JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Global Effects of the US Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord
Blog Post
By Rakesh K Singh
For the first time in two decades, Congress has approved spending for research on gun violence
Brief #22—Gun Control
By Ivan A. Moore
Congress Debates Modifications to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Despite Opposition; Congressional Bills
Brief #109—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Correcting Trump on Wind Power
USRN Blog Post
By Brandon Mooney
A Rare Moment: Democrats, Republicans and Trump Agree on New Trade Agreement
Brief #65—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Good til the last drop: Colorado river’s drought contingency plan
Brief #72—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
US Contributes to the Failure of Global Climate Change Meeting
Brief #71—Environment
By Brandon Mooney
Federal Court of Appeals Case Rules On The Limits of Obligations Of Colleges and Universities In Title IX Campus Sexual Assault Incidents
Brief #108—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
The Economy in the Swing States and Re-election Forecasts
Brief #63—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Supreme Court Greatly Limits Controversial Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
Brief #78—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
Tyson Timbs of Indiana was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover officer. The value of the drugs sold was just under $400. Mr. Timbs eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to house arrest, five years of probation and fined $1,200. Mr. Timbs paid the fine. However, the State of Indiana, relying on the state forfeiture law, confiscated Mr. Timbs $42,000 Land Rover vehicle saying that the car was used to transport the drugs which subjected it to confiscation by the state. Mr. Timbs filed suit against the state arguing that the confiscation was a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. Mr. Timbs won at the trial court and Indiana Court of Appeals level. However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed and the case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court heard the case and decided unanimously that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to state actions and sent the case back down to be heard again; thereby letting states continue to use civil asset forfeiture laws but likely with different motivations after this case. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the case decided at the Supreme Court is focused on the constitutional issues of the Eighth Amendment, the bigger question is the future of civil asset forfeiture laws in the United States. Civil asset forfeiture is controversial because the basic framework of the law permits law enforcement officers to take property if they suspect the property was used to commit a crime. Property owners do not have to be charged or convicted of a crime for the officers to take the property. There is a great danger in having this kind of scheme because it allows persons to be deprived of property without any legal safeguards to ensure that the taking is warranted. Yet, many states have civil asset forfeiture laws on the books because they want to use the proceeds of a crime and turn it around and maybe do something positive with the property. However, this rationale has been skewed because some states now permit the assets to be given to law enforcement agencies to help fund their departments. This creates a warped incentive for law enforcement departments who can simply decide to take what they “suspect” is property used in a crime and have it used as funding for their departments. This in turn leads to increasingly excessive takings of property of defendants.
Defendants are in a tough spot here because some states have required that defendants prove they have not committed a crime in order to get their property back. This is contrary to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Not only that but because defendants have to prove that they did not commit a crime they are deprived of the use of their property, such as a car in Mr. Timbs case, for the time it takes to prove in a court of law that they are not guilty of the crime, for sometimes months and even years. In the context of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines, this shows that under civil asset forfeiture laws defendants are being punished far out of proportion of what routine punishments would have been had the defendants even been convicted of a crime. Some defendants are never even charged let alone convicted and they still have to go to court to prove their innocence. If a defendant is ordered to pay a fine in accordance with the state law governing their crime, then the loss of their property seized is simply additional punishment added on top of what the state law requires. There is simply no regard to having punishments meted out in proportion to the crime committed. Taking Mr. Timbs $42,000 Land Rover in addition to a $1,200 fine for a $400 drug sale is clearly excessive. While civil asset forfeiture laws were not outright banned by the Supreme Court case it is clear that if these state programs are to have any usefulness going forward it is going to have to abide by the constitutional limits and limit the takings and keeping of defendants property to a reasonable and proportional limit. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group blog post on the Timbs v. Indiana decision.
- End Civil Forfeiture – non – profit group’s project to end civil asset forfeiture.
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.
Trumpian Economic Policies Likely a Factor in Growing Bipartisan Support for ‘Tax-the-rich’ Policies
Brief #34—Economics
Policy Summary
As President Trump continues his focus on securing funding for his border wall by any means necessary, some of the most influential democrats are working around the clock to help curb the damage caused by his policies by way of imposing new tax policies targeted at the nation’s economic elite.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has discussed the prospect of returning to a marginal income tax of 70-percent while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wants to impose an increased wealth tax of 2-percent on households whose net worth exceeds $50 million which would be raised to 3-percent for those with a net worth over $1 billion. Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a plan would lower the estate tax exemption that American millionaires enjoy to the level it was at in 2007, a policy GOP members have dubbed the “death tax.” In addition, Sander’s plan includes an increase in the tax rate to a maximum of 65 percent for estates with a worth exceeding $1 billion. The estate tax has long been a focus for Sen. Sanders. His stance on taxing the estate’s of this country’s top 0.2 percent recently drew comparisons to Republican president Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic “New Nationalism” speech of August 31st, 1910.
The idea of taxing the wealthy is hardly a new concept. It has long been floated by democratic political leaders and talking heads, particularly in times of economic distress. In contrast conservatives have clung to the notion that increasing taxes on America’s wealthiest will hinder economic growth. The anti tax rhetoric that has become a staple of the modern Republican party’s economic agenda gained considerable momentum during the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan began pushing the narrative that corporate tax cuts would spur economic growth. To his way of thinking, slashing taxes for corporations would allow them to expand and hire more workers, thereby creating wage growth for the middle and working classes and spurring organic economic growth that would allow these tax cuts to pay for themselves. Unfortunately, when this methodology proved faulty, Reagan was forced to raise taxes in other areas, ultimately a greater cost for the very people he and claimed that the tax cuts would benefit.
Analysis
One of the primary concerns regarding these policies built around taxing the economic elite so far has been the effect it will have on voters. According to Brookings Institution’s Vanessa Williamson, though, these policies have faired fairly well with voters on both sides fo the aisle. As she states “Recent surveys confirm that there is remarkably bipartisan public appetite for the Democrats’ new proposals.”
