressed the matter of further tariffs being levied against China, Trump insisted that the additional costs would be covered by the Chinese. That seems to be working out about as well as his promise that Mexico would pay for his proposed wall on the American border. According to a recent study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the opposite is true and that tariff costs have been thrust directly onto the shoulders of the U.S. companies who import the most goods from China.
This pattern is not new to U.S. economists. We saw it during the early days of the trade war when U.S. importers were forced to raise the prices of the products they produced. That caused sales to decline and workers to be laid off. The effects were particularly severe for America’s farmers and agriculture workers who were locked out of the global trade markets on which they depend to maintain healthy profits. The way it looks from here, rural America is once again poised to feel the worst of the trade war’s effects. Many manufacturers who employ large numbers of midwestern workers are being forced to close down plants and lay off employees. Two well known examples are General Motors and The Mid Continental Nail Corporation.
The negative effects for these regions likely won’t stop with job losses, though. Midwestern citizens are likely to see the costs of the consumer goods they also depend on go up. Both Walmart and Macy’s, two of the most popular retailers in the midwest have indicated that that they will likely be raising their prices on everyday products if Trump proceeds with the tariffs he has mentioned. These cost hikes, though, will probably not be confined to items like clothing and household supplies. Rural areas are also home to telecom companies that will likely find themselves unable to import the necessary supplies from Chinese providers. The transmitters and receivers that allow telecom providers to deliver their service to rural areas are primarily manufactured by Huawei. While large carriers such as Verizon and AT&T do not use Huawei equipment, many smaller carriers depend on it. If they are unable to import the products they need, they could be left with infrastructure that is already aging and degrading. Poor weather conditions could compel them to malfunction, causing significant problems for the entire region that could go as far as preventing people from calling 911 in the event of an emergency.
Since the trade war began, Trump has claimed that his administration’s tariff policies are beneficial to the U.S. economy. “Trade wars are easy to win” he proudly tweeted. As previously stated, though, overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Making it hard for U.S. manufacturers to import the supplies they need and for farmers to sell their crops in international markets is causing significant economic problems. Continuing Trump’s tariff war will only make things worse, particularly for those who were already struggling.
The midwestern farmers who are still suffering from the effects of the trade war were, for the most part, proud members of Trump’s base during his 2016 campaign and they are not alone. Last year saw the Mid Continental Nail Corporation of Poplar Buffs Missouri lay off vast numbers of its workers and Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs drove their costs through the roof. In Butler County where the factory is located, Trump received 80% of the votes. Perhaps these voters will reconsider who they vote for in 2020.
Resistance Resources:
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a nonpartisan think tank that produces research and analysis on international economic policy related matters.
- The Rural Wireless Association is a trade association that advocates for wireless carriers in rural areas and works to make sure their voices are heard on Capitol Hill.
- The Council on Foreign Relations is a nonpartisan think tank and research organization that specializes in matters involving foreign policy and international relations.
Trump Administration Proposes New Faith-Based Protections for Health-care Providers
Policy
The Trump Administration has announced an expansion of the Conscience Rule, allowing medical professionals to refuse providing or payment of services should professionals choose. The US Department of Health and Human Services has expanded upon its rule within the Protecting Statuary Conscience Rights in Health Care policy. The rule specifies that clinicians and institutions do not have to provide, participate in, pay for, cover or make referrals for procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds. Additionally, the rule provides protections involving advance directives that detail a patient’s wishes for care at the end of life. According to HHS the rule mandates that hospitals, clinics, universities and other institutions that receive federal funding comply with such rules. While this expansion is not a creation of a new law, the rule guarantees and mandates that the law and protections will be enforced.
Analysis
Rules like this one will pave the way for discrimination for countless demographics. The expansion of this rule undermines access to care for women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The oath taken by medical professionals instils a commitment to providing safe healthcare with no discrimination. Permitting such allowances puts the previously mentioned groups in harm’s way. Residents of rural areas will also be affected. Many rural area medical facilities are religious hospitals which prohibit procedures deemed “intrinsically immoral”. These procedures include abortion, preventative care for HIV or AIDS, providing naloxone, sterilization, contraception and assisted suicide, in addition to treating people of the LGBTQ+ community, all of which would fall into the category of “intrinsically immoral.”
Such a regulations ensure facilities comply by holding necessary funding ransom. If a provider decides not to comply with the conscience regulations, they face losing federal funding. The Office for Civil Right’s Conscience and Religious Freedom Division will oversee complaints of violated rights
While this expansion is focused on protecting the rights of the providers, it ignores the rights of patients based on moral belief, regardless of medical necessity. A major portion of Trump’s base, religious conservatives, find the conscience rule is key in protecting their rights. It can be assumed that this rule expansion was created to directly connect with his base amid similar court cases and the 2020 election. A person’s belief should in no way determine the services a patient should receive. By allowing this expansion of the conscience rule the Trump Administration is permitting the discrimination and harm of patients with impunity.
