JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Administration Plan to Drill for Oil and Gas in Central California
Brief #69—Environment
By Brandon Mooney
The Impeachment Inquiry Week Two
The Corruption Blog #8 A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Economics, Student Debt, Food and Housing Insecurity
Brief #61—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Administration intent on keeping ranchers happy and wolf numbers down
Brief #68—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
Recap and Analysis of the Impeachment Inquiry’s First Public Hearings
The Corruption Blog #8 A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
The Middle Class is Not Benefitting from Trump’s Economic Policies
Brief #60—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Leading 2020 Democratic Candidates Immigration Positions
Brief #84—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
A New Facial Recognition Technology Bill That Does Not Go Far Enough
Brief #106—Civil Rights
By Rod A Maggay
Trump’s Roll Back of Fuel Economy Standards
Brief #67—Environment
By Brandon Mooney
Trump Administration Bans Bump Stocks
Brief #15—Gun Control
Policy Summary
While the Trump Administration has typically echoed the NRA’s platforms, the acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, signed a regulation on December 18th that banned bump stocks, a device that has the capability to turn semiautomatics into machine guns. The idea was first proposed by President Trump after the Parkland school shooting last February.
Analysis
Although President Trump first proposed the ban of bump stocks after the Parkland shooting last year, the debate over the legality of these devices took center stage in October of 2017 after the Las Vegas shooting occurred. Bump stocks aided the shooter by turning his gun into an automatic weapon which resulted in the deadliest shooting in United States’ history.
The regulation is expected to go into effect 90 days after it is published in the National Regiser and requires anyone owning a bump stock to turn it into an Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms office or destroy it. Owners have 90 days to turn in or destroy their devices and instructions will be posted on how to properly destroy the devices.
The ban may come as a surprise to some, as President Trump has been a strong supporter of both the Second Amendment and the NRA. Republican lawmakers, many of who receive campaign funds from the NRA, are outwardly opposed to any type of gun regulation. Trump’s action to ban bump stocks was not only progress towards sensible gun laws, but was also a symbolic step towards common sense gun control.
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by annie bolin
North Carolina Election Highlights Need To Prioritize Election Integrity
Brief #48—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On November 6, 2018, the United States held its biennial federal elections. As dictated by the U.S. Constitution, every seat in the House of Representatives was up for election as well as the required 1/3 of the total Senate seats which meant thirty – three Senate seats were being contested (as well as an additional two seats due a special election being called for a total of thirty – five Senate seats being contested nationwide).
In North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District the election was between Republican Mark Harris and Democrat Dan McCready. After the votes were tabulated, Mr. Harris had a 905 vote lead over Mr. McCready with more than 280,000 votes cast in the district. Mr. McCready conceded the election the next day. However, the state Democratic Party in North Carolina soon after filed numerous affidavits with North Carolina’s Board of Elections alleging wrongdoing with regard to the election in North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District and local elections in Bladen County. On November 30, 2018, in a unanimous vote, the Board of Elections announced that they would delay certifying the congressional election and declaring a winner due to “claims of irregularities and fraudulent activities.” They also announced that they voted 7 – 2 to hold a public hearing on December 21, 2018 “to assure that the election is determined without taint of fraud or corruption and without irregularities that may have changed the result.” LEARN MORE
Analysis: While the issue of voter suppression has focused primarily on the issues of gerrymandering, voter ID requirements and discriminatory tactics, other tactics are just as often used and should not be ignored. The 2018 election from North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District and from nearby Bladen and Robeson Counties helps to illustrate how far some people will go to manipulate an election in order to have an outcome that they desire. The incidents are disturbing and has the potential to cast doubt not just on the integrity of North Carolina elections but on elections nationwide and the concept of democracy in the U.S.