It is hardly surprising that such policies would quickly garner support among Democratic voters, particularly with the way that the party has moved since Trump rose to power. Candidates such as Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, whose rise in stature in the public eye has been helped by their steadfast focus on reducing economic inequality, have shaped the party and inspired a generation of voters who seem angry about the growing wealth divide that has only been aided by Trump’s economic policies. It should also be noted, though, that many conservative voters in rural areas have felt the effects of Trump’s flawed economic maneuvers, such as the farmers of the midwest and the factory workers of the rustbelt region and deep south who either lost their jobs or suffered considerable economic setbacks as a result of Trump’s tariff policies. Those voters have perhaps even more cause to be angry and to at least be open to the possibility of new policies that can help bridge the wealth divide.
On the subject of young voters, though, we should also not forget the millennial and iGen voters who will be playing a key part in the next presidential election. They won’t be looking at tax policies through the same lense as the generations of their parents and grandparents. These voters, for the most part, were never exposed to the mentality of Cold War era America when Reaganomics reigned supreme, an ideology built on pillars of anti-tax policies. These voters were shaped by the ideologies of thinkers such as Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Warren who have advocated passionately for reform and regulation regarding the world of high finance.
Politicians and business leaders on the right will likely continue their strong pushback against any talk of raising taxes for the wealthy, claiming such policies would hinder economic growth. A However there is much evidence that so-called a study by the However, there is much evidence that so called “trickle-down” economics does not work, including a recent a study from the Economic Policy Institute,
Democrats are not likely to stop pushing the narrative that corporations and our nation’s economic elite must be taxed and they aren’t likely to lose supporters over it. Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to justify his tax cuts for the wealthy. If there were ever a truly opportune time to campaign for a tax on wealth in America this is it.
Resistance Resources:
- The Economic Policy Institute is an economic policy think tank and conducts research and analysis on economic policies and proposals.
- The Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on matters involving tax, budget and social policy.
- The Brookings Institution is a a non-profit research organization dedicated to providing in-depth research on social policies.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by NeONBRAND
Federal District Court Judge Rules For Twin Immigrant Boys of Same – Sex Couple in U.S. Citizenship Case; Federal District Court Ruling
Policy Summary
Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks are a same sex – couple and also the parents of twin boys. Andrew is a United States citizen and Elad is an Israeli citizen and both men were residing in Canada when they married in 2010. (Gay marriage was allowed in Canada at the time and not the United States until 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case recognizing the validity of same – sex marriages). The two men decided to undergo assisted reproductive technology to conceive children. Donor eggs were used and with sperm from each of the men the medical procedure conceived a fetus which was implanted in a surrogate mother. The fetus resulted in twin boys named Aiden and Ethan who were born minutes apart in 2016. Andrew and Elad are listed as the legal parents of the boys and continue to raise both boys to this day.
Andrew and Elad soon went to the U.S. Consulate in Toronto Canada to apply for U.S. passports for their sons. However, because only Andrew is a U.S. citizen and Elad is not the Consulate asked for DNA proof that both boys were related to Andrew. The boys were tested and because of the contribution of each man to the reproductive medical procedure Aiden was DNA related to only Andrew and Ethan was DNA related to only Elad. Since Elad did not have U.S. citizenship, Aiden was granted U.S. citizenship and a U.S. passport while Ethan was denied. The two men then brought suit in the federal district court for the Central District of California challenging the consulate’s decision to deny Ethan birthright citizenship and a U.S. passport. LEARN MORE
Analysis: This is a unique case in that it is, on one side, about the determination of American citizenship for children born abroad, which is a hot topic in the current political environment that is debating the future contours of immigration to the United States. The basic framework for citizenship starts with children who are born on U.S. soil – if born anywhere in the U.S. the child has U.S. citizenship. If a baby of two American citizens is born abroad to two parents who are U.S. citizens, then the baby also acquires U.S. citizenship. Finally, if one parent is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, as in the case of Andrew and Elad, a baby born abroad is a U.S. citizen if the U.S. parent had lived in the U.S. for five years sometime in the past which Andrew had done. This should have qualified both twin boys for U.S. citizenship. However, the consulate erred when interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act and when it required a DNA test of both boys to prove familial relationship to Andrew. Biological and DNA tests of children are only required of babies born abroad when the baby is born out of wedlock. That was clearly not the case here as Andrew and Elad had been validly married in Canada and were listed as the legal parents of both boys.
What likely occurred in this case was that the State Department was dragging its feet in updating these immigrant and citizenship policies because, from another view of the case, their opposition to same – sex marriages and also opposition to immigrants having an easier avenue to U.S. citizenship. Aaron C. Morris, the Executive Director of Immigration Equality, has stated that blood or DNA proof of a biological connection of a child and a parent is not required for babies born abroad of even heterosexual couples and that the U.S. Government has lost three cases litigating this very issue since 2000. By creating a difficult situation for Andrew and Elad and their children, the Government probably wanted to have their day in court and hopefully get a court to rule that immigrants born abroad would require more definite proof they are U.S. citizens then currently required. This would certainly be a boost to a Trump Administration who is skeptical of more immigrants coming to the U.S. And it could have also helped the Trump Administration if the court could have ruled against same – sex couples and excluded those couples from additional benefits of U.S. citizenship.
But Judge John F. Walter’s ruling that both boys have had U.S. citizenship from birth demonstrates that immigrants will not be denied birthright citizenship by simply placing onerous, unnecessary and additional scientific burdens on them to prove their right to citizenship. Judge Walter pointed out that DNA and blood proof in cases like Andrew and Elad are simply not required under the law. Judge Walter issued a very good ruling on that issue alone but he may have also helped the cause of LGBT rights by showing that same sex couples in court will be treated on an equal footing in the law with traditional couples. It is an implicit message but the message that LGBT couples can bring their claims to court and be treated equally and fairly in a court of law as any other couple is simply another bright spot in Judge Walter’s ruling. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Immigration Equality – non – profit group advocating on LGBT immigrant issues.
- Out Right International – non – profit group advocating for human rights for LGBT persons everywhere.
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 Rose Elena
A Review of Trump’s Withdraw from the INF Treaty with Russia
Brief #58—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
On February 5, President Trump gave his second State of the Union address. Russia itself garnered few remarks during the speech, with Trump only referring to it in the context of his decision to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The President explained, the United States had “no choice” in the matter. Trump continued, “Perhaps, we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we cannot, in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.” He went on, disparaging Iran as a “radical regime,” and he stated that Tehran would never obtain nuclear weapons. Last week, NATO Secretary-General Jen Stoltenberg confirmed warning that US military forces would indeed respond to Russian breaches of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty via withdrawal.
