Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Jobs01 e1489352304814
The Supreme Court Stands Tall for Reproductive Rights

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:

Photo by Monica Melton

Donate

The Pros and Cons of Withdrawal in Syria and Afghanistan Brief

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

Donate

Photo by unsplash-logoAhmed Abu Hameeda

Amid Record CO2 Emissions, Majority of Americans Demand Climate Legislation

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

Donate

Democrats Introduce Massive Election Reform Bill Aimed At Countering GOP Voter Suppression Tactics

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:

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

Donate

U.S. RESIST NEWS POLICY PROPOSALS FOR THE NEW CONGRESS

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

The Venezuela Crisis Explained

The Venezuela Crisis Explained

Brief #56—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
On January 23rd, Venezuelan lawmaker Juan Guaido surged from relative obscurity to the focus of international attention when he declared himself the interim President of the crisis ridden nation. Just weeks before, Guaido was appointed the leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, the legislative body representing the opposition to President Nicolas Maduro. Guaido’s Presidential legitimacy was immediately recognized by President Trump, after Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro similarly declared his recognition five days before Guaido even made the pronouncement himself. European Union nations including Britain, Germany, France, and Spain followed suit in the subsequent weeks when Maduro neglected to call a new election to placate critics of his dubious re-election in May of last year, which was boycotted by the opposition.

With Maduro still in control of the government, Guaido’s international allies are driving pressure against him by targeting the state’s resources. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton asked the Bank of England to deny the Venezuelan government’s withdrawal of $1.2 billion in gold. A Portuguese bank similarly blocked a $1.2 billion transfer of assets to Uruguay. The White House has added new sanctions against the state oil company PDVSA, allowing US companies to continue to buy oil from them but preventing that money from reaching Venezuela until Guaido takes power. On Monday, the EU said that additional sanctions were being considered. These would accompany other sanctions ordered by Washington in 2014, 2015, and 2018. With economic ties to many western countries severed, the Venezuelan government is leaning more on allies in China, Russia, and Turkey. One US official warned on Thursday that the White House would “take action” if Turkey violated sanctions in supporting the Venezuelan government.

Analysis

In the past five years, the Venezuelan economy has endured an economic collapse, marked by shortages of food and medicine, as well as rising poverty and inflation. The political system has become completely polarized. The roots of these issues are not new, and are in many ways familiar for a post-colonial Latin American nation. Before Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” in 1999, the country exhibited many of the symptoms it shows today, with frequent economic crises, massive inflation and corruption, and a lack of consideration for constitutional rights. The country had been developed largely on the strength of oil exports alone, and Chavez attempted to direct oil revenue towards the funding of social programs which provided healthcare, education, food and social mobility to the masses, making him widely popular. This enthusiasm was not shared by all Venezuelans, and in 2002 a faction of the military, with the support of much of the Venezuelan upper classes and United States, staged a brief coup, during which businessman Pedro Carmona was installed as interim President and the constitution and legislative bodies were abolished, before Chavez retook power. With Chavez’s death and replacement by Maduro in 2013 and oil prices dropping from $160 per barrel in 2008 to $51 in 2019, the Venezuelan government suddenly no longer held the same political mandate or financial resources to maintain its path towards international independence and an egalitarian society.

President Maduro compensated for his government’s weaknesses by pursuing increasingly authoritarian methods of reaching his political goals. When the National Assembly, the country’s primary legislative body, was taken by the opposition in 2015, the outgoing lame duck lawmakers stacked the Supreme Tribunal of Justice – the highest court in the country – with Maduro loyalist judges. When the Tribunal accused three opposition lawmakers of electoral “irregularities”, the charges were disputed by the National Assembly and Maduro formed the Constituent National Assembly in 2017 as a parallel legislative body. While a precedent for forming a similar body had been set in 1999 by Chavez, Maduro’s predecessor had asked for a national referendum first, and used the body to restructure the functions of the government – not simply buttress political support. Maduro has stripped away many of the electoral protections which led former President Jimmy Carter to state in 2012 that “of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

However much of the US media coverage of the Venezuelan crisis depicts the opposition as the embodiment of the “Venezuelan people”, and the US as a solely emancipatory force. The United States has a history of utilizing a strategy of “making the economy scream” to undermine democratic Socialist regimes. The constant use of sanctions has most likely contributed to food and medicine shortages, an issue noted even by the US Congressional Research Service. John Bolton recently boasted of “$7 billion in assets blocked today. Plus, over $11 billion in lost export proceeds over the next year”, which amounts to 94% of what the country spent on imports last year.