In Bladen and Robeson counties, 3,400 absentee ballots were requested by voters but a high percentage were not completed and not mailed back. An analysis by the News & Observer found that many of the unreturned absentee ballots were from minority voters nearly 3 times more than from white voters who requested absentee ballots. This follows on the heels of Mr. Harris’ win in the primary election held in May where he won an astonishing 96 percent of all absentee ballots cast in Bladen County. Also, Bladen County voter Datesha Montgomery stated in a sworn statement that a woman came to her door and told her that she was collecting absentee ballots. Ms. Montgomery voted for two local elections and then was told by the woman to sign the envelope and that the woman told her that she would finish the voting on the absentee ballot for Ms. Montgomery. At least five other people have stated in sworn statements that people came to their doors and offered to fill out absentee ballots for them. These incidents occurred in neighborhoods that were primarily African – American. These are certainly troubling incidents and the Board of Elections made the right decision in delaying certification in the congressional race and in further investigating the allegations of irregularities and fraud. It is not about gerrymandering or voter ID but the incidents in North Carolina is still an assault on democratic principles and should be investigated so something like this will be prevented from happening again. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update: An investigation into irregularities and fraud in the North Carolina Ninth Congressional District continues with typical and unforeseen circumstances that still leaves the district without an official winner. Democrat Dan McReady, who originally lost the election, has accused Republican Mark Harris of not cooperating with investigators and is poised to fight in order to force a special election, which would essentially be a do – over of the November election. Mark Harris has tried to distance himself from Leslie Dowless, a campaign employee who has been accused of orchestrating the absentee ballot fraud. Mr. Dowless has a history of questionable campaign tactics concerning absentee ballot collection in the district going back to 2016. In the ensuing weeks after the November election, voters in the congressional district have claimed that they turned in their absentee ballots with only one witness signature although the ballots mysteriously ended up with two witness signatures. Another ballot was requested by a person who had been listed as deceased. And, absentee ballots were collected by people who were not “close relatives” which is illegal in North Carolina. As a result of these irregularities, the U.S. Congress has made clear that they would not seat Republican Mark Harris for the 116th Congress on January 3, 2019 until an investigation was completed.
Finally, the political atmosphere in North Carolina has complicated the issue as to whether the investigation will be completed at all. In October 2018, a state court ruled that North Carolina’s Board of Elections was unconstitutional as structured and ordered dissolved because of changes Republicans made to the board to limit the Democratic governor’s power. However, the board was permitted to remain in place in order to finish the investigation into the Ninth Congressional District race. However, the investigation dragged on and, fed up, the state court issued an order dissolving the Board of Elections on December 28, 2018. As a result, the congressional election between Mr. Harris and Mr. McReady cannot be certified. Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has offered to create an interim board to handle the election investigation but Republicans have refused to cooperate with the interim board. A new Elections Board has been slated to be implemented on January 31, 2019 and Republicans have decided that they would rather deal with a permanent board instead of an interim Elections Board where the Republicans would have a minority of the seats on the five member board. The investigation, and the political wrangling in North Carolina, continues while the 116th Congress moves forward without a representative from North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update #2: On February 21, 2019, the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted 5 – 0 to order a new election for North Carolina’s contested Ninth Congressional District. The upcoming election, which has not been scheduled yet, comes after four days of testimony from witnesses before the State Board of Elections. The hearings were being held to determine if the accusations of fraudulent activity required another election between Republican Mark Harris and Democrat Dan McCready.
Over the four days of the hearing, the State Board of Elections heard some shocking testimony from witnesses. On Monday Lisa Britt, the former step-daughter of Leslie Dowless the Republican operative accused of orchestrating an absentee ballot operation to steal votes for Republican candidates, testified that at her step – father’s direction she collected unsealed ballots, signed as a witness for ballots to which she was not a witness to and even signed other people’s names as a witness on a number of absentee ballots. She even filled out a number of the absentee ballots in local down ballot races, voting Republican in all races. All of her activities are illegal under North Carolina law. In addition, witnesses testified that the Bladen County Board of Elections might have improperly counted early, in-person ballots. Normal procedure is to collect early, in-person ballots and tabulate them on Election Day but these ballots were counted prior to that which raised another irregularity in the contested congressional district. And finally Republican Mark Harris, who was leading in the election by a 905 vote margin, testified before the North Carolina State Board of Elections that he knew of no illegal activity and then surprised all and called for a new election to be held. Mr. Harris had been against another election but finally agreed to call for a new election after listening to the testimony from the hearing. After Mr. Harris’s testimony, the State Board of Elections voted unanimously for a new election for the congressional seat from North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District. The new election, which is the last undecided election from the 2018 midterms, will be scheduled in the near future. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- The Voter Participation Center – non – profit group dedicated to registering and mobilizing the American electorate.
- HeadCount – non – profit group’s infopage on states voting information.
- Vote.org – online guide with up to date information on voting rights.
