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
Where are America’s Child Prisoners Now?

Where are America’s Child Prisoners Now?

Brief #55—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
Nearly 13,000 children are currently being held across the US; more than 200 children in detention are deemed ineligible for reunification or release and children as young as 2 years old are appearing in court for their immigration hearings. In case that was not jarring enough, there have been reports of physical, psychological and sexual abuse accusations in the very facilities meant to house and protect these children.

The large number of migrant children being held in detention has increased the amount of young children appearing in court to determine whether they will be (1) deported (2) reunited with their parents or (3) granted asylum. As extensive background checks (on any adult claiming a detained child) ensue, many children are appearing in court by themselves. Unfortunately, some children have to show up to court multiple times before they can be reunited with a relative. Shelters are filling up, unable to house the growing number of detained children who were only supposed to be held for the short term.

But what of the children that remain ununited? They are moved to a government created tent city in Tornillo, Texas – a tiny, farming town near the Texas-Mexico border – where an anticipated 3,800 children will be housed. Under Obama, children were temporarily housed in tent camps during the height of the unaccompanied migrant minors crisis in 2014; this is not the predicament the Trump Administration is facing. Trump is making this a consistent practice and steadily increasing the number of children detained over the past year, despite decreased illegal border crossings. Through the consistent crackdowns on all types of immigration, the world has watched in horror as the US has displayed a visibly broken immigration system.

Analysis

For many of the children deemed ineligible for reunification or release, it is due to complications with the family member or relative they would be released to. The Trump Administration had enforced extensive and lengthy measures to assure proper background checks, explicitly to weed out adults with criminal and/or abusive pasts from being reunited/claiming vulnerable detained children. Yet ironically, in facilities intended to keep such children safe and away from harm, caretakers are in fact inflicting the assault that is sure to stick with them for years beyond their release and immigration cases.

For example In the case of abuse accusations, 3 children were physically abused in a shelter in Arizona that led to the closure of that shelter. In a different Phoenix area shelter for immigrant children a youth care worker was convicted of sexually abusing 7 teenage boys; and at another facility accusations of a 14 year old girl being molested. Not only are these children traumatically separated from their families, but in a place that is supposed to keep them safe during limbo, they are violated, disrespected and dehumanized.

If the US continues to treat children like prisoners, their health – mental, physical and emotional – will be at stake. Children traumatically separated from their parents are more likely to have emotional problems throughout their lives and damaged memories. The question is when will these vulnerable children begin to fall severely ill or die due to these conditions, before the Trump Administration finds their humanity?

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.
  • Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
  • Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.

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

Photo by Charlein Gracia

When Sexual Assault Survivors Demanded To Be Heard The U.S. Senate Deliberately Chose To Ignore

When Sexual Assault Survivors Demanded To Be Heard The U.S. Senate Deliberately Chose To Ignore

Brief #66—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
President Donald J. Trump, on July 9, 2018, nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy had announced his intention to retire after thirty years on the court. The Senate Judiciary Committee commenced hearings on September 3, 2018. The hearings later took a dramatic turn when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward to testify that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when both students were in high school in the early 1980’s. Dr. Ford stated that she was 100% certain her assailant was Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusations and stated, “I swear to God” that he did not assault Dr. Ford or anyone else. Prior to the scheduled end of the hearings, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the White House to ask the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation into the allegations made by Dr. Ford and other women who came forward with similar stories of sexual assault at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh. (The FBI had already conducted a standard background check of Judge Kavanaugh after he was nominated). President Trump then ordered an additional investigation that would focus only on the sexual assault allegations. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
When Senator Flake asked the White House to direct the FBI to conduct an investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh there was a sense that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was in peril and might ultimately be defeated. However, the parameters and limited scope of the supplemental investigation have instead raised the issue of whether the Senate Judiciary Committee and other members of the Senate were truly interested in discovering the facts of the allegations. When Dr. Ford came forward with her allegations many of her supporters rallied to her side with variations of the phrase “I Believe Her.” This phrase is significant because in the context of a sexual assault allegation, victims were often portrayed as fabricating their story, exaggerating what happened and of being crazy and/or mentally unstable. It was a technique used to minimize or diminish what happened with the result that the perpetrator would get away with doing what they did to the victim. Listening and believing a sexual assault survivor or victim has become a central point in the national discussion on sexual assault today.

But when the supplemental investigation undertaken by the FBI was limited it illustrated that lawmakers at the highest levels of government may have been willing to put aside the concerns of those sexual assault survivors and their supporters for political purposes. If a central concern of these groups is in having victims of sexual assault be heard and believed and not be dismissed so easily, then the decision to limit the supplemental investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh was an unfortunate decision. The investigation did not interview Dr. Ford or look into her list of witnesses that she claimed could have corroborated her story. The FBI did not interview Julie Swetnick, another accuser who alleged she was assaulted in a sworn affidavit. Nor were other classmates of Judge Kavanaugh in high school and at Yale were allowed to testify to Judge Kavanaugh’s heavy drinking habits and tendency to black out from too much alcohol. This testimony could have gone far in establishing that Judge Kavanaugh may have been untruthful in his Senate committee testimony and could have helped to establish the truth of the allegations of the accusers. Instead, the Senators of the committee blatantly ignored the demands of sexual assault survivors to be heard and allowed an investigation probe in a way that appeared that the result was pre-determined. The investigation lent the impression that the Senators did not want to find anything against Judge Kavanaugh. It was not a thorough investigation but was instead a sham and did a great disservice to sexual assault survivors across America who are still struggling to have their stories heard. If lawmakers at the highest level showed that they did not want to listen to sexual assault survivors for a confirmation hearing, then how can these survivors believe that the government will help them change the culture and start believing women in these types of incidents? LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, 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 rawpixel

Rapidly Climbing National Debt Poised to Hinder Growth of an Already Vulnerable Economy

Rapidly Climbing National Debt Poised to Hinder Growth of an Already Vulnerable Economy

Brief #26—Economic Policy

Policy Summary

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump frequently touted the importance of balancing the national budget, promising to do exactly that.

The rally cry of “fix the debt” is hardly a new campaign bedrock for Republican party members. In the years since the National Debt Clock was placed on a New York City building in 1989 by real estate mogul Seymour Durst, GOP leaders have often used it as a tool in their campaigns. During the 2012 Presidential Election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan made use of a fake national debt clock to rouse voters. Donald Trump seemed be prioritizing the national debt problem during his campaign, promising to eliminate the budget deficit.

Like so many of the promises he made before being elected, though, no progress has been made in the area of reducing the debt or balancing the budget. Rather, we have seen the opposite outcome take shape. In the past fiscal year, the Trump administration has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. A budget deficit is created when revenue is outpaced by government spending, a trend that has proven consistent for the U.S. Ultimately, such a trend will often lead to an increase in a country’s national debt, which occurs when a government borrows considerable funds to cover this deficit. Total gross debt today totals more than $21 trillion, coming out to roughly $65,000 for every citizen. When the National Debt Clock was erected, it was just below $3 trillion, which came out to $12,000 per person. It has been reported that by the end of 2018, the debt held by the public will have exceeded $127,000 per household.

All this adds up to an economic milestone. If things continue to progress in this way, the end of 2018 will see the U.S.’ debt held by individuals, financial, institutions, foreign countries and others   reach a number greater than the debt held by all American households. This includes all debt from student loans, credit cards and mortgages. Analysts at J.P. Morgan have reported that such a phenomenon would be the first in modern history.

Analysis

When it comes to the national debt, it is common for economists to focus on the debt held by the public.

This makes sense, as in the short-term, it is often easier to be concerned with the money that is owed to creditors by the U.S. government than the intergovernmental debt, which consists of funds owed to one government agency by another.  While both parts of the national debt are important,  the former effects the public more. In past times of sufficient economic growth, the government has found ways to reduce the national debt, as President Trump promised. His inability to do so, though, indicates that the economic growth he has touted so highly and claimed responsibility for is superficial and far from sustainable.

Many economists indicated the tax breaks that President Trump has given to those in the highest income bracket would give way to further fiscal problems. As recent events have showed us, all such predictions were correct. Despite the GOP claim that these tax breaks would increase spending by the private sector, that has not proven to be the case. Even before the tax breaks, though, most of the problems regarding the U.S. economy had more to do with revenue than spending, which holds true to this day. It should also be noted that this is not the first time tax cuts have proven problematic for the U.S. in matters regarding the national debt. During George W. Bush’s years in office, the tax cuts he implemented gave way to a spike in debt, as did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When further poor fiscal policies sent the U.S. into the Great Recession of 2009, the national debt increased even more.

All of this, combined with the Trump administration’s increased military spending has led the U.S. to a place of extreme economic vulnerability. Recent years have seen the U.S. government continue its cycle of borrowing money but no system of borrowing can be sustainable in the longer-term. When it comes to fiscal matters, borrowed money tends to amount to borrowed time. Ultimately, this will likely force the U.S government to consider scaling back safety-net programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While this approach is often favored by the Republicans, Democrats often seek to resolve monetary and budget related matters by increasing taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens and corporations. The people who will pay the price for the poorly designed fiscal policies of the Trump administration will likely depend on who holds office when the current debt bubble bursts.

The last time economists became concerned with a debt bubble, the U.S. saw the stock market crash and the Great Recession begin. The cost of debt is high for both investors and consumers and as a nation, we cannot to ignore it.

Resistance Resources:

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient. Contact Sam@usresistnews.org

Photo by Ruth Enyedi

Bad News

Bad News

Policy Summary
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) met this past week in order to discuss the global effects of climate change. According to the new reports, gathered from over 6,000 scientific papers with almost 100 authors from 40 different countries, new evidence suggests that the impacts of climate change at a 2 degree Celcius temperature change will be far worse than previously expected. As of now,  climate change has warmed the planet at about 1 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels, and according to the IPCC, the climate cannot increase any more than 1.5 degree Celsius if we want to avoid catastrophe. The IPCC has made it specifically clear that the real challenge put forward by the report is to hold politicians, political systems and corporations accountable for their efforts to address climate change.

Analysis
Experts say that as of now, without drastic changes in corporate and political management, the climate will warm to 2 degrees Celcius, which would be far worse than what was previously predicted.  With a 2 degree increase, scientists predicted that 99% of the world’s corals could wane, the Arctic could have ice-free summers at least once per decade (as opposed to once per century). Should it be possible to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the numbers of those at risk would still remain at several hundred million by 2050, but is a far better scenario than how many would be affected at a 2 degree rate of change. As a result, the IPCC, which is overseen by the UN, called for a $2.4 trillion fossil fuel shift, and requested putting high prices on carbon via high taxes or cap-and-trade programs. At the same time, US Economist William Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on the link between the economy and climate change, and his estimates of the costs and benefits of cutting emissions. Nordhaus has been outspoken about how the Trump administration has impaired the process to fight climate change, saying that, “It’s hard to be optimistic. And we’re actually going backward in the United States with the disastrous policies of the Trump administration.” This comes as deadly hurricanes like the ones that have just hit North Carolina and Florida have gotten extensive media attention, and the subject of climate change been overwhelmingly absent from its coverage.

Engagement Resources

  • Climate Defense Project: Helps assign lawyers and legal aid to communities and campaigns fighting against climate change.

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org

Trump Administration Reaches Compromise with Canada as NAFTA is Rebranded USMCA

Trump Administration Reaches Compromise with Canada as NAFTA is Rebranded USMCA

Brief #25—Economy

Policy Summary
Almost one week ago, the events of an emerging US instigated  trade war took an interesting turn as it was announced that the U.S. and Canada had settled on a compromise in their long-standing and complicated negotiations regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As previously reported, the U.S. reached an agreement with Mexico over a month ago. Canada made no immediate move to pander to President Trump’s proposed threats regarding auto manufacturing tariffs that could affect their economy. The negotiations on the part of the Trump administration, though, finally reached a breakthrough when Canadian officials accepted a counteroffer from the U.S. government to a detailed proposal that they had previously submitted.

This new trade pact that all three nations have reached will be called the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).  As of now, the result seems to be that President Trump’s aggressive means of negotiating, by way of imposing tariffs and making threats aimed at scaring other nations into compromising, has worked to a small degree. One of the primary things that President Trump sought to gain from his attempts to strong-arm the Canadian government was access to their dairy market. This new trade pact grants him a modest opening, similar to the one his negotiations granted the U.S. in the Mexican auto manufacturing market. All this leads us to the glaring notion that as far as policy goes, all that he has truly accomplished is gaining what Brookings Institute’s Geoffrey Gertz describes as “modest concessions.” It should not be forgotten that all three nations have enjoyed the substantial economic benefits that stemmed from NAFTA.  As of now, it cannot be determined whether all such benefits will continue USMCA, a trade pact that has so far swung in the direction that the U.S. wanted and away from the directions that Mexico and Canada initially hoped it would.

Analysis
Apart from its new name, how will this new trade pact differ from NAFTA? Analysts have indicated that for the most part, the primary changes are on the surface. While the concessions on the parts of Mexico and Canada have resulted in  rule-of-origin changes for the auto manufacturing industry and an increase in U.S. access to Canada’s dairy market, there aren’t likely to be any dramatic changes for the typical American consumer in their everyday life.

That is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about the possible long term effects of this deal. From a macro perspective, it is easy to see that there could easily be problems ahead that President Trump has not considered. While it is true that Canada and Mexico did take steps to cater to the demands of the U.S, it should be noted that both their economies depend considerably more upon the U.S. than the latter’s does on theirs. Mexican officials were likely  to appease President Trump’s demands because they knew that being further alienated from U.S. markets could have significant effects on their nation’s economic system.

We should absolutely not take these instances as an indication that President Trump has been justified in his negotiation tactics and use of tariff policies. Through it all, he has been continuously running the risk of undermining his nation’s long-term interests and influence on a global scale. The U.S’s technique of exerting ‘soft power’ to convince other countries that their interests run parallel with America’s has worked well for the purpose of growing a global order based on open markets and mutual respect. Canada and Mexico could easily interpret the recent process of renegotiating and rebranding NAFTA as a sign it would be in their best interests to be less inviting of U.S. power as all three nations move forward. Other nations who have been watching these events play out will likely take heed of the same lesson–a nation that has treated two of its closest allies and trading partners badly will not hesitate to do the same to others. It will be significantly difficult for these policies not to undermine  U.S. global influence, possibly throughout the years after President Trump has left office.

On the whole, it would appear as though the renegotiations that have led to the drafting of the USMCA can be classified partially as an exercise in rebranding and partially as a power grab on the part of President Trump. Despite his clear condemnations of NAFTA both on the campaign trail and after taking office, he has ended up with a deal that looks remarkably similar to what he once called “the worst trade deal in history.” While he has done everything in his power to rebrand the new deal as his own, most of changes do not differ that greatly from the NAFTA agreement, and according to many analysts, the means by which he went about it do not justify the end product.

The new trade pact has yet to be ratified, though, and will need congressional approval before being signed into law. The midterm elections are swiftly approaching and their results will likely have a significant effect on the signing of the USMCA.  Congressional Democrats are unlikely to endorse such a deal and if more are elected, the result could easily swing in the direction against President Trump’s new trade deal.. 

Resistance Resources:

  • The Institute for Policy Studies is a progressive think tank that conducts research on matters that include economic policy and economic justice.
  • The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a non-profit research association that works to promote democratic debate on important economic and social matters.
  • The World Economic Forum is a research foundation dedicated to engaging business and political leaders to help shape regional agendas, both reginal and global.

 

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sam O’Brient:  Contact sam@usresustnews.org

Photo by Hermes Rivera

The “Politics” of Fighting For A Supreme Court Seat

The “Politics” of Fighting For A Supreme Court Seat

Brief #64—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who stepped down after thirty years on the Court. President Trump’s nominee was then sent to the U.S. Senate which only needs a majority vote to approve the nomination. Prior to the whole chamber voting on the selection, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with twenty-one members, reviews the nomination and decides if the person should be referred to the entire Senate chamber for a vote. The committee began hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on September 4, 2018 and proceeded with questions for Judge Kavanaugh about notable Supreme Court cases and other areas of constitutional law. On September 27, 2018, the committee held a hearing to discuss allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were high school students. The committee eventually voted along party lines (11 Republicans in favor and 10 Democrats against) to submit the nomination to the full Senate. However, a vote by the entire chamber was delayed due to a request by Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona that a supplemental FBI investigation be undertaken, specifically to the additional allegations from different women that emerged prior to and after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. LEARN MORE

Analysis
The hearing into the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court should have been a routine confirmation until it was rocked by allegations of sexual assault by one of Judge Kavanaugh’s high school acquaintances. What those allegations did was expose the extreme politicization of the selection of judges to the United States judiciary and what the long lasting effects of this could be. Judges are supposed to be impartial and handle the facts and cases as presented to them at trial and to interpret the words and meaning of statutes as presented in the appellate record. Problems begin to arise when judges start to make policy decisions and interpret statutes according to their own political beliefs and personal worldview. The legislative branch in each individual state and Congress at the federal level are charged with policy making and if any changes need to be made to existing law, then in theory, citizens should take their case to their respective legislatures.

However, recent years have seen a frustration with the work of state legislatures and Congress. There is a general feeling that elected representatives are not responsive to the wishes of their constituencies and so taking an issue to court is seen as preferable than “going to your Congressman.” Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are now seen as the last word on hot button issues. Knowing that any issue that reaches the Supreme Court can become the final word at the appellate level on policy issues has only raised the stakes as to which judges will be permitted to sit on the court.

Religious people with objections against LGBT and same – sex marriage have seen the Supreme Court invalidate anti – sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas and allow same – sex marriage in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges. Civil rights activists have touted the work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 only to see the Supreme Court invalidate one of the major provisions of that statute in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder, which weakened that voting protection law considerably. And in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Supreme Court overturned established law going back more than fifty years and opened the door to unlimited campaign contributions from corporations.

What judges are being asked to do is take sides on a policy issue when they should instead strive to be impartial. Instead of calling your representative – who may or may not ignore you – to make a policy change, the preferred route now is to go to court and have a judge rule on the merits of a policy that probably should have been heard by the legislature. This is why the selection of judges and Supreme Court justices has become such a bruising fight. Their personal beliefs or worldview could very well have major consequences as to the validity of policy issues as the same sex, civil rights and campaign finance cases mentioned above make clear. It is unclear if these sexual assault allegations will derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the highest court in the land but knowing that he may have a say on important issues – the future of abortion or a ruling on whether or not a president can be indicted – has caused Republicans and Democrats to not give an inch and play for keeps and see this fight for a Supreme Court seat all the way to the bitter end. LEARN MORE

  • Engagement Resources:
  • Brennan Center for Justice – resource for info and topics on the federal judiciary.
  • Cato Institute – research institute’s blogpost on the effects of “politicizing the judiciary.”

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 Claire Anderson

California’s Landmark Gender Law Is A Boost For Women In Corporate Boardrooms

California’s Landmark Gender Law Is A Boost For Women In Corporate Boardrooms

Brief #41—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On January 3, 2018, California State Senators Toni Atkins and Hannah – Beth Jackson introduced Senate Bill 826. This bill sought to make additions to California’s Corporations Code regarding the composition of a company’s board of directors.

Beginning in 2019, publicly held corporations whose principal executive offices are located in California must have a minimum of one female person serving on the board of directors.

In 2021, California will implement a tiered system based on the total number of directors on the board. If there are four or fewer total directors on a board, one director must be female. If the number of total directors is five, the board must have a minimum of two female directors. If the total number of directors is six or more, the board must have a minimum of three female directors. On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown signed the bill into law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
In his signing statement, Governor Brown acknowledged that the new law may have some “serious legal concern” because of its gender – based classification and how that may be treated under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause provides that “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” which has been interpreted to mean all persons are to be treated equally under the law. Under the current legal analysis of gender based classifications, a state is granted a loophole to deviate from providing equal treatment if there is “an important government interest and the means undertaken are substantially related to that government interest.”

Despite the constitutional legal hurdles, the California bill is a landmark bill and the first of its kind in the United States. It is loosely modeled on a number of laws found in countries in Europe. (Germany requires corporate boards to be 30% female while France and Norway require company board of directors to be 40% female). This new law has a good chance of satisfying the legal test mentioned above and not be overturned because of the policy considerations underpinning the new law. When the law was introduced, State Senator Atkins cited recent studies by UC Berkeley, McKinsey and Company and Credit Suisse that showed that companies that had strong representation of women on boards and top-level management positions performed better in terms of innovation, profitability and productivity. The government interest here is in promoting a modern business trend of encouraging more female directors. As the examples in the Europe have shown, more females in positions of power have helped maximize business revenue and processes while encouraging inclusiveness and diversity. Male directors are not being discriminated and completely shut out of positions on corporate boards. This law is simply seeking to encourage companies to look toward qualified females and give them an opportunity after historically being under valued and under utilized in the United States. And as the studies have shown, encouraging women can be profitable and have a positive influence. LEARN MORE, 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 Brooke Lark

Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards for the “Burdens of Society”

Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards for the “Burdens of Society”

Brief #54—Immigration

Policy Summary
To promote self-sufficiency and protect finite resources, the Trump Administration has proposed harsher reviews of individuals applying for green cards and/or permanent resident status in the US. Historically, federal law has excluded immigrants who are likely to become “public charge,” but Trump has taken his own drastic measures to ensure this. Specifically, immigrants who have previously relied on public assistance benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies (i.e., Section 8 housing vouchers) and Medicaid for (low-cost prescription drugs) will face stronger barriers to obtaining a green card.

This forces millions of poor immigrants to pick between a green card to live and work legally in the US or accepting financial help. Advocates fear that those with legal resident status will stop using public benefits to protect their status. Roughly 382,000 people seeking to adjust their immigration status could be subject to “public charge reviews” each year to assess how much of a burden they could be on the American taxpayers and government. Immigration law states that age, health, family status, financial resources, skills and education should be taken into account when evaluating. Nearly 1 million people become legal permanent residents each year in the US, so the Trump Administration feels they can be choosy about who is allowed into the country.

But for some, it is not so simple to apply for such legal status. Certain health conditions like mental health disorders, heart disease and cancer are also among the heavily weighted factors being taken into consideration during application. Individuals with the above predicaments are red-flagged and seen as likely to ecru high medical costs and thus be a burden. Some immigrants could be asked in some cases to post cash bonds of at least $10,000 to avoid being denied green cards. For many, this is simply not feasible. While this new rule does not affect refugees, asylum seekers or legal immigrants who serve in the US military, many will feel the brunt of this most recent crackdown on immigration to the US.

Analysis
In contrast to the Trump Administration’s claims, there have been many studies about the economic effects and legacies of immigration to the US. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services data, immigrants and non-immigrants alike benefit from public assistance at almost the same rate. The lasting effects of immigration has proven even more beneficial to the US as time progresses: first generation immigrants cost US taxpayers roughly $57.4 Billion dollars, but second and third generation Americans make for an economic boost of $30.5 Billion and $223.8 Billion, respectively.

This new regulation creates a caste-like system among US immigrants. Poor immigrants with health conditions are expected to prove they are insured, yet cannot access the available benefits to enroll and thus have a far lower chance at changing their immigration status than their wealthy counterparts. The executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies and others  who supports decreased immigration that low level skilled workers are a mismatch for such a modern society. What they don’t like to admit is the fact that low-skilled immigrants perform many important functions in our country that others eschew, such as cleaning, gardening, picking crops and providing home health care. Tightening immigration policies has become a given to bring Republicans to the polls, while motivating Democrats to stand by their values and uphold the nation’s promise of being a beacon of light for the world.

Resistance Resources

  • The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
  • Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
  • 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.

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

Photo by Jhon David

President Trump Addresses United Nations

President Trump Addresses United Nations

Brief #50—Foreign Policy

Policy Summary
On September 25th, President Trump delivered a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, complete with all of his signature vague jingoism and confrontational barbs. Following a year of withdrawals and cuts to international agreements and organizations, from the Iran Deal to the UN Relief Works Agency funding for Palestinian refugees, Trump’s speech reflected this desire for nationalist individualism, stating “I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

Trump’s speech comes at a period of great tension with the EU, largely in response to his withdrawal from the Iran Deal. While the US has promised sanctions on businesses dealing with Iran, the EU has threatened sanctions on those who withdraw, forcing them to choose their allegiances. After a recent announcement of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports, Trump also claimed that  China “has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election… against my administration”, but failed to provide any evidence for his claim.

The following day, Trump addressed the United Nations Security Council. The council session had originally been called by the UK to discuss last July’s nerve agent attack on Russians living in the UK within the context of the global issue of weapons of mass destruction. When Trump learned that Vice President Pence was planned to represent the US, he insisted on his own presence in his stead, and changed the topic of the talk to the danger of Iran. When he later learned that this would involve inviting a delegation from Iran to respond, he changed the topic to that of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, just days before the council session. While much of Trump’s speech still focused upon Iran, he did mention the necessity maintaining sanctions on North Korea, a position opposed by China and Russia, who announced that it was time to ease sanctions, citing the recent halting of nuclear testing.

Analysis
Trump has no real ideological commitment to American isolationism. He wields the vast power the United States holds over the global community when it serves his interests, and many of his isolationist positions are simply rejections of the weak international restraints placed on American power. The United States has not been, as Trump claims, “committed to a future of peace and stability in [Israel], including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians” but rather sold billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Israeli government, unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, withdrew US aid to the Palestinians,  and bullied third party countries who voted in support of Israel at the UN.

Billions of dollars in weapons have also been sold to the Saudi Arabian government as part of the United States’ support for a brutal war in Yemen which has resulted in a humanitarian crisis. Breaking the Iran Deal is an enormous aggression against the prosperity and security of Iran, levying sanctions which once led to an almost doubling of the poverty rate and a rise in anti-American sentiment in the region. Trump also  has reportedly considered an invasion of Venezuela. It’s become clear that he only remembers his isolationist principles when he wants to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council, or ignore the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court in investigating war crimes, fearing that these organizations could stand in the way of US/Israeli/Saudi hegemony in the Middle East.

Resistance Resources

  • Roots Action – An online activist group devoted to pushing US domestic and foreign policy in a progressive direction
  • The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians.

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

Photo by Jose Moreno

Methane Cutbacks and What it Means

Brief #41—Environment

Policy Summary
Rollbacks appear to be the defining characteristic of the Trump administration, particularly with relation to environmental oversight. Last week, the Department of the Interior in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management decided to ease restrictions on leaking, venting and flaring methane from fossil fuel drilling on public lands, ostensibly saving the fossil fuel industry approximately $1.01 billion over the next 10 years. By contrast, the Obama era regulations, which have since been nixed, would have reduced methane emissions by 35%. The new policy put forth by the Department of the Interior revokes mandates for companies to reduce gas pollution.  Energy companies have alleged that the Obama-era regulations were, “too intrusive.” “We’re for clean air and water, but at the same time, we’re for reasonable regulations,” the Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt told reporters shortly after the decision was passed. The decision also comes at the heels of another methane-related restriction put forward by the EPA, that would cut leak inspections to once per year for most wells, and twice per year for less potent ones.

Analysis
Methane contributes more to climate change than even Carbon Dioxide by even 100-fold. Immediately after the decision was made public, California and New Mexico both sued the Trump administration, claiming that they did not properly justify their reasons for the repeal. Such bureaucratic advocacy is much needed, as climate scientists are terrified by the implications of the new regulation, explaining that, “reducing methane emissions is an exceptionally cost effective way to slow climate change.”  In a surprise move, a coalition of big oil companies, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron have responded to Trump’s move to roll back emissions by pledging efforts to reduce methane emissions 20% by 2025. However, many fear that this may be far too little too late. Within the last few days, methane lakes in Alaska have been bubbling to the surface with permafrost, and researchers worry that this demonstrates geologic thawing of previously-unidentified fossil fuels.

Engagement Resources

  • CREDO Action: Activist organization that creates advocacy opportunities for progressive issues.

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@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