The State Department has spent millions of dollars funding the Venezuelan opposition, even before democratic norms had begun to erode. Last year, opposition leader Henri Falcon was warned by US officials that the Trump administration would sanction him if he ran against Maduro, despite the fact that polling showed he had a strong chance of beating Maduro, especially if the election was monitored by UN observers, who were turned away by the opposition.

Now the US and opposition seem to be willing to help drive Venezuela into a deep enough crisis that the population will accept a complete departure from the paradigm of the Bolivarian Revolution rather than participating in a democratic process which would involve the sharing of power between parties. Despite the abuses of the Maduro regime, there is no evidence to suggest that he does not maintain the support of a significant portion of the population who have not given up on the dream promised by Chavez two decades before.

As long as Maduro controls the government and military, there is not a clear situation where the opposition can unilaterally take power without a military intervention from either the United States or Brazil. In a region already habituated to anti-imperialist resistance, this could mean an enormous and destabilizing civil war in the region. The other alternative is a mediated political resolution, most likely involving Maduro stepping down and the holding of new, UN monitored elections. The US government cannot maintain a presence in these negotiations, as it has forfeited its position as both an interventionist force around the globe and a neutral arbiter in Venezuela. The solution to this crisis can only come from the voice and democratic power of the Venezuelan people themselves.

Resistance Resources

  • CodePink: A women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, and support peace and human rights initiatives.
  • Washington Office on Latin America: A research and advocacy organization providing independent analysis of issues such as the Venezuelan crisis.

 

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org

Donate

The Teacher’s Protests of 2019 Continued

The Teacher’s Protests of 2019 Continued

Brief #32—Education

Policy Summary
The nationwide teacher-led demonstrations continue to materialize with greater  tenacity and vigor. Day after day this week, the streets of major cities across the country drew a similar portrait of streets lined of protesting teachers, academics and supporters. The groups marched in unison, to support awareness about the qualms plaguing public education. The protestors waved posters and signs declaring their discontent. Educators were focused on brining attention to such qualms such as  low wages forcing educators into second jobs, unfit school buildings, smaller classes, decreases in high-pressure exams, more substantial salaries and more support staff. These marches have appeared in Los Angeles, West Virginia, Richmond, Oklahoma and elsewhere.

Soon after a six-day strike in Los Angeles, teachers in Virginia, Colorado, and elsewhere in California joined in on the fight. Hundreds of Virginia teachers descended on the state Capitol on Monday, following in the footsteps of educators nationwide that have launched a wave of activism highlighting the plight of public education. Virginia Educators United, a grassroots educator group, organized the Richmond march. The protest earned support from teacher’s unions, both on a state level and nation-wide. “We can talk a lot about salaries and resources, but those who face the brunt of the consequence of not having a fully funded public education system are those kids,” said Sarah Pedersen, one of the many educators who marched at the Virginia state Capitol.

Analysis
The teachers’ petitions for increased support occur amidst a significant decrease in funds over the past decade. The Virginia rally is the largest teachers march since nearly 30,000 citizens took to the streets in Los Angeles this January. President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, participated in the Richmond protest on Monday. “Virginia is a pretty rich state, but actually spends about a billion dollars less in education than it did before the recession, which means its priorities need to be reordered”, Weingarten said. In fact,   Although Virginia is the 12th wealthiest state,  educators in the state make much less than the national average. Furthermore, since the 1930’s, state funding for K-12 schools has declined 12% when adjusted for inflation. According to the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, state funding in the 2018-2019 school year was 9.1 percent lower in than it was a decade earlier.