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 Element5 Digital
The Potential Impact of the New Congress on Education Policy
Brief #31—Education Policy
Policy Summary
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 regards 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 right’s activist it raised red flags, but many were left remotely unconcerned. However, today, we now know this was an indication of the agency’s overall future approach toward issues of racial discrimination and civil rights execution.
Policy Analysis
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 still remain under Republican power. Therefore, it is doubtful that there will be excessive changes in policies carried out by DeVos. Nevertheless, with control of committee chairs, there is much anticipation of House Democrats utilizing their oversight 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 is expected to look into 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. 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.
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 may cause DeVos to reconsider some of her policy decisions.
This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Education Policy Analyst Erin Mayer Contact: Erin@USResistNews.org
Photo by NeONBRAND
Trump Announces Withdrawal From Syria
Brief #54—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
With Syria nearing the eighth year of its brutal war, one which has claimed the lives of an estimated 300,000-500,000 people, President Trump declared on December 19th that Isis was defeated and the United States would withdraw the 2,000 soldiers still deployed within the country. The announcement came as a surprise to much of Washington, given that the Pentagon estimated last month that Isis forces, who continue to hold pockets of territory across Iraq and Syria, remain somewhere in the number of 20,000 and 30,000 fighters. Just last week, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to defeat Isis Brett McGurk told reporters that the US wanted “to stay on the ground and make sure that stability can be maintained in these areas”.
The White House has been vague in its plan for withdrawal since the initial announcement with one official disclosing an intent for departure within 60-100 days, and another suggesting it could come sooner. Trump tried to clarify on the 23rd that the withdrawal would be a “slow & highly coordinated pullout”, and on Sunday Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that Trump was now more willing to maintain a presence in Syria in order to deter Isis. Senator Graham, who previously called the withdrawal a “huge Obama-like mistake” and “a big win for Isis, Iran, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and Russia” is not the only one outraged by Trump’s decision. The announcement unleashed a storm of indignation from nearly every corner of Washington, providing the opportunity for every liberal pundit to brandish their best John Bolton impression and decry the threat of Iranian influence in Syria. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis tendered his resignation, using his resignation letter to condemn China and Russia for their desire to “shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies” and insisting that the United States “must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values”.
Analysis
Announcing unprovoked that the United States would withdraw its military presence from Syria was certainly a rash decision. The country is awash with loose ends and instability, and the United States could have maintained a certain temporary strategic position to provide a better outcome for the Syrian people. By announcing an unconditioned withdrawal, Trump is giving away his leverage in negotiating a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
As it stands, the mostly Kurdish militia YPG (People’s Protection Units), is under siege from the Turkish army, who view them as a threat due to their potential to provoke the many Turkish Kurds vying for self-autonomy and an end to their repression. The YPG has been one of the primary forces facing Isis on the battlefield, and is in the process of building a semi-autonomous region in northern Syria known as Rojava, where ethnic Kurds are protected from both the immediate threat of Isis and the potential repression of the Syrian government.
The FSA (Free Syrian Army), a loosely associated collection of Sunni militant groups still fighting the government, have been mostly cornered in the north-western province of Idlib, and their numbers dwindle as many attempt to return to their former lives. Isis still holds one major pocket, but is in the process of transitioning from an actual Islamic state to a simple insurgency. Both Russia and Iran, countries allied with the Syrian government, have provided support in returning territory to the control of the Syrian army, who currently hold 2/3rds of the country, including all major cities.
Ideally, Trump would try to leave Syria in a more stable condition, suited to returning some sense of stability and normalcy to those who have yet to flee the country. This would first mean cutting off support for the Turkish government. We should not be handing over territory, expanding trade, or selling a $3.5 billion weapon system to a country who has exploited a humanitarian crisis to backstab the most democratic force in the country that are on the frontlines fighting Isis. Trump should be working to support the Kurdish political umbrella group Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in their recent talks with the Syrian government to address Turkish encroachment, and continuing to provide them with funding to defend their nascent democratic experiment. Trump should also try to negotiate critical support for the Syrian government in their attempts to rebuild their country after almost a decade of war.