Analysis
President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) elicited criticism from many quarters, including from Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev, the leader who signed the landmark agreement on behalf of the Soviet Union in 1987 with then U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Initially, the treaty sought to rid the US and Russian of land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and missile launchers. Eventually the result led to both sides dismantling missiles, with the Soviet Union demolishing 1,846 and the US 846.
Since 2005, Russia has approached the United States, on multiple occasions about jointly agreeing to withdraw from the INF Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed that the INF treaty did not fit his country’s demands in regards to numerous, perceived international threats. Moscow’s argument has remained much the same: they believe the treaty only applies to the two nations and not to Russia’s neighbors, such as China or Pakistan. In the past America has always declined. For years, The United States has accused Russia of violating the treaty with its Novator 9M729 missile. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo has recently said, “Russia has jeopardized the United States’ security interests, and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it”. However Russia has stated the U.S. is also in violation of the terms spelled out in the treaty due to the use of armed drones, ballistic missile target missiles used in missile defense tests, and the land-based Mk41 vertical launch system.
Many analysts have stated that without the INF Treaty, the U.S. may be tempted to return to producing intermediate-range missiles, potentially including nuclear weapons, in order to counter Moscow’s nuclear threat. However, many experts who support the U.S. allegations toward Russia have warned that rejection of the treaty holds substantial risks, for the United States and Europe. Those in support of the treaty claim that even a flimsy agreement still promotes limitations in the development and use of such weapons, jeopardizing the safety of numerous European capitals and military bases.
The Trump administration deserting the INF Treaty void of any discussed alternatives, only sets to undermine general world stability. Currently, without sufficient political will and desire from both Moscow and Washington to save the treaty, it is proposed to end in approximately six months. Without the precautions of the INF treaty, we may be on the brink of an unnecessary arms race, leaving the world in a dangerous place.
Resistance Resources:
- The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is a coalition of non-governmental organizations in one hundred countries promoting adherence to and implementation of the United Nations nuclear weapon ban treaty.
- Property of the People is an organization ensuring transparency and accountability for the Administration of Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States
- The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership is an organization dedicated to being a resource for those interested better understanding the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.
- Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament is a non-partisan forum for parliamentarians nationally and internationally to share resources and information, develop cooperative strategies and engage in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues, initiatives and arenas.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Erin Mayer, Policy Analyst Contact ErinMayer@usresistnews.org
A Peek into Trump Golf Resorts
Brief #63—Immigration
Policy
Trump Golf has employed a steady stream of illegal immigrants for years, but explained it away as the Trump Organization being a separate entity run by Trump’s eldest sons and having nothing to do with the President.
However there is no dispute that Trump’s “golf course was built by illegals,” claims a former employee. Supervisors have gone to lengths to conceal and shield illegal staff from being vetted by the secret service. Trump’s golf course employees have been part of a network of nearly 8 million unauthorized immigrants in the labor force, especially in the service sector and it has been sort of an “open secret” that unauthorized immigrants are a widely sought source of “cheap labor”. Employers in the service sector find that “undocumented workers often work the unpleasant, back breaking jobs that native born workers are not willing to do.” Many immigrants apply for jobs with fraudulent immigration papers or fake cards (like permanent resident, social security, etc)., yet are often equipped with an Individual Taxpayer Identification number that is issued by the IRS to foreigners to enable them to file taxes without being permanent residents.
Trump Golf has 19 properties all over the world, with 3 levels of membership and initiation fees begin at $200,000 (this increased by $100,000 when Trump was elected President in 2016). The original location was a 128-room mansion in Palm Beach that Trump bought in 1985 and turned into a private club in 1995; where annual fees now start at $14,000 with a minimum annual food spending of $2,000. In 2014, Trump made $15.6 Million from the club alone. All prospective members must be sponsored by an existing member and that member has to set up an appointment to connect the individuals – similar to the prestigious Soho House. Interestingly, there is no established comprehensive process for tracking visitors to the private club. Needless to say, a membership at any of the Trump resorts is financially only available to the extremely wealthy. There are currently nearly 500 paying members including real estate developers, wall street financiers, and energy executives, to name a few.
There has been no official evidence that Trump or the Trump organization were aware some of their employees were illegal citizens, but in 2018 the New Jersey club hired people who were in the country illegally and allegedly club managers were well aware of this fact. During President Trump’s campaign, he boasted about using E-Verify, an electronic verification system used to ensure that only individuals legally authorized to work in the US were hired. So how did this handful of illegal immigrants slip through the cracks? Previous employees said there was a two-tier system of employment, those who were legal and received benefits like health insurance and those who did not because they were illegal. Though on the surface, Eric Trump (President Trump’s son and the Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization) responded to CNN stating the organization was making a large effort to identify employees hired under false pretenses and terminate them immediately, citing this as an example of why his father is working so hard for immigration reform since the system is broken. Thus, in January, nearly a dozen employees were summoned to a meeting at the Westchester club and then fired – even some who had worked at the club for more than a decade.
Analysis
When Trump Golf originally opened its doors, it welcomed Jewish members, African-American members and gay couples who were banned from joining other Palm Beach clubs at the time, making for a geographically, religiously and ethnically diverse group – which seems a bit disconnected to Trump’s current policies. While the Trump Organization has gone out of its way to distinguish itself from the Trump White House, one cannot help but ponder the possibility that when it comes to business, exceptions are made to Trump’s routinely racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic remarks.
The individuals who have been recently released from Trump Golf – after many years – and chosen to come forth with their experiences paint a confusing and contradictory picture. Many are tired of the routine insults, neglect and disregard; while some account for normal and pleasant interactions with President Trump, even noting he is a big tipper. How can someone be persistently prejudice, yet turn a blind eye when it comes to business? Despite the lack of a clear connection between Trump Organization managers who were aware of employees hired under ‘false pretenses’ and the Executives (Trump’s sons) and Trump himself, it is plausible to think that those involved individuals just chose to turn a blind eye for the sake of the business. The reports that supervisors had gone out of their way to essentially protect their employees who could face dire legal repercussions for being in the country illegally makes it difficult to believe that Trump and his sons did not know.
Resistance 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.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by Michele De Paola
The Supreme Court Stands Tall for Reproductive Rights
Brief #50—Health
Policy
Last week, the Supreme Court took a stand against limiting reproductive rights in a recent ruling. The Court blocked a Louisiana law, in a 5-4 vote, that would have limited access to abortions in the state by only allowing one doctor in one clinic, in the entire state, to legally provide abortions. Liberal Judges – Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer were joined by Chief Justice Roberts in the opposition vote, while Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Alito were in favor of this law. The Louisiana law specifically mandates that all doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, as enacted in 2014 but was then struck down in 2017 by Baton Rouge Federal Court. This stipulation thus reduces accessibility to abortions in the state of Louisiana.
Analysis
One of the key reasons for challenging and blocking this law is to protect and promote both women’s health and their reproductive rights. This law would mandate the admitting privileges by the doctors, or they cannot practice, which has been highlighted as restrictive due to reasons unrelated to their competencies. Additionally, the law would then construct obstacles and burdens on the legal and constitutional right to an abortion. Obstacles include: reducing available clinics from three to one for the over 52,000 sq/mi of the state and requiring a single doctor to administer abortion services to approximately 10,000 women annually in Louisiana. By dismissing such a law reaffirms the constitutional protections of abortion, which were established through Roe v. Wade in 1973.
While this ruling is a step in the right direction, the ruling will likely be challenged in the coming term and many more abortion cases like this will make its way to the Court. The fate of later cases are still unknown, especially with Chief Justice Roberts’ unexpectedly liberal vote, compared to his last dissent on a similar case in 2016, and the recent appointment of conservative Justice Kavanaugh has shifted the court to the right, directly threatening Roe v. Wade and future reproductive rights’ cases.
- Resistance Resources:
- Planned Parenthood : Reproductive rights advocacy group that provided affordable and accessible health services to women across the US.
- National Abortion Federation : Advocacy group which respects women’s ability to make informed decisions about her reproductive health.
- Center for Reproductive Rights : Legal group ensuring the protection of reproductive rights for every woman around the world.
Contact:
This Brief was authored by Taylor J Smith Contact: Taylor@usresistnews.org
Learn More:
- https://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article225963845.html
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html
Photo by Monica Melton
The Pros and Cons of Withdrawal in Syria and Afghanistan Brief
Brief #57—Foreign Policy
Summary
Over the past three months the United States has begun the process of ending its military involvement in both Afghanistan and Syria. In December, Trump announced that Isis had been defeated in Syria and the United States would begin sending troops home immediately. Some US officials did not entirely back up the President’s statements. John Bolton insisted that the US would remain “as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias”. The Pentagon stated that they would “continue to work by, with and through our partners in the region”. Concurrently, the US has initiated talks with the Taliban to negotiate the withdrawal of at least half of the 14,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan. The meetings, held last month in Qatar and last week in Moscow, have both failed to include the involvement of the Afghan government, which currently holds roughly half the country. Pentagon Chief Patrick Shanahan has stated that there is currently no order to withdraw from Afghanistan, but any such actions would be fully coordinated with our allies. Both of these decisions have provoked a firestorm of controversy among both allies and opponents of President Trump
Withdrawal from Syria
Pros
- US involvement in Syria, which began with the arming of rebels in 2014 and grew into the military suppression of the development of Isis in the region has helped lead to the deaths of over 400,000 people and the creation of a humanitarian crisis
- Continued US presence in the region has been a destabilizing force, preventing the state from providing security to its populace and creating a hotbed of extremist militant groups.
- Trump’s intermittent proclivity for ending military interventions is somewhat of an anomaly in Washington, and despite his tactical clumsiness we may lose the chance for a withdrawal in the event of a change in political leadership in the near future.
Cons
- The US has no plan to protect the Kurdish people living in Northern Syria. The Kurds were an invaluable ally in combating Isis on the frontlines, and Turkey, a US ally with a history of repressing the Kurds, has been attempting to coordinate with Russia in the interest of enforcing its dominion over the region.
- The Pentagon estimated last month that 20,000-30,000 Isis forces remain in Syria, posing a significant predicament for the still somewhat weakened Syrian government.
- President Trump has neglected to lead a withdrawal with any kind of political settlement with the many actors in the region, surrendering any kind of leverage the US may hold in leaving Syria in a less fractured state.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Pros
- The United States has spent almost two decades and over a trillion dollars on the war, and has yet to defeat the Taliban.
- US presence in the country may be a galvanizing force for the Taliban. The group’s extremism, alliance with Pakistan, and primary association with the Pashtun ethnic group is alienating to many Afghani when not juxtaposed with an occupying force. Much of the persistent resistance to the Afghan government is due to its perception as a US puppet.
Cons
- Isis has been increasing activities in eastern Afghanistan and some fear that Isis fighters forced out of syria will join them
- The US wants to pull out on the conditions that the Taliban will join the government and the country won’t be used by independent armed groups such as Al Qaeda and Isis. However, many doubt that the Taliban is even willing to commit to working directly with the government.
- If the Taliban retakes power it may mean the return of harsh repression of Afghan women.
Resistance Resources
- Veterans for Peace – An international organization made up of military veterans, military family members, and allies, working to building a culture of peace, exposing the true costs of war, and healing the wounds of war. Read their statement on our withdrawal from Syria here.
- Codepink – A women-led grassroots organization working to end US wars and militarism.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Ahmed Abu Hameeda
Amid Record CO2 Emissions, Majority of Americans Demand Climate Legislation
Brief #55—Environment
Policy Summary
Research carried out by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that by the end of 2018 approximately 85% of Americans believed more funding should be allocated to research renewable energy sources and that 77% of Americans believed that CO2 emissions should be regulated as a pollutant. The data was revealed within a month of the UN’s publishing of the Emissions Gap Report for 2018, which found that unregulated economic growth and dwindling national efforts to combat emissions will result in the Paris climate pact’s goal of peaking emissions by 2020 not likely being possible until 2030.
Global CO2 emissions rose by an unprecedented 3.4% in 2018, amid environmental deregulation efforts by governments such as those in the US, Russia, and Iran. A new research article in Environmental Research Letters found that the emissions growth is likely to continue in 2019, barring drastic policy change from major CO2 contributors.