The protest in Richmond cost an estimated $125 million, but thankfully led to several victories for teachers and students. This past month, Gov. Ralph Northam recommended a budget that would incorporate$268.7 million in new funding for K-12 education. The budget proposal would embrace an additional 2% raise for educators, meaning teachers would get a combined 5% raise starting early this summer. The suggested 5% raise is currently working its way through the state Legislature.

Resistance Resources

  • The Virginia Education Association is to unite our members and local communities across the Commonwealth in fulfilling the promise of a high quality public education that successfully prepares every single student to realize his or her full potential.VEA is a statewide community of more than 50,000 teachers and school support professionals working for the betterment of public education in the Commonwealth. You can join the VEA membership here: http://www.veanea.org/home/join-vea.htm
  • United Teachers Los Angeles union (UTLA) sets out to address policy at all levels and is set by members either directly or through elected representatives. Currently the 34,000 members strong, they are always looking for addition support: https://www.utla.net
  • Fairfax County Federation of Teachers represents all non-administrative certified and classified Fairfax County public school employees. We represent the interests of teachers, counselors, librarians, teaching assistants, clerical employees, and other men and women who work so hard to make our schools work. To support them, click here to help teachers and educators have a voice: https://www.fcft.org/about-us
  • Virginia Professional Educators are a non-profit, professional association of teachers. It is a group created by teachers for teachers.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Erin Mayer Policy Analyst Name: Contact Author@usresistnews.org

Photo by unsplash-logoTra Nguyen

Say Goodbye to Surprise Medical Bills! Well, Not Entirely

Say Goodbye to Surprise Medical Bills! Well, Not Entirely

Brief #48—Health

Policy Summary
Donald Trump and his administration have taken proactive steps to solve the nationwide issue of surprise hospital fees. Starting this month, Trump has mandated that hospitals publicly reveal prices for their services. These online master lists of services are called “chargemasters” and are the administration’s central component in reducing shock over medical bills and promoting transparency in healthcare. Within each list is an exorbitant amount of procedures and services that are provided in an a-la carte fashion, where patients must know every element to a procedure in order to have an accurate pricing expectation. Alternatively, a singular procedure like a vitamin D blood test can easily be found and compared across providers.

Analysis
While it is beneficial to the patients to be provided with the resources describing their hospital fees, it isn’t likely that the average hospital-goer will be able to decipher the medical codes. “Chargemasters” are often hundreds of pages long with an overwhelming amount of abbreviations, codes and medical jargon. Additionally, prices are often found to be inflated and inconsistent, rendering their transparency useless. Another issue with the provided prices is they do not account for  the different insurance policies of patients and hospitals, again being rendered impractical. Finally, with individual hospitals producing their own list, there is little consistency among procedure or service descriptions, thus negating any consistency needed for comparing and finding the right price for consumers. Proponent for this mandate will note the issues with the “Chargemasters”, but will also state how they promotes transparency and allow patients to effectively advocate for themselves with factual information. On the contrary, while revealing pricing is key in medical reform, this does not address the larger issue of the high-priced American medical system, which can cripple patients after hospital visits. Overall, the attempt by the administration is well intended, but inefficient.

Resistance Resources:

  • Vox Media – Follow Senior Policy Correspondent Sarah Kliff, who has spent the past year exposing ER/hospital billing in the US.
  • National Assosciation of Healthcare Advocacy – When making important health decisions, having someone who is familiar with the health sector can help you make the best decision for both your health and your wallet. Use this association to find a healthcare advocate near you.
  • Change happens through the patients: To report inconsistencies, concerns or issues with Chargemasters, contact and notify your desired hospital.

Contact: This Brief was authored by Taylor J Smith Contact: Taylor@usresistnews.org

Photo by Olga DeLawrence

The Economic Aftermath of a Government Shutdown

The Economic Aftermath of a Government Shutdown

Brief #33—Economic Policy

Policy Summary
After more the four long weeks, the longest government shutdown in the history of our nation has ended. This past Friday saw Donald Trump sign into a bill that would temporarily reopen the government and allow most furloughed American workers to return to their jobs. Backing down from his initial demands for additional government funding for his desired border wall, he accepted a deal that offered no funds for the wall. When the shutdown went into effect on December 22nd, the pushback from political figureheads on both the left and right was monumental but it doesn’t compare to anger of the  800,000 federal employees who were most affected. Forced to work without pay with their wages frozen, they began the year facing an economic future steeped in tremendous uncertainty.