The United States has a strong responsibility to help the Syrian people in their struggle for peace, just not through more war. The war fully erupted when the Obama administration chose to capitalize on the relatively minor upheavals of 2011 by flooding the country with arms. The UN has certified that the FSA is not a mass democratic movement, but rather little more than a brand name encompassing a multitude of interest groups, and that foreign intervention has led to the rise of an extremist Salafi insurgency. The US ignored the fact that many of these militias were not the agents of freedom and democracy that they would have liked, and became cavalier in their willingness to hand out arms and support for any group willing to target the Syrian government. This led to the rise of militias such as the al-Qaeda offshoot al-Nusra Front, who took a leading role in the uprising. In 2012, a classified memo was distributed by the Defense Intelligence Agency which warned of a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” caused by the power vacuum created by an internationally funded uprising. This would be proven painfully true the next year, as Isis took hold of large swaths of territory. The United States took a leading role in destabilizing and provoking war in Syria in order to remove Assad from power, and there is no reason to believe that our military is in any way capable of cleaning up its own mess.
A sudden withdrawal of forces , as proposed by President Trump, does nothing to make amends for the mistakes our country has made in Syria. It leaves the anti-ISIS coaltion of coutries, that the US assembled, in a lurch without leadership; and it abnegates our ability and responsibility to support the reconstruction of a country that we helped to destroy. Foreign policy made by a tweet and a whim is a poor substitute for foreign policy made with a well coordinated and thought out strategy.
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. Read their statement on our withdrawal from Syria here.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
TRUMP’S WALL: REALITY vs. FANTASY
By Ron Wolf
“The debate over Trump’s wall isn’t really about border security. It’s really a debate about whether we’re willing to live in a fact-based world.”
That’s the premise of a compelling column in the Washington Post today by Anne Applebaum, who professes at the London School of Economics and writes about national politics and foreign policy for the paper.
How we resolve the latest government shutdown — if we resolve it — “will tell us whether we are still capable, as a nation, of making decisions using facts and evidence,” she writes. “Specifically, it will tell us whether Republicans in Congress, the White House and on Fox News live in the same reality as the rest of us, or whether they have retreated fully into a world of make-believe.”
“This wall will serve no purpose,” she writes “Not only will it be ugly and bad for the environment; not only will it drain the budget; it also will fail to address the concerns of Americans who claim to oppose illegal immigration.”
The cold hard facts are that most of the immigrants entering the country illegally are not coming across the southern border. Illegal crossings there have been declining for years. Trump and his supporters are looking at the wrong fix for the wrong problem.
Trump’s vanity wall “wall make our nation weaker and poorer — $5 billion poorer,” Applebaum writes. “That’s why this isn’t a debate about border policy. It’s a debate that tells us which of our politicians cares about the real world inhabited by real Americans and which prefer to live in a fantasy world created by the president’s imagination. For the future of the country, it’s important that reality wins.”
Photo by Dave Webb
The Trump Administration Uses Minority Protections as an Excuse for More Liberal Gun Restrictions on School Campuses
Brief #30—Education
Policy Summary
The Trump administration has announced a plan to prevent school shootings that includes arming school personnel and repealing Obama-era guidance targeted at upholding the treatment and discipline of minority children while combating racial bias.
The president’s Commission on School Safety, created after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, claimed that current school disciplinary standards have been too lenient on punishment and therefore furthered the rising violence in our school systems.
In early 2014, the Obama administration released a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on school discipline, focusing on safeguarding students of color and students with disabilities from discrimination via forms of punishment and disciplinary actions. The Dear College Letter, created by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), claimed that school districts rely excessively on suspensions, primarily for African American boys. The letter went on to iterate that African American students are suspended at disproportionately higher averages due to racial bias found on administrative levels and such suspensions actually caused significant long-term harm to students, instead of good. The DCL suggested that schools should limit conventional styles of discipline, such as suspensions, in support of more “restorative” methods, underlining discussion and dialogue over punishment. The Obama-era guidance was born from years of grassroots organizing working against the school-to-prison pipeline, a national development wherein children are guided out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.
After the Parkland shooting, President Trump voiced his support for arming trained teachers and other school employees, inciting a public uproar from teachers who stand against the suggestion. During DeVos’ most recent announcement, she stated, there no “one size fits all” solution to prevent school shootings, and no new federal spending is being proposed. However, she also went on to say, “Local problems need local solutions” and that schools and states should “seriously consider the option of partnering with local law enforcement in the training and arming of school personnel.”
Analysis
The Trump administration has targeted repealing multiple Obama-era policies. Many would say they are doing so purposefully or even out of spite, continuing a methodical dismantling of civil rights defenses. This latest policy change from Betsy DeVos is directed at removing the protections of minority students from being unfairly disciplined at school. As previously mentioned, much of the chapter began after the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High. It was Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R) who first officially pointed a finger at the Obama-era discipline guidance as a culprit in mass shootings when addressing a letter to Ms. DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Rubio claimed improper guidance permitted shooting suspect, Nikolas Cruz, to evade law enforcement and eventually commit his heinous crime. For many onlookers this would seem an odd point to find contentious, Mr. Cruz a white student was not escaping school disciplinary procedures, as he was expelled from Stoneman Douglas.
To civil rights organizations, linking a policy to helping minority and disabled students with mass killings laid a huge burden on numerous disadvantaged students nationwide. The Obama-era guidelines specifically targeted the growing school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon. Many of these children have learning disabilities or histories of poverty, abuse, or neglect, and would benefit from additional educational and counseling services. Instead, they are isolated, punished, and pushed out. Students –of-color have been punished for a wide variety of wrongdoings, such as wearing the wrong color hoodie to fighting.As they get expelled or suspended from school they often get shoved into the juvenile and criminal justice system.
Racial minorities and children with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the school-to-prison pipeline. African-American students, for instance, represent 18 percent of students, but they account for 46 percent of those suspended more than once, according to a nationwide study by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. The study shows that black boys are four times as likely to be disproportionately disciplined than their white peers. African American boys also represent 36% of all school expulsions. The 2014 Obama Dear College Letter says that often this racial disparity is not due to actual school infractions, but due to racial bias.
The numbers are just as worrying for students with disabilities. One report found that 8.6 percent of public school children have been labeled as having disabilities that affect their ability to learn. However these students represent 32 percent of youth in juvenile detention centers. The racial discrepancies are even worse for students with disabilities. Nearly 25 percent of African American students with disabilities were suspended at least once, in comparison to 1 in 11 white students, according to an analysis of the government report by Daniel J. Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.
Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., issued a statement in regards to rescinding of the 2014 DCL guidance, “Yet again, the Trump administration, faced with a domestic crisis, has responded by creating a commission to study an unrelated issue in order to ultimately advance a discriminatory and partisan goal…School shootings are a grave and preventable problem, but rescinding the school discipline guidance is not the answer. Repealing the guidance will not stop the next school shooter, but it will ensure that thousands more students of color are unnecessarily ushered into the school-to-prison pipeline.” NAACP is not alone in chastising the Trump administration’s move. Throughout the country, civil rights groups, liberals and democrats contend that focusing on restricting access to firearms would be a better step towards preventing school shootings than reopening a path for schools to expel minority and disabled students at higher rates than white students.
Resistance Resources
- A localized movement, Every Child Valued is a nonprofit with a mission to improve the academic outcomes of Eggerts Crossing Village children. The mission of Every Child Valued is to motivate the young residents of Lawrence Township to reach their highest potential as educated and fulfilled adults, to strengthen families, to combat racial, cultural, and socioeconomic isolation, and to build a sense of community.
- The Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network was established in July 1990, as a non-profit organization in Washington, DC, dedicated to improving education from underrepresented students throughout the nation. QEM claims to be the premier organization for improving the quality of education for minorities, by providing technical assistance to MSIs, funding internship opportunities for underrepresented students, and advocating for college and career readiness in STEM.
- Minority Access is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to increasing diversity, decreasing disparities and reducing incidences of environmental injustices. Our mission is to assist colleges and universities, the Federal Government and agencies of other governments and corporations of all kinds in implementing programs and providing services to recruit, enhance and retain underserved and underrepresented populations.
- Black Girls Code is on a mission to increase the number of women of color in the digital space by empowering girls of color, between the ages of 7 to17, to become innovators in STEM fields and leaders in their communities.
- The mission of The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) is to improve the lives of the 1 in 5 children and adults nationwide with learning and attention issues—by empowering parents and young adults, transforming schools and advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
This Brief was posted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Education Policy Analyst Erin Mayer Contact: Erin@USResistNews.org
Photo by Heather Mount
Catch and Release: An Update on Asylum Seekers
Brief #61—Immigration
Policy
On November 9, the Trump Administration signed a policy that would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the Southern Border from attempting to seek asylum, unless they crossed through designated ports of entry. However, the Supreme Court has blocked this ban, despite 4 of t conservative justices who voted in favor of it. In upholding the decision to prevent Trump’s ban, the Supreme Court, with Justice Roberts carrying the swing vote, says it hopes the ruling will save lives and keep vulnerable families and individuals from unnecessary persecution. The ruling also sends a signal that the intended asylum ban exceeds Trump’s statutory authority, regardless of how he portrays his seemingly limitless power.
The Refugee Act of 1980 stated that “any alien who is physically present in the US or who arrives in the US, whether or not at a designated port of entry…irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” Thus, Congress allowed individuals who could credibly claim they were fleeing persecution to apply for asylum in the US and shielded those fleeing persecution based on race, religion, or political beliefs. However, because it is not originally explicitly stated, the lack of languagd on individuals escaping violence or poverty created a loophole that those who strongly oppose such migration latch on to. Such a loophole has caused a lot of back and forth between those who think the asylum laws in place are too loose and those who think individuals fleeing violence (whether gang or domestic) and poverty have credible enough reasons to seek asylum in the US. Many of the individuals who have come to the US – and continue to – with the migrant caravan from Central America are pre-dominantly fleeing various forms of violence and the lack of socioeconomic opportunity.
In the past, the practice of catch and release had been utilized by our government when there were smaller numbers of migrants and less widespread xenophobia. Catch and Release originally implied that a migrant would be released to the community while they awaited hearings in immigration court instead of being held in immigration detention. However, immigration detention centers are filling up and the Trump Administration has fueled a deep rooted fear of immigrants in much of the President’s support base. So the administration is moving away from catch and release to the practice of catch and remain, meaning remain in Mexico. The Trump Administration and the President of Mexico recently announced a joint new policy called “remain in Mexico” which implies migrants will stay in Mexico while they wait for their petitions to process – which can take over a year. There is no concrete or clear plan laid out as to the housing and resources that would be made available to these migrants but that humanitarian visas and work permits would be provided by Mexico.
Analysis
The proposed waiting period in Mexico leaves many people extremely vulnerable and can endanger more lives and cause more harm than good if not executed properly. Migrants kept waiting in a foreign land with no permanent home of their own are in a vulnerable position. Individuals who have been helping the migrant caravan as they pass through have been a huge help providing food and water; but on migrants in transit also are exposed to potentially violent bandits and robbers looking to exploit such individuals. Additionally, given the hostile relations between President Trump and leaders of the Mexican government, using Mexico as a waiting room for those who intend to continue on to seek asylum in the US, is bound to cause tension.
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 Martino Pietropoli
Another One Bites the Dust: Exit Tear Gas, Enter Migrant Child Death
Brief #75—Civil Rights
Policy
While the American public is still horrified after the migrant tear gas encounter at the San Ysidro border in November, troops are being shifted, more individuals are attempting to seek asylum, and most heartbreaking: a 7 year old died in US custody. In Baja California, there are approximately 7,500 migrants in the state currently waiting to begin seeking asylum and 2,000 of those remain in Mexicali about 90 miles from the border deciding whether to go to Tijuana. The Mexican government opened Unidad Deportiva Benito Juarez, an open-air sports complex less than a mile from the border to house migrants as US immigration officials process around 40 applications a day due to the ‘metering’ system – metering implies there is a cap on how many migrants may enter each day.
Thus, some migrants who are being turned away or forced to wait at designated entry ports are then resorting to illegally crossing the border and turning themselves in. However, the Trump Administration has not felt the need to remove military men and women stationed at the border and 5,600 troops are supporting US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) on the border. At its height (after the San Ysidro border crossing) there were 5,900 active duty personnel at the US Southern Border – costing tax-payers nearly $72 million. Currently about 300 service members along Arizona and Texas have been shifted to California in anticipation of a new wave of migrants from Baja California. Troops are set to stay at the border until January 31, and Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters that he would leave some engineers in Texas and Arizona in case the US “ever had to close the ports of entry” as was done in San Ysidro.
On December 6, 163 people were taken into custody by the CBP in the New Mexican desert after crossing the border and approaching agents to seek asylum. Among this group was a 7 year old girl, Jakelin and her father from Guatemala. According to the CBP, Jakelin appeared to have been deprived of food and water for days before arriving at the border, but what is unclear is what measures officials took to reverse that once she was taken into custody. At the border, once her and her father’s screenings were complete, they were loaded onto a bus to travel 94 miles to the next border patrol station. Just 8 hours after Jakelin and her father were taken into custody she began having seizures, vomiting and her fever reached 105.9. She received emergency medical attention upon arrival at the border patrol station and was revived twice before being flown to a hospital in Texas. She died 15 hours later at the Providence Children’s Hospital in El Paso on December 8 after suffering cardiac arrest and was diagnosed with brain swelling and liver failure.
Analysis
The ACLU blames Jakelin’s death on “inhumane conditions” and a “lack of accountability, and a culture of cruelty” which has only created space for exacerbated policies that can lead to death. US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Department of Homeland Security officials and the Trump Administration deny that they are responsible for what happened to Jakelin. Her father said neither he nor his daughter had health issues during their initial screening recorded on a form in English, though a verbal Spanish translation was offered as well. No single party is taking responsibility for the young girl’s death and Jakelin is the second child to die while in US custody (in May a toddler died shortly after being released). Given the way the Trump Administration has strong-armed the US southern border and migrants over the course of this year, it is plausible for Americans to want to challenge the nonchalant, out-of-our-control attitude that surrounds Jakelin’s death. While there were claims about Jakelin being deprived of food and water for days – as one can imagine many of the individuals in the migrant caravan may have also suffered – there were reports way back in January of border patrol agents destroying food and water that humanitarian groups would bring and leave for migrants. So, the question is not did they offer food and water, but did they make sure a girl as young as 7 was drinking water and eating before putting her on a bus for another lengthy journey.
Additionally, there have been numerous arguments all throughout this year about the ethics behind making migrants sign forms in English that they cannot understand and are signing under duress. In the case of Jakelin and her father, there was a verbal translation available, but there has yet to be an effort to provide written translated forms. The individual that provided the verbal translation could have easily – assuming he/she was an adequate linguist – translated the form tangibly. While this may seem trivial, it arguably reflects and sums up the treatment of migrants at the border thus far: providing minimal assistance to say it was done, but lacking the officiality and formality in practice. In theory, the verbal translation could have had several issues: the translator could have been subpar, maybe it was not a thorough translation, perhaps it was quick with little time for questions, perhaps it was done privately with minimal witnesses (an official, tangible doc would formalize the translation), and perhaps it was even just a rumor.
As for the prominent military presence throughout this year at the southern border, millions of American taxpayer dollars are used to deploy military men and women (and all the expenses that come with that like equipment, transportation, etc) to be used as political pawns to invoke and sustain fears of migrants and appease the xenophobic aspect of Trump’s support base. While it has been discussed that the number of troops is going to dwindle down, there have not been any indicators or firm agreements of how or when this would play out, realistically.
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 Roi Dimor
Trump Administration Threatens US-Russian Nuclear Treaty
Brief #74—Civil Rights
Police Summary
On December 4th, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced to a meeting at the NATO headquarters in Brussels that Russia was in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and had 60 days to come into compliance before the United States ended its own adherence with the deal. The INF Treaty, signed by President Reagan and President Gorbachev in 1987 prohibited the two countries from building ground-launched cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance between 310 and 3,400 miles. The treaty does not concern weapons which can be fired from the air or sea, a sector in which the US maintains a formidable advantage.
The accusation that Russia is not in compliance with the treaty is not new, Obama previously made the same claim in 2014, and Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing in October – only to be talked down by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Trump’s notoriously hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton has been calling for withdrawal for years. Russia has denied violating the treaty, arguing that what the United States cites – their development and testing of a 9M729 missile – does not breach the agreement, as the missile has a gliding warhead and, therefore, is not categorized as a land-based cruise missile because it has a different speed and flight trajectory. Russia has in turn accused the US of violating the treaty, citing US missile defense interceptors in Europe which can be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Last Friday, Russia submitted a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly calling for the treaty’s preservation and resolution of any persisting issues. The next day, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that it had reached out to US Defence Secretary James Mattis in the interest of broaching a dialogue, but had been ignored. On Monday, The Department of Defense announced that they had received a proposal from Russia for a discussion, and would “respond to Russia as appropriate”.