Policy Analysis
The United States is the second largest producer of CO2 emissions in the world, and is likely to suffer major damage to its economy and natural resources if proactive measures are not taken to curb the rise in CO2. NASA’s ongoing research on climate change has found that the continental US can expect more droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes, and that temperatures will continue to reach new extremes without meaningful climate legislation and enforcement practices in place. To date, the four hottest years on record were 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Yale’s findings on American perceptions of climate change and environmental policy could well highlight some of the most important issues facing congress and the myriad of 2020 presidential hopefuls. The research found that 70% of Americans polled believed that combating climate change is more important than economic growth, and that half of all Americans believe climate change is already hurting US citizens. In all, the study may well signal a shift in popular perceptions as to what role the government should play in regulating emissions, following the hugely unpopular attempts by the Trump administration to roll back over 78 environmental regulations, most of which concern carbon emissions.
Despite the desire for more meaningful climate legislation, the Yale study also highlighted the alarming disconnect between the American public and the scientific discourse community. It found that only 49% of Americans believe that “Most scientists think global warming is happening.” In reality, 97-98% of the scientific community shares a consensus that climate change is caused by human activity.
Engagement Resources
- Climate Deregulation Tracker: Columbia Law School tool for tracing legal attempts to roll back or eliminate climate legislation
- The Climate Mobilization: Volunteer organization seeking to curb the effects of climate change
- The Consensus Project: Organization dedicated to educating the public about scientific consensus and the scientific community’s stance on climate change
- Data for Progress: Research organization dedicated to highlighting voter attitudes
- UN Environment: United Nations program designed to map pathways toward sustainable development
This brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST environmental policy analyst Andrew Thornebrooke. Contact: contact@thornebrooke.com
Democrats Introduce Massive Election Reform Bill Aimed At Countering GOP Voter Suppression Tactics
Brief #76—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On January 3, 2019, Representative John P. Sarbanes (D-MD) introduced in the House of Representatives bill H.R.1 known as the For The People Act of 2019. It was the first bill introduced by the new Democratic controlled House chamber and it signaled many of the issues that would be prioritized by the Democratic Party. The massive 571 page bill contained a long list of new bills that covered numerous topics – voting rights, campaign finance, election security, super – PAC’s (Political Action Committees) as well as a code of ethics for the Supreme Court and a bill requiring future presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns among many other topics.
Specifically to voting rights, the proposals are numerous. The bill proposes requiring online voter registration, automatic voter registration, requiring same – day voter registration for federal elections, mandatory independent voting commissions to draw congressional districts, limitations on voter purges, a paper trail on voting systems to permit audits and even a ban on a state’s chief election officer from campaign activities if connected to a federal office. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The For The People Act of 2019’s voting reform proposals are some of the most significant voting reforms put forth in a long time. The reason why these proposals are now front and center is because they are a reaction to voter suppression efforts that have been underway for much of the last decade with many of the obstacles enacted by the GOP leadership in a number of states.
The proposal to require automatic registration is unique because it automatically registers a voter once they turn 18. If the voter does not want to be registered to vote than he or she must take action to opt out. This directly counters GOP efforts to bar voters based on “erroneous” registrations or to keep people out if the state uses an “exact match” voting registration system. The mandatory online voter registration also counters these kinds of GOP voter suppression efforts because registering online will be able to catch mistakes immediately and notify the voter right away. In some states, if there was a mistake on a paper registration, the state had no duty to contact the voter and could simply bar the voter from registering. The proposal to limit voter purges closely tracks this line of thinking because it is a proposal that gives the voter more control over their right to vote instead of having the state have final control over the voting rolls so much so that fraudulent and politically motivated decisions are being used by the state to decide who remains an eligible voter.
The proposal requiring same – day voter registration is also aimed at eliminating one of the tactics that the GOP have embraced to bar voters but also sends a message that voters should not and will not be turned away. Same – day voter registration has often been criticized because states claim they do not have enough time to validate a voter’s registration but this excuse rings hollow because a state can invalidate a ballot after the election if fraud is later detected. They would still be able to do this even if a voter who registered on the same day cast a ballot so there should be no problem in permitting the voter to register and vote on the same day.
Finally, the two proposals pushing for independent voting commissions to draw congressional districts and banning a state’s chief election officer from campaign activities speaks to trying to eliminate as much as possible the ugly partisanship that has become much more common in American politics today. The independent voting commissions are groups tasked with drawing congressional districts instead of having state politicians do it themselves. Politicians at times draw the districts with the goal of keeping a specific political party in power with the result that elections are not truly representative of what the voting constituency wants. The independent voting commissions would keep political partisan considerations out of the business of drawing electoral districts. And the last proposal is a common sense proposal and also a nod to the questionable election of Brian Kemp as Governor of Georgia in 2018. Mr. Kemp was at the time a candidate for Governor and also the chief election officer for the State of Georgia, creating a conflict of interest where his interpretation of rules could have swayed the election in his favor.
There are other voting proposals in H.R. 1 – making Election Day a federal holiday to give voters more time to vote, permitting colleges and universities as places to register to vote – but the proposals discussed are the most prominent. The bill has now been referred to the House Committee on House Administration which has jurisdiction over federal elections where hearings have been scheduled but have not begun yet. These are important proposals that are a good counter to the obstructionist tactics to bar voters that the GOP have employed in recent years and should be given strong consideration in order to strengthen the American political process. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – information about all voting rights issues.
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s blog post comments on the merits of For The People Act.
- Common Cause – voting non – profit group’s infopage on For The People 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.
Photo by Edwin Andrade
U.S. RESIST NEWS POLICY PROPOSALS FOR THE NEW CONGRESS
Our U.S. RESIST NEWS outstanding team of reporters and analysts have recently put forward a series of Policy Proposals for the New Congress. These are proposals, based on our work and experience, that we believe are important for the new Congress to enact to help move our country forward. They include the following:
– Civil Rights: A Request for Congress to Ask the Federal Communications Commission to Regulate the Use of Social Media
– Education: A Request for Congress to Enact Legislation that Reverses the Education Department Rollback of Obama-era Anti-Discrimination Policies
– Immigration: A Proposal for Congress to Mandate Improvements in Immigrant Translation Services and Practices
-Foreign and Defense Policy: A Proposal for Congress to Request a Reduction of $300 billion in Defense Spending
– Health Policy: A Proposal for Congress to Enact New Regulations that Protect Women’s Healthcare Rights
-Gun Control Policy: A Proposal for Congress to Regulate the Same of Guns
We urge you to review our proposals, and let us know what you think what you think at editor@usresistnews.org
USRN Civil Rights Policy Proposal for the New Congress: Congress Should Ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to Regulate the Use of Hate Speech on Social Media
By Rod Maggay
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” This clause has been interpreted to apply only to actions undertaken by the federal government, which later went on to include state government action.