Now that the shutdown has  ended, at least on a temporary basis, the uncertainty hasn’t really subsided. Yes, plenty of federal employees are resuming working their positions but there’s still the possibility that in just a few weeks, the nightmare could continue. Democratic politicians refused to move forward with negotiations regarding the proposed wall unil the government had been reopened but as recent history has taught us, negotiations with our President can be unpredictable and erratic. It doesn’t help that multiple times, he threatened to declare a national state of emergency to procure the funding he claims to need. The most pressing economic concerns that have stemmed from the shutdown have little to do with funding for a wall and much more to do with the problems that arose from 800,000 employees being forced to work without pay, including members of the Coast Guard, Secret Service and air traffic controllers.

Policy Analysis
The financial woes that these federal employees encountered during the shutdown were well documented in the national media and not without reason. Thee many workers who saw their wages frozen were unable to spend on basic necessities, which quickly affected small businesses across the nation, particularly in industries such as food services and retail. A recent analysis from S&P Global Ratings indicates that the damage to our economy will add up to more than $6 billion in total, a larger sum the original $5 billion that Trump initially demanded for the wall’s construction. We should also not forget that when economic activity is severely reduced, as we saw during the shutdown, it can shave a significant amount off of a nation’s real GDP (gross domestic product) and this time is no exception. It has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that real GDP for the fourth quarter of 2018 has been reduced by up to $3 million.

The shutdown also resulted in another economic consequence that many news sources don’t seem to be paying as much attention. The payday loan industry has been steadily growing for years but during the shutdown, it saw a boom that should have worried everyone. Payday loans are essentially a debt trap. While they provide consumers with the quick cash that they need to take care of looming financial obligations, they ensnare them with interest rates that can be as high as 300% if not higher. This system may call to mind the subprime loan crisis in the early 2000’s when lenders prayed on low income borrowers with poor credit. Many financial advisors advised furloughed federal employees not to turn to these lenders during the shutdown, but for many workers struggling to make ends meet, they likely seemed to be the most sensible solution, particularly as for most of the shutdown, there was no clear end in sight, further adding to the aspect of economic uncertainty that continues to plague our nation.

Both consumers and markets share a mutual dislike of uncertainty in their economic forecasts. Now consumer confidence is down and with it, investor confidence. These two areas paired together are a dangerous combination for an economy that was already turbulent to begin with before the shutdown took hold. The shutdown may be over but the damage that it has caused will continue for the foreseeable future and likely for longer

Resistance Resources:

  • The Professional Services Council is an advocacy organization that has created a Government Shutdown Resource Center for furloughed federal employees.
  • The American Foreign Service Association is an association of workers created to represent members of the U.S. Foreign Service that is providing information and resources for workers affected by the shutdown.
  • The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is an agency that provides resources and support to federal agencies and employees and is providing resources for furloughed workers.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: contact Sam@usresistnews.org

Photo by Andy Feliciotti

Trump’s Wall Explained

Trump’s Wall Explained

Brief #62—Immigration

Policy Summary
Before President Trump took office there were 654 miles of barrier; 354 miles to block individuals walking across the border and 300 miles of anti-vehicle fencing that cost roughly $7 Billion during the Bush Administration. Throughout Trump’s campaign he promised to build a wall along the entire 2,000 mile US Southern border, but later clarified that in reality it would only cover half of that due to mountains and rivers already in place. However, since taking office there has been zero construction on this notorious wall; and thus the current (and longest ever government shutdown in American history) government shutdown standoff has ensued. President Trump pledges that his wall is necessary to combat the “humanitarian and security crisis” Americans face at the border – and that the appropriate funding must be provided. In reality, there are only estimates on how much Trump’s wall would cost taxpayers and the government, no one knows exactly its price. According to Customs and Border Patrol, it is $6.5 Million per mile on average and thus could range from $12 Billion to $70 Billion to implement. Originally Trump wanted concrete, but is now talking about steel so border agents could see through the “artistically designed steel slats.” Despite what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of support for Trump’s wall during his campaign, in a recent poll, roughly 40% of voters actually support it still.