In addition to civil liberty organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, other opponents like San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera have all promised to fight and bring lawsuits against the expansion of the Conscience Rule, citing that the expansion will reduce access by vulnerable groups to critical healthcare.
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- The National Women’s Law Center : A non-profit that advocates for women’s rights through litigation and policy initiatives.
- Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provides affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
- Human Rights Campaign : America’s largest civil rights organization, working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
- Lambda Legal : A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS through litigation, societal education, and public policy work.
Photo by Aaron Burden
Democracy at risk
By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Originally published in the Boston Globe
For those of my generation — born before or during the World War against fascism and who’ve seen the victory of the West over Soviet totalitarianism — the idea that democracy would once again be at risk is almost unthinkable. But it is, and in the very place that claims to be the bastion of democracy, the United States.
Democracy is, of course, about more than having elections once every four years. It’s about systems of governance that give voice to everyone and put no one above the law. It’s also about the protection of basic human rights, including those of ethnic and racial minorities. But America has flipped around traditional concerns about the majority oppressing the minority: Now we have a different kind of minority trying to impose its will on the majority, in ways that the majority often views as infringing on its basic rights.
It is easy to understand the new fight: A vast majority favor some things that the minority strongly oppose, and the only way for the minority to prevail is to undermine democracy. The means justify the ends, so they seem to believe — even if those undertaking this assault against democracy make constant appeals to democracy and freedom.
The vast majority of Americans, for instance, believe that we should have more progressive taxation (not the system we have whereby the very, very rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those who work for a living); they believe the minimum wage should be increased, that access to health care should be a basic human right, that women should have control over their bodies, that there should be more stringent regulation of banks, that climate change represents a threat to our future, that the right to bear arms does not mean an unfettered right to have assault weapons that enable mass killings. A coalition of minorities in opposition to each of these viewpoints has succeeded in blocking what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is the right thing to do.
There are several elements in their attack. The first is intellectual: providing specious arguments in defense of the indefensible. An inheritance tax is recharacterized as a tax on dying, rather than what it is: a tax on passing wealth from one generation to another, in an attempt to prevent the creation of an inherited plutocracy. Or upending the language of “rights,” not noting that one person’s right to bear arms (assault rifles) results in the deprivation of a more fundamental, universal right — the right to live.
The second is undermining representation of those citizens likely to oppose, beginning with gerrymandering and voter suppression, but including making it more difficult and costly to exercise one’s basic democratic right, the right to vote. The United States is one of the few countries to have voting on a work day — making it more difficult for workers to vote; and some states have made matters worse by shortening the times polls are open and creating fewer and more inconvenient polling places.
The third is increasing the clout of money in politics, converting America from a system of one person, one vote, to one more akin to one dollar, one vote. Allowing unlimited corporate spending was a pivotal step.
The fourth is short-circuiting systems of checks and balances, when it is convenient for their agenda. While the separation of powers, with three branches of government, now under attack by the Trump administration, is critical here, so too is a free press, which President Trump has labeled as the enemy of the people.
When all of these fail, there is one more option: Tie the hands of government (or, to use Duke University historian Nancy MacLean’s term, put “democracy in chains”), so that it is near impossible for it to do anything. Better gridlock than allowing a democratic agenda to advance.
If we are to achieve an economic and social agenda that will lead to shared prosperity and societal well-being, we will have to first have political reform to restore democracy. It is also clear that it is nigh impossible to have sustainable democracy in a country with excessive inequality in wealth. Economic inequality inevitably translates into political inequality, and the resulting political power is then used to reinforce both economic and political inequality. An effective system of checks and balances requires a reduction in America’s current extremes of wealth inequality, where 1 percent controls more than 40 percent of the wealth.
Thus, economic and political reforms are intricately intertwined. There is hope: In earlier periods of our history, such as the Gilded Age, at the end of the 19th century, we pulled back from the brink. The progressive reforms of that era restored democracy and led to the creation of the first middle-class society in the world. While our democracy has been greatly distorted, especially by the power of money, people — voting — still count. It’s not too late. If enough of the majority turn out to vote, they can upend this undemocratic domination of the minority, and, rewriting the rules of our economy and our democracy, restore the democratic values for which America was once the beacon.
Trump & Kushner Propose Merit Based Visas
Policy Summary
President Trump recently announced a tentative immigration proposal spearheaded by Jared Kushner, his senior advisor and son-in-law. While there are no concrete courses of action outlined in the proposal, the idea is to revamp the visa system and redistribute annual visas based on ‘merit.’ Kushner and Trump want to recruit ‘top talent’ and judge grant visas to individuals with high employability like language capacity and education. Roughly 1 million people receive visas in the US per year and 12% of them are granted based on Trump’s definition of ‘merit.’ Whereas nearly 66% of green cards are issued to those with family ties – First Lady included. The White House wants to flip this distribution without lowering the overall number of visas granted in attempts to limit chain migration – a practice in which individuals are granted citizenship after a certain amount of time being sponsored by a US citizen who often has a familial tie in some capacity – and promote talent based immigration.
This proposal has not been wildly popular among either Party for various reasons. There is a lack of actual structure and identifiable plans within the proposal to turn it into law and it makes no mention of the existing immigrants who live here illegally or the reduction of immigration rates, which Conservatives eagerly await. Democrats see a huge gap in the proposal as it also fails to address a plan of action for DACA recipients, or ‘Dreamers’ as they are affectionately called. Trump had previously wanted to end the program and his lack of acknowledgement of existing immigration matters has left many on Capitol Hill weary, frustrated, and ultimately confused.
Analysis
In his speech, Trump claimed the plan was ‘pro-American, pro-immigrant and pro-worker’ and that the existing system discriminates against ‘genius’ and excessively favors family migration. While, this may seem like a trivial sentiment, it is a rather confusing statement given previous rhetoric surrounding immigration. In the context of the Trump Administration’s previous negative attitudes towards immigration, ‘pro-American’ and ‘pro-immigrant’ come off as contradictory statements.
Nancy Pelosi and many others agree that ‘merit’ is a condescending, umbrella term that could imply those who immigrated with family ties, illegally, or to work blue-collar jobs lack the credibility and respect individuals with ‘merit’ should receive. While, it is in every nation’s best interest to grant visas to individuals who may contribute to its economy, overlooking several components to immigration by overly focusing/selling employability based visas is not exactly a solution to existing issues either. Perhaps, rather than an ambitious switch of the distribution of visas, it is more practical to aim to increase the number of ‘merit’ visas without making it the majority.
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 David Everett Strickler
Is Discrimination Against the LGBQT Community Real?
Policy Summary
On March 13, 2019 Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced the Equality Act bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in various public accommodations and civil activities. Specifically, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity are classified among prohibited categories of discrimination and segregation. On May 17, 2019, the bill was passed in the House of Representatives by a 236 – 173 vote. The bill will now be sent to the U.S. Senate and if it passes there to the White House where it would need to be signed by the President to become law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: Human Rights Campaign called the passage of the Equality Act in the House of Representatives a historic achievement due to the fact that it is the first act passed by a house of Congress that is focused predominately on the LBGQT community. However, most Republicans in the House objected to the bill (eight Republicans switched their votes and voted to approve the bill) because of a number of criticisms. Chief among them was their claim that a bill of this nature would infringe on their religious beliefs while other more skeptical claims were put forth – elimination of women’s rights and the claim that Americans are already “tolerant.”
But is discrimination among the LGBQT community so pervasive that legislation is needed? Was Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) correct in stating that Americans are already tolerant of gays and lesbians? According to polls conducted by Human Rights Campaign, nearly two – thirds of LGBQT Americans reported incidents of discrimination. And there are currently thirty states that have no state laws that a LGBQT person could rely on to protect their job, their search for a home or in being denied a service if a business agent or employer made a negative decision because of their sexual identity or intimate personal relationship. This law would fill in the gaps of coverage nationwide and ensure that LGBQT persons would be protected from instances of discrimination that appears to be more prevalent than previously reported. Senator Mike Lee’s claim that Americans are already “tolerant” ignores the fact that LGBQT discrimination still occurs at an alarming rate and his statement even implies that LGBQT persons are not worthy enough to have their claims heard in court. An incident of LGBQT discrimination is not less deserving than any other legal complaint and deserves a chance to be heard in court and remedied in an appropriate manner.
The other criticism of this bill refers to an argument that religious groups have been trying to rely on in a number of recent cases. Religious groups often point to the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion. They claim that as Christians their religious beliefs do not permit them to accept same – sex marriage and homosexuality and so any bill that legitimizes these issues forces them to betray their religious beliefs. However, their argument shows that these religious groups are simply using religion as a way to deny LGBQT persons the chance to participate in normal society as ordinary and accepted citizens. A LGBQT person could be denied the chance to marry a person of their choice, denied from adopting and raising children of their own and generally denied from living their lives in the manner that they choose. This religious freedom argument was famously debunked by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado when he said that it was one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric when one uses his religion to hurt others. That seems to be the case here with those who object to the Equality Act on religious grounds.
The Equality Act appears to provide more protections for those who want nothing more than to participate in American society without having to suffer because of private life choices they’ve made. For that reason, the bill is a positive enactment and the U.S. Senate and the President should put aside their silly objections and self – serving criticisms and pave the way for the bill to be enacted into law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Human Rights Campaign – non – profit group’s statement on Equality Act.
- Equality Federation – non – profit group advocating for LGBQT people to have a fair opportunity to thrive and provide for themselves in this country.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s blogpost on the Equality Act.
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.