Analysis
While Russia may be in violation of the treaty, it seems that this is only an excuse for the Trump administration’s ultimate goal of leaving the treaty. The 9M729 missile threatens Europe but not the United States, and a weapons expert at the New America Foundation think tank pointed out that we have long since reached the point where Russia could bypass US missile defence systems if it came down to it. In Brussels, Pompeo cited the military threat of China as a weakness of the treaty, as the country has been building a missile stockpile without the restriction of any such treaties. The treaty isn’t the handicap that Pompeo would like to depict. The US has maintained an international network of missile defense systems, and announced plans last February to develop smaller, and thus more usable, nuclear bombs. The arms race that critics warn of in the event of withdrawal from the INF treaty has been in motion for years, but the eradication of a historic demilitarization agreement only serves to push the world closer to nuclear catastrophe. Rather than dismissing diplomacy and running headfirst into a suicidal competition of aggression, the State Department needs to work towards forming a new treaty which encompasses a wider range of participants and weaponry.
Resistance Resources:
- Beyond the Bomb – An activist group looking to reduce the danger of nuclear war around the world
- World Beyond War – An organization dedicated to reducing militarization around the world
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Frédéric Paulussen
Wide Bipartisan Support For FIRST STEP Act, A Criminal Justice Reform Bill
Brief #73—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: On May 7, 2018, Representative Doug Collins (R-GA) introduced the FIRST STEP Act bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The FIRST STEP Act is a bill that contains numerous reforms to help improve the criminal justice system in the United States. Less than a month later, on May 22, 2018, the House approved the bill by a 360 – 59 vote. The bill was sent to the U.S. Senate for a vote but the bill had stalled through most of 2018. In November 2018, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced a Senate version of the bill, which rapidly picked up support from both sides of the aisle. On December 11, 2018, due to the widespread support from Senators from both parties, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would schedule a vote on the FIRST STEP Act in the very near future. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The FIRST STEP Act is a unique congressional bill in that it has widespread support from members of both political parties and seems very likely to be passed and signed by the President, which he has indicated he will do. The bill not only has the President’s support but is also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well as a number of legal, non – profit, medical and faith based groups.
The bill has gained support because of three main changes it proposes to make. The bill seeks to allow judges discretion in sentencing persons instead of having to impose mandatory minimum sentences for crimes, allows inmates to receive extra credits for good behavior behind bars that can be used for early release petitions and it excludes many of the most violent offenders from benefitting from these new criminal reforms. In allowing judges more discretion to sentence a person, the bill seeks to give judges more of an opportunity to examine each conviction on a case – by – case basis. The harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws were seen as too onerous and simply gave every person convicted of certain crimes 25 or 30 years without a chance to examine mitigating circumstances. Not every crime is the same yet people were being sentenced to long terms in an inhumane and almost robotic manner. This bill seeks to give judges more power to impose more appropriate sentences based on the circumstances of each case.
The extra credits that could be applied by inmates in petitioning for early release and in excluding the most violent criminal offenders were two of the most controversial provisions until additional amendments to the bill helped to allay concerns that some had most of whom were Republicans opposed to the bill at first. The Republican opposition to the bill was because they did not want violent criminals to benefit from the bill and use the bill to secure an early release for themselves. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) then stepped in and offered an amendment to the bill that would exclude violent offenders and keep the bill focused on helping non – violent drug offenders, which helped bring more Republicans on board. Senator Mike Lee of Utah even wrote an article pointing out that the bill contains specific categories of violent crimes that would make an inmate ineligible for early time credits and early release. Once Senator Cruz’s amendment and Senator Lee’s point – by – point rebuttal of concerns and defense of the bill were examined and debated, most Republicans came on board and the bill became more likely to pass. (At last count, the bill has the support of nearly 80 senators).
The FIRST STEP Act does not solve all of the problems in the American criminal justice system but this bill does take some meaningful steps. It gives judges more control over sentencing and does give prisoners (but not those convicted of serious violent crimes) a second chance if they decide while incarcerated to turn their lives around. With its wide bipartisan support, the bill is expected to pass quickly and be signed by President Trump soon thereafter. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Sentencing Project – non – profit group working for a fair and effective U.S. criminal justice system.
- Marshall Project – non – profit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system.
- Vera Institute of Justice – non – profit group looking to urgently build and improve justice systems that ensure fairness, promote safety and strengthen communities.
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 Louis Velazquez