This clause has become a vital focal point because of the widespread usage of social media accounts in today’s modern society. With more and more people using social media accounts and websites from the Internet that permit a personal user to post comments and interact with other users who post comments, an environment has been created that has allowed threatening, abusive, harassing and intimidating behavior to flourish. Topics and articles about politics and current affairs are the most common sites to find threatening, abusive, harassing and intimidating behavior although other topics and websites are not immune as they have had their fair share of these behaviors. At first glance, the obvious solution would be for the technology platforms to limit or ban abusive hate speech or even ask the government to step in and regulate the material that is being posted online with federal statutes and state and local ordinances. But both of these approaches have proven to be problematic.
Most of the major technology companies have tried to address the problem of hate speech on their online platforms by implementing policies that try to cover all potential forms of hate speech. Yahoo!’s Oath Community Guidelines prohibits various hate speech content that “directly attacks a person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, disease, age, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity.” The Oath Community policies also prohibit harassment, bullying, shaming, impersonation or the intimidation of others. YouTube has a similar policy but also includes prohibitions that “promote or condones violence.” Facebook and Twitter also have similar accounts although those policies have some ambiguity that makes monitoring and enforcement difficult. In the past year, many of these companies have struggled because they have been called on to censor some posts and tweets simply because the content has been deemed uncomfortable to a segment of users. These social media companies often tout their platforms as places where free expression can thrive but when social media companies have to monitor and censor online speech, it becomes harder to believe that the online platforms are true places of free expression. The problem in monitoring the content of speech online is that these tech companies and online platforms are becoming something known as “thought police.” This situation becomes tricky because it becomes probable for tech companies and social media platforms to censor and ban content that is uncomfortable and even unpopular but completely legal (such as content about American Conservatism, Black Lives Matter and criticisms of the State of Israel in the Middle East).
From a legal standpoint, hate speech is problematic because hate speech is constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. While tech companies, as a private group and not a government entity, are permitted to decide what can be published on their platforms and what can be censored without running afoul of the First Amendment, there is a strong policy rationale to encourage speech and expression of all kinds and minimize and reduce incidents where tech companies and social media platforms are censoring online posts, comments and speech. Every post that is censored or removed undercuts the argument that tech companies and online platforms are supportive and encouraging of free speech online. In the United States, hate speech in cases involving the Ku Klux Klan, funeral protesters and other groups have been held protected speech under the First Amendment. The only exception where speech can be prohibited is if it becomes likely that imminent lawless action is likely to occur as a result of the speech. This is the problem created by online hate speech. Hate speech posted online is simply something said online and does not seem likely to incite imminent violence because an online speaker is not in close physical proximity to another person where a physical confrontation could occur.]
A possible solution could be a campaign to emphasize the philosophical and policy justifications of the First Amendment and have Congress encourage the tech companies to tailor their policies in accordance with these First Amendment and Free Speech rationales. In Supreme Court case law, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was determined to “protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate” and that Free Speech is essential to “a free and open discussion in a democratic society.” As a proposal, a three – point First Amendment Free Speech emphasis campaign undertaken by tech companies or a Congressional committee could be tailored along these suggested guidelines.
- All of our online products and platforms are places that encourage every kind of free speech and free expression including speech and values we cherish and speech and values we find repugnant.
- We discourage all personal and group identity attacks. However, instead of removing these posts, we encourage users, if they choose, to respond with reason and fact – based arguments as a rebuttal to hate speech.
- We will encourage a zero-tolerance policy to speech that promotes an imminent physical harm to another person based on geographical proximity and only those posts and accounts will be subject to removal.
In addition, the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary can choose to get involved by utilizing the powers and jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Both committees can promote government involvement in this issue because both have subcommittees that has jurisdiction over constitutional issues and also over the internet and technology. Under the House Committee on the Judiciary are the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. And under the Senate Committee on the Judiciary are the Subcommittee on the Constitution and the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.
In an April 2018 article in The Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy, James Dail proposes that social media platforms should be classified as a public utility and regulated under the rules of the FCC. This seems possible since social media platforms, when acting to provide news to their users, can likely fall under the legal definition of a public utility because they “provide a necessary service to the public” and “operate as a monopoly.” The FCC also has jurisdiction over cable services. And, under the consumer guides section regarding broadcast rules of the FCC website, the Commission lists rules that permit them to “prohibit false information that causes substantial public harm” and “false content during news programs.” Under either jurisdiction classification, it is clear that there is an option for Congress to regulate social media platforms. Users on social media platforms with more than a minimum number of users (e.g. 10,000 followers) or those profiles classified as news or public service accounts would have to abide by FCC regulations or the social media platform would risk fines or punishments for not censoring or deleting accounts, as is the case under FCC broadcast and cable rules now. And those users under the minimum threshold of followers or not categorized as news would be exempt, thus protecting free speech rights of private individuals.
These three points and the suggestion of enlisting the FCC to take a larger role in regulating social media is just a starting point to start a discussion on combatting online hate speech that poses a threat of substantial public harm on social media platforms. The First Amendment and Free Speech was not meant to be used to remove objectionable content, censor unpopular opinions or favor one viewpoint over another. Free speech was meant to promote and generate more speech in the face of unpopular speech in the hope that reason and common sense would prevail after the merits of the speech is tested in the marketplace of ideas. It is understood that people may have varying expectations and even misconceptions about what Free Speech and the First Amendment permit and protect. But instead of going so far as to ban unpopular and even disgusting opinions online, it might be better to align online policies with how speech is treated in the real world, such as with FCC regulation of broadcast news programs and cable services and construct online policies along these lines to combat online hate speech that sometimes are promoted as news.
Based on this framework, online policies used by tech companies should be constructed in this manner as a foundation for future policies.
(In order to help move this important issue forward, citizens are encouraged to contact their Congressional representative working on the issues of constitutional free speech and Internet and technology. Based on the committees with jurisdiction over those issues, those members who chair the subcommittees are listed below along with their congressional website information.)
USRN Education Policy Proposal for the New Congress: Congress Should Seek to Reverse the Trump Administration Rollback of Obama-Era Education Anti- Discrimination Policies
By Erin Mayer
“…The administration is delaying our progress towards addressing the systemic challenge of racial discrimination, and it is allowing the disparities in the ‘school to prison pipeline’ to continue.”
- Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA),
ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Over the past two years, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has gone out of her way to roll back federal regulations, completely in tow with the Trump administration. Shortly after President Trump took office, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights released a statement to agency investigators. The memo stated that the office would no longer recognize “systemic” bias in regard to individual claims of discrimination in schools, but instead they hoped to roll through individual cases at an even quicker speed than the previous administration. For civil rights activist it raised red flags, but many were left remotely unconcerned. However, today, we now know this was indication of the agency’s overall future approach toward issues of racial discrimination and civil rights execution.
According to ProPublica’s examination of approximately 40,000 civil rights cases, a mere fifteen months after President Trump took office, the department of education, closed over 1,200 Obama-era, civil rights investigations, lasting at least six months each. The closed investigations ranged from issues from discriminatory punishments to sexual assault. Under Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, the policy changes had allowed the dismissal of over 500 disability rights accusations, by this past April. The changes from one administration to the next were night and day. Under President Obama’s administration nearly 70 percent of cases of discrimination toward students with limited English skills were upheld versus the 52 percent under the current administration. In general, the number of cases confirmed regarding the individualized educational needs of disabled students has dropped from 45 percent under the former administration to 34 percent this year. Sexual harassment and violence cases have also dropped by ten percent each.
Sadly, DeVos may be moving forward without much fuss as only 3% of Americans rank education at the top of their list of concerns our country faces. The silver lining of the year is that Democrats have assumed control of the House of Representatives as the result of this year’s midterm elections, for the first time in eight years. Democrats’ won the House, but the Senate and White House are still remaining under Republican power. Therefore, it is doubtful that there will excessive changes in policies carried out by DeVos. Nevertheless, with control of committee chairs, there is much anticipation of House Democrats utilizing their overseeing authority to compel DeVos to change direction in the upcoming year. In fact, a number of newly elected chairs have specifically indicated intentions to examine DeVos’ policies, using their oversight authority, giving many Americans hope the new year will welcome changes in how Washington manages education, especially the execution of civil rights for our children country-wide.
Americans can expect much debate over how DeVos has handled civil rights issues, primarily from Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia. Rep. Scott, a former civil rights attorney, has made clear his determination to clearly answer whether the Department of Education is upholding its responsibilities to defend the civil rights of students throughout the United States. Currently, Scott serves as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Previously, Scott has taken great initiative opposing the administration’s decisions on issues of racial bias in schools, overall civil rights and how investigations into systemic bias and discrimination have thus far been handled.
Under Scott, the House Education and the Workforce Committee should be expected and held responsible to look into whether state plans to implement the successor to Every Student Succeeds Act, No Child Left Behind and to make sure any modifications are complicit with the law. The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce should focus on rectifying the Department of Education’s disproportionate recognition, placement, and punitive treatment of students of color with disabilities in order to correct further wrongdoings of occurring in the future. Many civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, have argued that some of the plans implanted by DeVos do not live up to Every Student Succeeds Act’s protections for at-risk children. One can hope in times to come, the committees may hold oversight hearings correcting the department’s approval of, noncompliant plans. Without this type of input from the committees, the current administration could continue to keep a firm grip on the millions of historically marginalized children to a low-quality education. However, it will be unlike as with potential changes coming from House, states may no longer be able to overlook the obligation of accountability that hold all schools responsible for the performance of all children, regardless of race, background or disability.
There is no doubt DeVos is facing considerable pressure begot from oversight, but this does not necessarily mean that DeVos will handle issues of civil rights in our school systems any differently than she has in the past. Thus far the Secretary has kept on the path of her and President Trump’s agenda, regardless of public opinion or setbacks. The president’s very open support of DeVos’ decisions may bolster the Secretary of Education, but the change in the House, especially in respects to Rep. Scott’s mission, will undeniably shake up issues and leave DeVos in a position of heaviness, as if the sense of equality, well-being and education of millions of children depended on it.
USRN Immigration Policy Proposal for the New Congress – Mandate Improvement in Translation Standards and Practices for Immigrant Services By Kathryn Baron
Translators and interpreters play a critical role in helping to support access to justice and due process for immigrants by providing document translation services for legal declarations and assisting in interviews. Though most of these services are volunteer based and verbal translations performed in the moment to help clients in situations such as meetings with their lawyers and at interviews with immigration officers. In addition, to having a high level written and/or oral fluency, translators/interpreters are required to possess familiarity with language access standards and be aware of their client’s cultural background. While these factors are very important, it appears to be very basic. Translators must have a high level written AND/OR oral fluency – for documentation it would seem appropriate to require both.
In an October statement by Secretary Pompeo in regards to the migrant caravan, there is a sentence at the bottom noting that “this translation is provided as a courtesy and only the original English source should be considered authoritative.” Though legally the US does not have an official language, the top 2 languages spoken in the US have consistently been English – thus there was no need to protect it and make it an official language – and Spanish. Statistically, Spanish has remained the 2nd most spoken language in the US, but the debate about language is rarely about language itself but the people who speak that language. Coining the idea that English is the official language of the US has always been thrown around loosely and essentially been used as common law – which has made for some loopholes in bettering the translation services provided by the US government; or lack thereof. All translations into English can be considered authoritative – for example, a migrant getting their documentation translated into English during the immigration process. There is the option to translate documents from English into other languages, but it is merely just a tool that can be used online since “the English version is the official version” no matter the circumstance.
Despite what appears to be plenty of linguistic help made available, there have been many reports of migrants signing documents they do not fully understand under duress, despite a volunteer interpreter being present. In such a scenario, there are a few flaws and discrepancies between what appears to be available and what is available in practice. In theory, a volunteer who is only orally fluent in a language should at minimum only be allowed to provide services during interviews with immigration officials. However, for the level of technicalities involved in legal documentation, it should only be appropriate that a general legal and systemic knowledge is required in addition to written fluency. If none of these are present, and the translator is the only other person in the room who speaks the client’s native language, there is so much room for error. Without giving benefit of the doubt, the interpreter could be either (1) mis-interpreting or perhaps giving a very basic and inaccurate translation, without facing the repercussions or noticing their mistakes or (2) giving slightly different translations of the same documents than other translators. With this last theory in mind, it would be much more streamlined to have government and legal documents translated into the client’s language – most pressing right now, Spanish, America’s 2nd most spoken language – to avoid discrepancies and make the transaction a bit more official. To simplify things and leave less room for error, there could also be a more concrete set of guidelines for fluency and experience expected of the volunteers; i.e., to make up for different dialects, regional grammatical differences, etc. Many nonprofit organizations have been the backbone of lingual aid during the 2018 migrant crisis, especially upon the arrival of the migrant caravan from Central America. Some nonprofit organizations that have provided many volunteers along the US Southern Border include Translators Without Borders and Interpreters Unlimited (who provides translation services for federal agencies in all 50 states). There is no need for these services to halt, but rather be refined and used as a guide to put pressure on the federal government to implement branches of their own within the appropriate committees/groups (listed below).
A few ideas for how to make this system a bit more stable and reliable include; (1) among the volunteers, the requirements should be bolstered to include both written AND oral fluency, cultural competency, and a general legal knowledge or at the very least extensive experience in translating legal documents (2) within the committees listed below, there should be the capacity for such translators to have tangible, translated copies to review with their client(s) even if the English version is considered authoritative (3) within the committees listed below, there should be government officials with the capacity and responsibility to perform the tasks listed in (2). If the laissez-faire attitude applies to English being the US’s official language, then the same leniency should be applied to the languages that follow – at least for the top 3. Like mentioned previously, debates about language are often about the individuals who speak the language rather than the language itself. Thus, despite Spanish being the 2nd most spoken language in the US, growing xenophobic attitudes and Trump’s exaggerated criminalization of the migrant caravan over the course of this past year have only made this task harder. If an individual from a business owning family in Spain – who speaks Spanish in the most authentic form to some standards – were to attempt to emigrate to the US, it is not outrageous to believe they would be treated with more dignity than Spanish speaking individuals coming up through Central America – given the Trump Administration’s recorded and televised treatment of these groups.
USRN Foreign Policy Proposal for the New Congress: Congress Should Propose a Defense Budget Decrease of at Least $200 Billion By Colin Shanley
One of the greatest challenges of a progressive movement in United States is reckoning with the massive humanitarian implications of our foreign policy. The military industrial complex has, with bipartisan support, pursued an imperialistic program of perpetual international command over the political and economic conditions of other countries. In return for a consistent flow of wealth extraction and American dominance over the global order, large regions of the world have been trapped in cycles of poverty and instability.
A humane political movement has no choice but to devote itself to the untangling and disengagement of this authoritarian configuration, but an anti-war movement does not fit so neatly among such populist domestic goals such as universal healthcare and the Green New Deal. In the 1960’s and 70’s, a grassroots uprising built widespread dissent against America’s involvement in Vietnam, but much of this outrage was aroused by the thousands of young Americans being killed in an unnecessary war. The recent trend of war via drone strikes and proxy forces allows the subjugation and death tolls to remain overseas, far from the public consciousness of the American political system.
For this reason, the reduction of the Defense Budget needs to be the spearhead issue for a progressive movement hoping to incorporate humanitarian foreign policy with the rearrangement of the economic order of the United States. The 2019 defense budget of $674.4 billion, higher than the 2017 defense budgets of the next 10 highest spending countries combined, only raises the amount of money being spent on trillion dollar projects for still unreliable jets and Trump’s absurd dreams of space conquest. Even during the Cold War, defense spending never rose above $524 billion, adjusted for inflation. Reducing the budget is not without historical precedent, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama all left office with defense budgets lower than those they inherited. However, this wasn’t enough to counteract massive increases, such as during the ten years after 2001, and a modern progressive movement needs to call for more drastic cuts. The Right is often handed the opportunity of playing the role of the side opposed to massive deficit spending, but this is because deficit restrictiction mechanisms like the recently controversial “Paygo” rule only focus on mandatory spending and ignore discretionary funding such as the defense budget. By arguing that our current political order is set on spending the money that could fund strong social programs voters on these clearly inefficient and often immoral projects, anti-war activism can be tied directly to the immediate needs of American constituents, and work to delegitimize right wing demands to know where the money will come from every time the left wants to fix a problem. Conservatives must be forced into a position of having to explain why a new weapons program is more important than healthcare, food, housing, and education for Americans if the left wants to win on both the issues of foreign policy and the deficit.
Recommendation: Congress should propose a defense budget decrease of at least $200 billion.
Representative Committees and/or Member of Congress Advocates:
Congresswoman Nita Lowey, the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee holds sway over defense spending now that the Democrats have taken the house.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made waves insisting on the necessity of reducing the defense budget in order to increase social spending.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, known for her role as the only member of congress unwilling to vote in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists measure in 2001, has been a persistent opponent of rampant defense throughout her time in office.
USRN Health Policy Proposal for the New Congress: Congress Should Pass New Legislation to Protect Women’s Healthcare Rights By Sophia Adams
Recent threats from the Trump Administration have threatened the ability of women to choose the right healthcare options for their body. The policies currently in place in many states prevent women from accessing safe and reliable birth control and other sexual health information that is vital to their health and well-being. Additionally, the wording of many health documents and health centers condescend and shame women about health decisions because of religious imperatives around abortion. This policy should involve protecting a woman’s right to choose and empowering her to have access to safe healthcare options—especially around birth control.
Such a policy will greatly lower risks to women, especially poorer women, and empower our educators to hopefully have better conversations around sexual health and access to resources to young women.
USRN GUN CONTROL Policy Proposal for the New Congress: Congress Should Regulate the Sale of Guns By Sarah Barton
Owning a gun should be regulated like driving a car. Just like driving requires training and taking a test to obtain a license, guns should require similar regulation. To own a gun, you should be required to take a safety course and obtain a certified license.
Gun regulation can save lives. This initiative isn’t (shouldn’t be) polarizing or partisan. The idea isn’t to take guns away from gun owners but would require a thorough training and process that informs people about proper gun safety and restricts easy access to those who shouldn’t have guns.
6.3. What Committee should lead it: House Committee on Oversight and Reform