In practice, Trump needs more than just funding to execute his grand plan and begin construction. In addition to funds, he needs the power to seize property from unwilling owners through the use of eminent domain since less than 30% of the necessary land is actually owned by the federal government (yes, the remaining 70% is belongs to private owners, state governments, and Native American tribes). Therefore, construction and especially legal battles could drag on for years. If Trump were to use eminent domain, he would be setting a very dangerous precedent and threaten the property rights of thousands of Americans for generations (or presidential administrations) to come.

However President Trump has steadfastly refused to give up on his wall  First he began  threatening to use his emergency powers  to build the wall without Congressional approval. This would involve diverting military funds and seizing private property without congressional authorization. Trump’s Advisors warned that the government would face endless legal challenges if Trump were to do that.

At the end of December President vetoed  an immigration  bill signed by both branches of Congress because it did not contain funding for his wall. The shutdown lasted 35 days, the longest shutdown in government history. It caused untold harm to federal workers across the country and had a negative impact on the economy. On January 25th facing mounting pressure from many different parts of the country the President was forced to reopen the government, even though funds still have not been allocated to build his wall.

Policy Analysis
To prove the wall is necessary, Trump has cited drugs and illegal border crossings as the main reasons the wall is desired. He has claimed 90% of heroin comes across the US Southern border and that a wall would help the overall war on drugs. In 2017, just under 40% of heroin seizures were at the US-Mexico border and most of it is smuggled through legal ports of entry hidden in privately owned vehicles mixed with other goods. President Trump and particularly his xenophobic support base consider illegal crossings at the border to be a wildly out of control issue that undermines American customs, values, and presents a burden on the population. In Trump’s first year in office the US saw the lowest number of migrants since 1971 and the actual number of illegal border crossings has been on an overall decline since 2000. Most illegal immigration is from visa “overstayers” of which Canadians were shockingly the largest group in 2018 – not the “terrorists” among the Migrant Caravan.

No one can really predict the future to gauge if the wall would truly divide Mexico and the US – physically or metaphorically – but it has definitely divided America and serves as a symbol of attitudes towards demographic, cultural and economic change. In a recent poll, views on the wall have heavily correlated with attitudes towards race relations in the US.

Currently, the Senate took 2 key votes on January 24 on the ongoing government shutdown and Trump’s wall. Both failed to reach a solid conclusion, but Trump has agreed to re-open the government for 3 weeks before attempting again to reach a consensus.

In many regards, Trump’s wall serves as a symbol of exclusion and isolation, but social orders built on fear, hatred and injustice are bound to fall. Historically, walls were built to protect a city from attack, but today they serve little military purpose as planes/missiles can fly over them and a tank could smash through. Ultimately, fear is the driving force in constructing such a wall, and a related rise in nationalism in response to globalization, racism, threat of terrorism, etc. Such walls have failed in the past – or failed to serve their intended purposes – such as the Berlin Wall during the Cold War, France’s Maginot line in WWII, the Great Wall of China, and even the US’s barrier fences in the 1990s under President Clinton. People will go around, under, or overwhelm the wall – or even in the case of drugs, be smuggled through legal points of entry.

US immigration laws have been rooted in racism and exclusion for centuries. The first major one being the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was for all people of color in practice; followed by the National Origins Act of 1924 that allowed white, northern and western Europeans to migrate to the US while limiting everyone else. The latter led to the establishment of  the Border Patrol. Thus the entire concept of policing the US border has been founded upon racial exclusion and xenophobic tendencies.

Resistance Resources

  • Opposition – No Border Walls: An resource that provides cities, states and coalitions of organizations that have taken a stance against Trump’s wall.
  • Stop Trump’s Wall: a non-profit that opposes Trump’s wall that utilizes video submissions explaining why his wall is ineffective, not a good idea, bad for the environment, etc.
  • Sierra Club: a grassroots environmental organization that has sued the US government in opposition of the wall.

This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest