JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Administration Proposes More Obama-Era School Lunch Rollbacks —Post Your Comments
Brief #68—Health Policy
By Taylor J Smith
Trump Gets Acquitted; Democracy Takes a Hit
The USRN Corruption Blog
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 # 12—-Trump Gets Acquitted; Democracy Takes a Hit
February 4,2020
Trump Expands Travel Ban
Brief #88—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
An Update to Brief 77 – Limiting Visas to Dependent Individuals
Brief #77—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Birth Tourism: An Update on Trump’s Visa Ban for Pregnant Women
Brief #86—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
US Killing of Iranian General and Its Global Regional Consequences
A Foreign Perspective
A blog series that looks at the impact of US public policies on other countries.
Blog Post # 3 US Killing of Iranian General and Its Global Regional Consequences
By Rakesh K. Singh
Week One Impeachment Trial Summary
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 # 12—-Week One Impeachment Trial Summary
Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Protections of US Waterways
Brief #74—Environment
By Jacob Morton/strong>
Trump’s Nostalgia for Old Dishwashers
Opinion Editorial
By Brandon Mooney
New Hampshire Law Placing Restrictions On College Students Right To Vote Poised To Become A National Issue For 2020 Election; U.S. Petition
Policy Summary
On April 22, 2019, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent out a message encouraging all Presidential candidates for the 2020 election to stand in unison against a recent New Hampshire voting law.
In 2018, New Hampshire passed HB 1264. That bill changed the meaning of who in New Hampshire is eligible to vote. With the new law, a person living in New Hampshire can vote in the state as long as they become “permanent residents.” If a person living in New Hampshire was not a permanent resident when they cast a ballot in the state, the person would then have sixty days to become a permanent resident. A person can fulfill this requirement by obtaining a New Hampshire driver’s license or paying to register their cars within the sixty – day window. The law does not explicitly address what would happen if a person does not fulfill the requirement of becoming a permanent resident after casting his or her ballot. However, absent the act of voting, residents of New Hampshire who do not pay their fees to register their cars can face a misdemeanor charge that is punishable by up to one year in jail. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
This bill in New Hampshire is highly controversial because it is targeted at young college students and is designed to deter them from voting in New Hampshire. The text of the law seems to only address the definitions of domicile and residents for legal purposes but an in – depth analysis of the law revealed that the law as applied would bar a majority of college students in the state from voting. What the law does is that it shrinks the number of people who can vote in the state by lumping non – resident college students in New Hampshire into a category that makes them ineligible to vote unless they decide to become “permanent residents” of the state. The previous framework of the law classified New Hampshire non – resident college students as “domiciles” in the state. That meant that they had a physical presence in the state (to attend college) and were allowed to vote without having to declare that they were permanent residents of New Hampshire. HB 1264 now bars “domiciles” of New Hampshire from voting in the state.
New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu signed HB 1264 last year but the law has remained under constant criticism. The bill is clearly seen as an attempt to target younger voters, who tend to lean Democratic, and bar them from voting on liberal causes in the state. One telling sign was that the bill was examined by both Election Committees in both houses of New Hamsphire’s legislature and not even mentioned by the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles. The bill is nothing more than a blatant attempt to prevent more liberal and younger Democratic voters from coming to the polls. But there is no conceivable purpose in barring students from voting. The college kids who come to New Hampshire and live there for nearly nine months of the year bring millions of dollars to the state in terms of tuition and living expenses so why not let them have a say in how their town and district is being run? Why not give them a say on important local issues that clearly affect them instead of silencing their voices? This was clearly a partisan attempt to give Republicans an advantage in a state by suppressing the votes of those who clearly could make a difference in a local or statewide election.
Senator Shaheen’s petition is also an attempt to bring light to the tactics of voter suppression that have become a technique employed by the Republican Party around the country, not just in New Hampshire. Her petition comes at the right time and is focused on the right people in order to shed light on an ongoing issue that Republicans should be ashamed they have adopted. Every one who is eligible to vote should have every opportunity to cast his or her ballot instead of seeing petty and technical obstacles thrown up in their way. By crafting her petition and sending it to the current presidential candidates of 2020, Senator Shaheen has helped make the issue of voter suppression one for the national stage for 2020 and not an issue that is isolated to just New Hampshire. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s infopage on New Hampshire’s law.
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s infopage on New Hampshire’s voting law.
- Let America Vote – non – profit group focused on voting rights issues.
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.
Pjoto by Emre Gencer
Does Trump’s Purge of the Department of Homeland Security Solve America’s Immigration Problem?
Policy Summary
President Trump recently carried out a purge of the senior leadership of Department of Homeland Security –in order to replace them with individuals who will carry out his reform wishes. President Trump and Stephen Miller, political advisor and architect behind Trump’s immigration agenda, are angry that changes are not being made fast enough to keep out migrants trying to enter the US at the Southern border. Miller believes that asylum screenings are biased and the interviewers need to tighten up and have less sympathy because too many people are passing the initial credible fear screenings.
Last week, DHS Secretary Kiersten Nielsen met with President Trump to discuss the US Southern border. After refusing to shut down the border – like many others, she found this request to be inappropriate and unnecessary – and she was forced to resign. Below her, was an existing undersecretary, Claire Grady who had been acting as Deputy Secretary since April 2018. So, according to law, she would become acting Secretary whenever Nielsen would resign; however, Grady was given her walking papers to leave around the same time. With Grady officially out of the way, Trump can and has instilled Kevin McAleenan – Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection – as the new acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Analysis
President Trump’s no shame attitude comes at a time when his actions are almost walking the fine line of cronyism – the appointment of personal relations to office to carry out a specific agenda. It was reported that Trump told McAleenan that he would pardon him if he ran into legal problems, but he has since denied it on Twitter. While he has legally dodged any repercussions as he has swapped out leaders to better do his bidding, it poses an interesting question: how much can he get away with in this purge and will he? Will he continue to find loopholes in the existing laws and exploit them to get his way – all while enraging a large chunk of the American public?
Trump’s effort to purge the senior leadership of DHS, just like his impractical and offensive border wall proposal, are not going to result in a more sensible border security system. Instead he should consider the steps like the following to make the border more secure.
- Renovate land ports of entry. The vast majority of illegal drugs that cross the US-Mexico border do so at “ports of entry,” the 48 official land crossings through which millions of people, vehicles and cargo pass every day. We need to make use of modern technology to monitor and apprehend drug cartels that dominantly pass through legal ports of entry despite what Trump claims This could include cameras, fixed towers and aerial underground sensors, and better detection devices.
- Increase border security personnel and personnel support at Ports of entry and elsewhere . This includes more screeners and polygraph administrators are needed, relocation and retraining for existing and willing border patrol members could also be an option if there is not enough funding to hire more personnel.
- Improve the US-Mexico relationship through improved trade, joint patrols along the border and responding to border violence, and coordination of interdiction efforts.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
The US Mexican border is facing increasing numbers of immigrants especially from Central America. Steps to increase border security, such as those outlined above, are urgently needed. But improving border security procedures are just one part of a much bigger need for comprehensive immigration reform.
Comprehensive immigration reform would marry increased border enforcement with legalization for unauthorized immigrants and the ability to bring in future workers needed by the U.S. labor market.
Comprehensive immigration reform legislation would:
- Modernize the U.S. immigration system by broadening pathways for people to enter the country legally to work and reunite with their families
- Provide an accessible path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
- Prioritize smart and effective enforcement that improves public safety, supports legal immigration channels, and prevents discrimination
- Support the successful integration of immigrants into our society
Congress sadly has lacked the political will to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. This is partly because there is split Congressional leadership with the House being controlled by Democrats and the Senate controlled by Republicans. But even within Democrats there are differences of opinion regarding how best to deal with immigration policy. More conservative-minded Democrats tend to focus on incremental steps they think could get done—like improved border security and fixing the DACA(Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and TPS (Temporary Protective Status) programs. More progressive-minded democrats favor a whose systems approach to immigration reform.
What the Candidates Propose
Presidential candidate, Julian Castro – former mayor of San Antonio and grandson of Mexican immigrants – has put forth various immigration reform ideas and have made them a key part in his campaign. Castro intends to reverse the Muslim Ban and reverse the wall spending thus far, decriminalize the act of crossing illegally, and end the Family Detention Policy. He thinks ankle monitors could be used as an alternative to detentions and deportations, so that migrants may live freely in the US while they await trial.
Photo by Spenser
TO IMPEACH OR NOT; THAT IS THE QUESTION
The Report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on efforts by the Trump administration to collude with Russia and obstruct justice (in the process) is complete. The Mueller Report points out 10 different ways in which obstruction of justice by the Trump administration occurred. (1) However, Mueller stayed clear from charging the President with obstruction of justice because of a Justice Department regulation citing that a sitting President cannot be indicted. (An absurd regulation by the way; no American citizen, including the President, should be above the law.)
What Mueller did was to toss the problem of what to do about the findings of his report in the lap of Congress; and while Congress can’t indict a President it has the ability to impeach him or her for what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Members of Congress are divided as to whether to try and impeach Trump or not. The pro-impeachment forces believe that it is the moral responsibility of Congress to take action against Trump’s egregious obstruction of justice offenses; that what Trump has done is a threat to our democracy and to let him get away with it will embolden future such actions by Trump or other Presidents, and move the country closer to an authoritarian model of governance.
Those in Congress arguing against trying to impeach Trump say it is a losing battle; that although an impeachment resolution may pass the House it will die in the Republican led Senate; that it will distract the country’s attention from the real issues that Democrats want to run on such as health care, immigration, income inequality, voting rights and climate change.
In our opinion it should be possible to do both things—-conduct an investigation into Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice that could lead to impeachment proceedings and bring a series of badly needed policy reform proposals to the voters. Responsibility for these efforts can be divided -with Congress carrying the burden of the impeachment process and the Democrat political candidates taking center stage on presenting the issues.
An impeachment investigation by the House of Representatives does need to proceed. And even if the House passes an impeachment resolution and the Senate fails to convict the President, the House will have fulfilled its moral responsibility, made an obstruction of justice case to the American people, and an impeachment resolution will be on the books. Trump will undoubtedly scream bloody murder and witch hunt but the evidence against him will be clear and strong, and be an a important factor affecting how people will decide to vote in 2020
But there is no reason why, while the House is conducting its investigation, the Democratic candidates on the campaign trail can’t focus on the central policy issues Most of them will go to as many states as possible talking about the need for better health care policy, comprehensive immigration reform, voting rights reform, gun control, and the need for efforts to combat climate change.
Using this two-prong approach the Democrats with equal vigor will be putting Trump’s immoral behavior and his abysmal policies or lack of policies on the ballot box.
(1) The 10 examples of obstruction of justice listed in the Mueller Report include: (1) Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn; (2) The President’s Reaction to the continuing Russia investigation; (3) The President’s termination of Comey; (4) The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him;
(5) Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation; (6) Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence; (7)Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation; (8) Efforts to have the President’s legal counsel deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed; (9) Conduct towards Flynn and Manafort and (10) Conduct involving Michael Cohen. (from Washington Post article: “The 10 areas where Mueller investigated Trump for Obstruction,” by Kevin Schaul, Kevin Uhrmacher, and Aaron Blake, April 18, 2019
Photo by Brianna Santellan
Trump Seeks to Ramp Up Oil Pipelines and Production
Summary
President Trump announced last week that he would be signing two executive orders in an effort to hurry construction of several oil pipelines. One of the orders grants that power to approve international oil pipelines to the Secretary of State. The other order is designed to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to deregulate the Clean Water Act, Section 401, effectively making it much harder for individual states to deny oil companies permits based on the effect of local water pollution they will have.
Executive Order 13867 seeks to grant the president increased authority in permitting or denying “construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure projects at an international border of the United States (cross-border infrastructure).” Furthermore, the order grants the Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, the authority to receive all applications for presidential permits concerning cross-border pipelines, bridges, water and sewage infrastructure, and “facilities for the transportation of persons or things, or both, to or from a foreign country.”
Executive Order 13868 seeks to ensure that “The United States will continue to be the undisputed global leader in crude oil and natural gas production for the foreseeable future.” In this effort, the order demands a single point of accountability in the permitting process to get rid of redundant studies or reviews, transfers the implementation of new clean water regulations to the EPA, and grants the Secretary of Transportation the ability to make new rules regarding the safety of natural gas infrastructure.
Analysis
The two executive orders are widely seen as an effort to limit the rights of state governments in how they decide to grant permits to dirty energy infrastructure, and overtly insist that the industries of coal, oil, and natural gas be propped up by better, government-directed investments.
Together, the orders are likely to help speed the construction of currently stalled projects including the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Constitution Pipeline, and the Pilgrim Pipeline, all of which face immense and growing discontent in the states in which they are being built. It is important to note, however, that despite the favorable stance given to dirty industries such as coal, oil, and natural gas in the orders, the real danger of their language is the expanded authority of the executive branch to dictate infrastructure policy across US borders.
Indeed, the clause in order 13867 allowing the president to effectively govern the use of any infrastructure along US borderlands including transportation and international connections could well see future use in the administration’s quest to lock up the US-Mexico border. Whatever the future ramifications for presidential authority, the oil industry has scored a moderate win in the legislation, and is likely to profit from the executive attempt to bail them out.
Engagement Resources
Supreme Court Examines “Worst of the Worst” Violators In Partisan Gerrymandering Case
Policy Summary
In 2010, Republicans in North Carolina won control of the state legislature and proceeded to draw the maps for the North Carolina local districts and congressional districts as required for the national decennial census. The maps were drawn to give an advantage to Republican candidates in the state. In 2016, the maps drawn in 2011 were declared unconstitutional as a racial gerrymander and struck down by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Harris. The state congressional maps were ordered redrawn but another court challenge was brought, but this time on the grounds of a partisan gerrymander. Partisan gerrymandering is when districts are drawn to give an advantage to members of a political party over another party.
In 2010 in Maryland, the state legislature drew a state congressional map that resulted in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District essentially being drawn in a way that would favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates for the foreseeable future. A legal challenge was brought and in 2018 a three judge federal court panel ruled Maryland’s state congressional map as drawn was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case as well as the case from North Carolina. Oral arguments for both cases were heard in March 2019 before the high court. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The big issue to be resolved before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether problems of partisan gerrymandering should be heard by the Supreme Court (and courts, in general) at all, and if so, if there is a workable legal standard that can be used to review partisan gerrymandering claims. The oral arguments on the two cases before the justices are instructive in this matter because they reveal how the justices might rule. While no one doubts that drawing state and congressional districts is problematic because of the potential for abuse and manipulation by the political party in power, there appears to be no clear consensus on how to fix the problem. The two most recent appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both pointed out that there are other options to pursue other than through the courts – state independent redistricting commissions, state Supreme Courts and state legislatures. This would seem to indicate that the conservative voting bloc on the court might instead prefer to leave the problem of gerrymandering to the political process to solve. This approach would probably leave voters with very limited options to solve the problems through the court system.
However, Alison Riggs of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina made an impassioned plea for judicial relief at oral argument when she said, ” We’re looking for situations where the parties are being treated differently and there’s a severe and long-lasting discriminatory effect on a disfavored party.” Justice Elena Kagan also pointed out that the focus should be on the “worst of the worst” violators who are manipulating the way maps are drawn. These two statements illustrate from a more liberal view that while not every unfavorable map should be deemed an unconstitutional gerrymander that there should at least be a limiting test that reins in the most egregious violators of gerrymandering as seen in the North Carolina and Maryland cases before the court now. Ms. Riggs even suggested a vote dilution test that could be used in the most extreme cases and one which would be used in the future.
There is no way to predict with precision how the court will rule in these cases but it appears the lines have been drawn. The conservative bloc on the court seems to prefer that voters address the issues directly with representatives in their individual states and to leave it as a political issue where courts will not get involved. On the other side are those who simply want to put a stop to the most extreme situations of gerrymandering that results in “long – lasting discriminatory effects on a disfavored party.” An answer will not come until sometime this summer but it does speak to the urgent nature of this issue that prominent Republican and Democratic politicians came together to urge the court to find a way to limit the abuses of partisan gerrymandering. It is now up to the Court to see if they can fashion a solution to a centuries long uniquely American problem. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s webpage on gerrymandering and work on Rucho v. Common Cause Supreme Court gerrymandering case.
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s webpage on redistricting and gerrymandering issues.
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 Wesley Tingey
President Trump Tries to Control the Federal Reserve
Policy Summary
President Donald Trump has spent his time in office in a twisted relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank, The Federal Reserve was established to be the guardian of our baking system, and to operate independent of political influence. However, President Trump likes to shape government institutions in ways that will serve his interests. This is hardly surprising, given his dislike of institutions in general, particularly those that do not immediately bend to his will without question
As of now, the Federal Reserve has two vacant seats on its board of governors who play an important role in how America’ s central bank conducts its business. Recently, Trump announced that he would be appointing two highly controversial figures to fill these vacancies. Failed Republican presidential candidate and pizza chain executive Herman Cain was his first pick, followed by economic commentator and far right talking host Stephen Moore.
There are significant reasons why these selections could raise eyebrows for those concerned about the traditionally independent Fed being swayed in a political direction. We will examine that in more detail in the analysis section of this report but as one might glean, the strong political affiliations of men such as Cain and Moore does not bode well for an institution that needs to remain independent and nonpartisan in order to properly do its job. Trump’s decision to nominate them was quick to garner opposition from both sides of the aisle.
Another aspect of Trump’s battle with the Fed is his feud over interest rates with its leader, Chairman Jerome Powell. Powell was appointed by Trump but unlike many of our President’s appointees in other government institutions, Powell hasn’t jumped at the chance to comply with his president. Recently, Trump called upon the Fed to cut interest rates, claiming that doing so would allow the economy to “take off” as he put it.
Adjusting interest rates remains within the power of the Federal Reserve , an institution that was created to operate without influence from the U.S.’ political system. President Trump has made it clear that he blames the Fed for hindering economic growth within both the U.S. and ultimately the global economy. If Trump’s history in the White House has taught us anything, though, it is that he is all too quick to blame just about anyone else for problems that can also be traced back to his own policies.
Analysis
Despite Trump’s constant criticisms, Powell has insisted that the Fed is setting its monetary policy without any type of political influence and he has no intentions of resigning. While that may be true, we are still facing the prospect of our nation’s central bank being controlled, even in part, by figures who have strong ties to one political party. While neither Cain nor Moore are economists or bankers by trade, they are both talking heads for the GOP and supporters of Trump’s economic policies. Moore first made headlines in September 2018 when he published an article titled Give Trump the Nobel Prize for Economics. It certainly isn’t hard to see why Trump would want to put the man who believes so strongly in his economic policies in such a position of power when it comes to financial system regulation.
To do their jobs properly, the Fed’s board of governors need to be able to remain completely apolitical in their decisions. Can someone like Moore be expected to do that? He currently serves as the Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, at The Heritage Foundation, an institution constantly hailed as one of the nation’s most influential conservative think tanks.
Trump’s selection of Herman Cain seems questionable for similar reasons. The former pizza chain executive ran for President in 2012 on the Republican Party ticket but he’s almost as well known for his attacks on the IRS, going so far as to call the American tax code the “modern version of slavery.” In Cain’s proposed “9-9-9” tax plan, the majority of our tax code would have been replaced with a 9% income and corporation flat tax. Both he and Moore have clearly demonstrated that they strongly favor the economic policies of the conservative parties and have never demonstrated the nonpartisan approach necessary for making regulatory decisions. Their appointment could easily serve to undermine Powell and help further President Trump’s economic policy agenda.
All this also serves to undermine the credibility of the Fed, a concept that could have further negative consequences for both the U.S. and global economies were it to intensify. Trump is not the first president to comment on interest rates and policies set by the Fed but he has made his bias more explicitly known than anyone before him. Many presidents have been hesitant to say too much regarding monetary policy as it can sometimes come across as trying to influence those who set it. Trump, however, has made no secret that he wants to influence monetary policy and he seems intent on doing what is necessary to remove obstacles that stand in his way. If Moore and Cain are allowed to take seats on the Fed’s board of governors, it will pose a serious threat to the system of nonpartisan decision making that gives the Federal Reserve its credibility. If it loses that, the Fed will not be able to properly regulate our financial system.
Resistance Resources:
Better Markets is a nonpartisan research organization that works to promote the reform of Wall Street and the support the public’s interest in financial markets.
Americans for Financial Reform is a nonpartisan and nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, and civic and community groups.
The Committee for Better Banks is a coalition of bank workers, community and consumer advocacy groups, and labor organizations coming together to improve conditions in the bank industry.
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon
Trump Roll Backs on School Lunches Leads to Lawsuit
Policy Summary
The Trump administration has altered the way children are eating lunch, nationwide. The State of New York claims today’s school lunches contain fewer whole grains, more sodium, and additional milk flavors in children’s meals. The official charge blames the U.S. Department of Agriculture for cutting back school breakfast and lunch standards without the typical, required public review and comment period, and in doing so violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit files by the states claims that the Department has disregarded federal dietary standards. The original rules were set in place by former first lady Michelle Obama, as part of her “Let’s Move!” campaign, in an effort to make school meals healthier. The “Let’s Move” guidelines set a limit for sodium, trans fats and calorie intake, while also promoting more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Analysis
In May 2017, during his first week on the job, the Agriculture Secretary, Sonny Perdue announced he would begin to roll back the Obama-era school meal standards. The Agriculture Secretary seemed to take the issue lightly as he said, “I wouldn’t be as big as I am today without chocolate milk.” Soon after, Mr. Perdue went on to allow exemptions from the whole-grain requirements, delay the sodium mandate and serve 1 percent flavored milk instead of nonfat. The Agriculture Department maintained that the guidelines, laid out by the previous administration, were not only onerous for the school system, but aided in higher costs and significantly lowered federal school lunch program participation. Advocacy organizations opposed to the recent changes, have claimed Perdue’s goal to “Make school meals great again” has, in reality, gambled with the health of more than 30 million students.
Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, has spoken out ardently against the school lunch rollbacks. Earlier this month, the Attorney General said, “The Trump Administration has undermined key health benefits for our children – standards for salt and whole grains in school meals – with deliberate disregard for science, expert opinion, and the law. My office will use every tool at our disposal to fight back against these shameful rollbacks and ensure our children are protected.” During her statement Ms. James went on to say, the Trump administration is “attacking the health and the safety of our children”. She pointed out that the poorest children would be the most affected by the negative changes. Currently, New York State has nearly two million children who live below the poverty line. “For many of our students, the meals they receive at school are the only hot nutritious meals they eat during the day. And access to healthy and nutritious food should never be determined by your ZIP code or your socioeconomic status.
New York is not alone in their public outrage. Other states that signed on to the suit include California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont and the District of Columbia. In addition, The Center for Science in the Public Interest and Healthy School Food Maryland, have also filed a similar complaint in Federal District Court in Maryland. Many critics have spoken out against the current administration’s abandonment of the Obama-era nutritional standards without doing any scientific research beforehand. By ignoring scientific results showing that healthier school meals can improve not only the overall health of the students but can also aid in school preparedness.
- Action for Healthy Kids fights childhood obesity, undernourishment and physical inactivity by helping schools become healthier places so kids can live healthier lives.
- Share Our Strength‘s mission is to end hunger and poverty in the U.S. and abroad, by helping low-income families learn to shop and cook healthier.
- Wellness in the Schools is a national non-profit that teaches kids healthy habits to learn and live better. WIT partners with public schools to provide nutrition and fitness education, healthy scratch-cooked meals and active recess periods for long-term change, shifting school cultures.
- The Center for Ecoliteracy is dedicated to cultivating education for sustainable living. The Center recognizes that students need to experience and understand how nature sustains life and how to live accordingly. The organization also encourages schools to teach and model sustainable practices.
- No Kid Hungry is a national campaign run by Share Our Strength, a nonprofit working to solve problems of hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world. The group is working to make sure children all across the country are able to get the food they need, every day.
Photo by Toa Heftiba
Trump’s Humanitarian Emergency at the Southern Border
Policy Summary
In response to the alleged humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border, President Trump has threatened to shut down the US-Mexico Border but has not given a definite timeline; he has just warned that if he ‘has to’ he is ready to do whatever it takes. He told Congress that if the Legislative Branch does not take immediate action to close what he considers ‘loopholes’ governing immigration, he will close all or parts of the border.
In a recent statement, Trump claimed that, ‘literally, in 15 minutes, we could make a deal on changing Catch and Release; changing the horrible asylum laws that are so unfair; changing visa lottery, chain migration…’ However, with that comes some potentially negative economic implications for US trade, so White House advisor, Larry Kudlow stated they are looking for ways to still allow for the border crossing of goods and services to help mediate those damages.
The new face of undocumented immigration has been Central American families, rather than single men from Mexico seeking work to send money home. In recent years, the number of young, single men emigrating to the US has plummeted and more Mexicans are leaving the US than coming due to economic growth in Mexico. The trend of family migration comes at a time where gang violence and poverty in the 3 Central American countries known as the Northern Triangle – Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala – are present. However, it is much harder to prove being a victim of gang violence than political or other types of persecution when seeking asylum, and poverty is not among the ground for receiving asylum.
In a statement Trump frames the need for his wall as a way of saving ‘countless Americans’ from danger. He claimed more than 76,000 illegal migrants arrived at the border last month and that they cannot just be released into our society as in ‘many cases they’re stone cold criminals.’ Trump uses words like invasion to claim there is an invasion of drugs and criminals at the Southern Border. He then begins to discuss his right as president to declare a national emergency and that of the nearly 5 dozen emergencies declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976, President Trump received praise and support from Vice President Mike Pence, Homeland Security Secretary Kierstjen Nielsen (whom he recently fired), Attorney General Bill Barr and numerous sheriffs and Angel parents (parents of individuals killed by illegal immigrants).
Additionally, Trump threatened to cut aid to the Northern Triangle by $450 million as he claims not only that the money is being ‘misspent’ but that these countries have arranged for the migrant caravans that have brought people to the US border that America does not want.
Analysis
If Trump cuts aid to the Northern Triangle, justice and violence prevention programs in these countries will be severely affected. All 3 countries allocate US aid money to target programs aimed at preventing violence, strengthening their justice systems, curbing extreme poverty and hunger, and rural and social development.
Already, more than $21 billion of US taxpayer money goes has been allocated to immigration enforcement agencies. The Trump Administration would like to hire more personnel to patrol the Southern Border which would entail even more taxpayer money; and this does not even include what he demands for the wall.
A better border begins with efficiency and accountability by the Customs Border Patrol and other border enforcement agencies. There should be more enforced limits on ‘warrantless’ authority that Customs and Border Patrol officials use to undermine migrants and overlook protections against unreasonable search and seizure. There should be accountability enforced among all individuals involved in patrolling the border, so there are less deaths by border patrol (re the fatal shootings, car chases, illnesses that led to deaths among minors, and ‘unknowns’) and consequences for such deaths if they are unjust.
In USRN’s next Immigration Policy Brief we will describe in greater detail the reforms that are needed to strengthen our Border Security and Immigration systems.
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 Robert Hickerson
White House Obstructs International Investigation of War Crimes in Afghanistan
Summary
This was not due to a lack of reasonable suspicion; the decision stated that “there is reasonable basis to believe that, since May 2003, members of the US armed forces and the CIA have committed the war crimes of torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and other forms of sexual violence pursuant to policy approved by US authorities.” What prevented the investigation from getting off the ground was the persistent defiance and obstruction of the United States government. In September, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that “We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.” On April 5th, the US government revoked the entry visa of Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor leading the investigation. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened “additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course”. Amnesty International described the decision as “a shocking abandonment of the victims” that “ultimately will be seen as a craven capitulation to Washington’s bullying and threats”
Analysis
While revoking Bensouda’s visa marks an increase in the recent level of direct interference in the affairs of the ICC, it falls in line with the US government’s longstanding attitude towards the institution. During the initial negotiations, the US threatened to withdraw troops from Germany to prevent the formation of the ICC. While in 2000 the US agreed to sign the Rome Statute which formed the ICC, President Clinton refused to submit it to the US Senate for ratification. The government has since continued to hold the position that the ICC’s oversight is not necessary for a country like the US which has its own independent court system. However, the failure of that court system to investigate abuses committed by its own government, including torture and wars of aggression. The Philippines followed the same path last week by withdrawing from the ICC to avoid any investigation of illegal killings as part of its war on drugs. By disrespecting the ICC, the US sets a precedent for more countries hoping to excuse themselves from similar universal conceptions of the rule of law.
Resistance Resources
- Amnesty International: A London-based organization seeking to fight the abuse of human rights worldwide through lobbying, reporting, and activism.
- Human Rights Watch: A US-based organization dedicated to researching and advocating against the cause of human rights.
2020 Budget Proposal Slashes Funding for Medicaid and Medicare
Policy
In early March, the Trump administration announced its 2020 budget proposal with controversial cuts. The proposal included a $1.5 trillion cut to Medicaid and a $845 billion cut to Medicare over the next 10 years. The main reason for cutting Medicaid is due to its connection to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which Trump and the Republicans abhor. Proposed budget cuts to the program eliminate extra Medicaid funding for states that have expanded the program under the ACA. Additionally, the budget proposal would give states the power to design their own Medicaid programs, including, controversially, allowing states to get a block grant or to introduce a per-person cap for Medicaid recipients. The proposed changes to Medicare are supposedly aimed to address and combat waste and abuse in the healthcare system, therefore making Medicare more efficient.
Analysis
This is a rollback of the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, which allowed states to offer Medicaid coverage to a larger share of low-income people. Trump’s budget proposal would cut federal funding for the expansion, forcing states to either drop it or foot the bill themselves, in addition to cutting payments to hospitals and other healthcare providers.
Lower rates proposed for Medicare services would force providers to charge the government less for services. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Overall, nearly all premiums, deductibles and copays would be left unaffected, but states would have the option of opting out of providing some services due to the lack of federal subsidies. However Trump’s proposed budget also could result in raising raise-out of pocket drug prices charged under Medicare Part D.
While the plan proposed by the Administration must still go through Congress, where it likely won’t survive, the initiation of this proposal, highlights the Administration’s disregard towards the American people’s health, and will surly leave those in the proposal’s crosshairs with negative feelings. The proposed cuts would dramatically increase the number of people without health insurance. While this proposal is being presented as a method to correct systematic errors, millions would be negatively impacted by this ego driven proposal.
Engagement Resources:
- AARP Campaign Advocating for Americans 50+
- National Patient Advocate Foundation-Advocates for and promotes action for supporting Medicare/Medicaid for underserved populations.
Photo by Kendal James